Talk:Johannine Comma/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Critical view

I have removed the following text from the page, pending verification:

CRITICAL VIEW: EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS VERSION OF 1 JOHN 5:7 IN GREEK MANUSCRIPTS PRIOR TO THE 16TH CENTURY

Contrary to popular belief there is more than the one Greek manuscript (Manuscript 61 at Dublin) that has the Textus Receptus' rendering of 1 John 5:7. There are in fact two more (Mss. 88 and 629), although only one of these has the verse in its text (Codex Wianburgensis of the eighth century); the other has the verse in a margin.

HISTORICAL REFERENCES TO THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS VERSION OF 1 JOHN 5:7 PRIOR TO THE 16TH CENTURY

There are several references to the same rendering of 1 John 5:7 as the Textus Receptus' that predate the 1500's and cast serious doubt on the scholarship of the editors of the modern bible versions:

1. Tatian’s Diatessaron (180 A.D.) quotes the Textus Receptus version, predating both the popular Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts

2. Tertullian quotes it around 200 A.D. (Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Vol. 2, pp. 907-8)

3. The Council of Carthage (415 A.D.) cited the verse as a basic text proving it as a fundamental doctrine that an orthodox Christian was to believe: the Latin text reads: “Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus” (Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.)

4. Jerome cited the verse in his epistle to Eustachian (450 A.D.)

Source: "Why we Retain 1 John 5:7 in the Authorized Version" by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, Pensacola, FL

For some reason probably having to do with where I grew up, that source just don't inspire me with confidence. Anville 07:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note: re-inserting the same text, particularly with the last paragraph deleted, does not count as "verification". According to the Verifiability policy, "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain" (emphasis mine). Also, "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." Finally, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field." I'm not trying to be a killjoy, just exercising a standard level of scholarly caution. Anville 17:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Further remarks: researching the matter in more depth, one finds that the claims enumerated above are spurious. For example, Tertullian cites John 10:30, not the Epistle (which would have been a better citation for his case, had it existed). I also note, merely as a personal opinion, that posting the same material to An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, again with the actual source (Ruckman's book) not specified, carries a hint of intellectual dishonesty. I do not wish to place an uncivil interpretation upon any user's actions, but still—when one has not read Tertullian, should one cite Tertullian? At the very least, let's be open about our secondary sources. Anville 21:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE FROM JCWALDENSIAN Anville: I've read your response from you concerning point 2) about Tertullian, and evidence will be forthcoming and I will, for the moment, remove it from the page. However I need a specific accounting from you regarding the three Greek Manuscripts mentioned, which are primary sources, and I also need a specific accounting from you regarding the other historical references before you remove them. I need to know exactly which references you're objecting to.
These references are already well known, announced in widely published works by men with Doctorates in this field of study such as Dr. Sam Gipp and Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. Since you did not object to these other manuscripts and references in your reply, they will be re-posted to the 1 John 5:7 page. If you continue to protest this posting, then we will go directly to the original manuscripts themselves in order to settle this matter. Once again, you need to list the exact manuscripts and/or references to which you're objecting.

Thank you. I do not have time to work on this more today; more detailed comments will follow tomorrow or the day after. Anville 17:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparison

Is it OK to quote a modern version of the text without the comma for comparison? Borisblue 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Promoted to GA

Fun to read, and well-written. I would like to see the red links to become blue and maybe, the reason for the addition of the comma if possible. Lincher 01:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyprian's gloss

"Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est—Et hi tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Ecclesiæ, "On the Unity of the Church", vi).[3] Translated, Cyprian's remark reads, "And again it is written of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit—and these three are one." If Cyprian had been aware of the Comma, he would likely have quoted it directly, rather than glossing a verse in a different Johannine book with a sentence which resembles the Comma. (From the article)

Cyprian is obviously quoting something he regards as scripture other than the passage at hand. The final clause, Et hi tres unum sunt, are plainly intended as a direct quote; the Et (rather than, say, quod, if that was used as early as Cyprian) otherwise breaks the construction of the sentence. Either he was aware of the Comma, and was partly paraphrasing and partly quoting it, or he was aware of some other passage of the New Testament as he knew it, not known to us in any extant versions.

If the argument put forward here goes against the Comma, it goes equally against any other such text, and we have Cyprian saying, "It is written," while we claim that he didn't mean it was written in any actual passage. It's not an argument against a reference to the Comma, it's an argument against Cyprian having even written the sentence. This is not in question, is it?

Cyprian introduces the quote by saying it is written concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, paraphrasing the first part of the Comma with the familiar nomenclature of the three Persons rather than using the less usual wording of the Comma itself, on which he might otherwise have felt the need to comment further.

Either it is a quote of the Comma Johanneum, or it's a quote of some other (lost) comma in some other NT text. Do we need to postulate this?

Great article, for all that. Copey 2 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Biblical criticism ending

Is the ending to this article really necessary? I am no opponent of Biblical criticism, but authorship of the Gospel of John, etc., does not really seem relevant to this topic. SU Linguist 03:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I removed it. Most was irrelevant and off topic and the ending cheasy and smelling of OR or editorializing. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All the biblical languages?

"...all the Biblical languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin." Is "Biblical languages" a term with some specific usage that I'm not aware of? Because certainly at least Coptic (and Armenian?) versions of the Bible are quite old. (I don't know much about this stuff, I"m just asking out of curiosity...) --babbage 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Biblical languages are those languages in which the books of the Bible was written, i.e. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Neither Latin, Coptic or Armenian qualify as they are simply translations. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sinaiticus

I removed the image from the Codex Sinaiticus. It was an interesting bit of work, but unfortunately it doesn't illustrate the article well because the disputed passage isn't present in א. BPMullins | Talk 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And now the image has been added back to the article. I still don't think it's a good illustration, but I'm not interested in an edit war. Can anyone come up with an illustration from a MS that does include the contested passage? BPMullins | Talk 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. Surely the point of including the image is that the passage is absent. There aren't many Greek mss that have it, and many (most?) of those that do have it in the margin, not the main text. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Modern Views

I moved some blocks of text around inside this section, with the aim of making it flow more smootyhly. The most important was moving the material on LDS down and making it a separate paragraph - this frees up the lead para as an intro to the overall importance of the inclusion of non-inclusion of the comma. PiCo (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. Your work definitely improves the article. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

this article needs improvement

this article need improvement. specifically, the introductory paragraph, which, contrary to nearly all scholarship, presents the johannine comma as somehow authentic. it is not. the comma was added in an attempt to offer a specific biblical endorsement of the doctrine of the trinity. the comma was added in an attempt to echo some classic language from some church fathers, but there are no early mss. that possess the comma. the first paragraph should be rewritten to convey the overwhelming view of biblical scholars: that the johannine comma was medieval addition to the text

i shall undertake rewriting the article over the next month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelXKV8R (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Critical apparatus

I've transcribed the critical apparatus for the Comma into a new section at the bottom of the page. I consulted both the major critical editions of the Greek New Testament.

Missing from the composite apparatus now at Wiki are only: the superabundance of texts omitting the Comma, on the one hand; and the lectionaries that include the Comma as a minority reading, on the other.

Parts of this article need work as first priority. Long term, it would be particularly comprehensive if we could source the minority readings in the lectionaries. This may prove to be impractical, as they could be very late and very numerous. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Erasmus' 3rd edition

In the section Early Modern Translations (which is actually almost exclusively about Erasmus) there's the story of how E. put the Comma into his 3rd edition because he felt pressured to do so. Then there's this line: "Warning, subsequent text is wrong and has been retracted. True story is here: [1]." I've read the pdf and the argument there seems pretty sound to me, but I lack the knowledge to make a judgement. Someone more expert than me needs to decide what to do - at the moment this sentence just sticks right out. Do we delete it, or work it into the section somehow, or amend the section entirely? PiCo (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

HJ de Jonge, 'Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum', Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 (1980): 381–389.

De Jonge is a well-known, reputable scholar, ETL is a prestigious theological journal, both are associated with the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium.

I love it when someone like de Jonge shows even the greats like Nestle, Aland, Aland and Metzger to have inadvertently followed a legend. I particularly like his humble confession that he was guilty of this himself. This is academia at its best. Everyone makes mistakes, some things seem so reasonable they aren't worth researching. De Jonge was more observant, did the research, and found the facts. No one would dispute them. They don't change the world, but they are another step in sticking to the facts.

It's great for Wiki to burst the bubble of this legend. I've read heaps on text criticism, and hadn't encountered this correction until now. It's a reliable source. If we could still email Metzger (sadly he died just over a year ago), he'd tell you he was wrong and Jonge right. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Formatted for article

Si mihi contigisset unum exemplar in quo fuisset quod nos legimus nimirum illinc adiecissem quod in caeteris aberat. Id quia non contigit quod solum licuit feci indicaur quid in Graecis codicibus minus esset.

— Desiderius Erasmus, Responsio ad Annotationes Eduardt Lee, 1520

If a single manuscript had come into my hands in which stood what

we read [in the Latin Vulgate] then I would certainly have used it to fill

in what was missing in the other manuscripts I had. Because that did not happen I have taken the only course which was permissible, that is I have indicated [in the Annotationes] what was missing from the Greek manuscripts.

— translation by HJ de Jonge, op. cit., 1980

Alastair Haines (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In brief, de Jonge attributes Erasmus' inclusion of the Comma to his concern for broad circulation of his Latin translation, which he believed would make the Bible's teaching available for the benefit of the widest possible audience. Erasmus wanted people to have a readable Bible more than he wanted textual precision. Nit-picking slander regarding his orthodoxy from authorities like Lee, who might accuse him of Arianism were he to omit the comma, would undermine his goal to give people the Gospel in the lingua franca. Hence, as his own words above suggest, even a single Greek version with the Comma would suffice for him to happily provide biblical warrant for the doctrine of the Trinity. Erasmus was evangelist first and text critic second.

This is a much better picture of Erasmus than often comes through given his "human free will" against "sovereign divine election" debates with other reformers. In fact, that debate undermines Reformed theologians really accepting Erasmus as a reformer at all. But Erasmus, it seems, was truly a man of the people, every bit as concerned to use his mind to serve the people with the Gospel and improve the church. Hmmm, Erasmus is something of a model for serious Catholic–Protestant dialogue. Poor chap was disliked by both sides, supporting the best and condemning the worst in both.

De Jonge writes very clearly. Please replace the wrong story with de Jonge's. It's a small part of a bigger and fascinating life and times. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the illustration to the top of the section and changed the title - these are minor changes.

I've tried to integrate the De Jonge material into the article - I ask you to review it very closely and make sure I haven't made any blunders. There is an alternative approach, which is to cut the old story back even further and just have De Jonge - I'm open to suggestions on that idea. Also, I don't think I've expressed Erasmus' reasons as clearly as you have - and for that matter, I think you're clearer than De Jonge!

Final point: The last paragraph of this section deals with Isaac Newton. I can't see that it actually adds anything to our article - so far as I know, Newton's thoughts on the Comma had no influence on how it was received. If this is so, it should, regretfully, be deleted. PiCo (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I like your text regarding Erasmus, Metzger and de Jonge. I don't like the text dealing with Newton, but I do like the fact that we have it. Academia was much more interdisciplinary in those days and theology was considered "queen of the sciences", at least in theory. Even were Newton's other comments on the Bible of lesser quality, his analysis of the Comma was spot on—showing him to be a broadly competent thinker.

Our aim is to document notable literature regarding the Comma, not to provide a pursuasive argument. As such, little bits of human interest like the views of the very notable Isaac Newton draw away a little heat from the article, while staying bang on topic. Additionally, text criticism isn't rocket science, most preachers are trained in it. There are some questions that benefit from lifetimes of research, but most are straight-forward.

I'm not sure even the modern Roman Catholic church would insist on Magisterium intervention in every lay interpretation of the Bible, or even in text criticism. Education is much more democratised these days. Catholic defense of orthodoxy operates against a different frontier now than in the Middle Ages.

Wiki editors shouldn't be publishing their own TC, 'cause every passage has plenty of expert work on that. But readers should feel comfortable that TC is well within their reach. Quoting Newton suggests the right thing, at least in my thinking.

I'll re-write it to make it more neutral, and probably trim it down to a simple datum. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't edit Newton, because it's sourced and probably accurate. I've placed him in his own section, where he probably does do service to the article by anticipating modern views. This is actually very important. Some people think biblical scholarship is better now than in the past, and in some ways that is true, however, it's not something that can be assumed. Perhaps the way forward is to include other comments from between the times of Erasmus and the 20th century.

In some ways, the King James Only people are about the only modern development, and I think that's an example of how time can lead to decline, not just improvement. KJO is the view that the past is better than the present. Others think the present better than the past. Actually, it all depends on the issue. Sometimes debates don't even depend on time. Hence, courts don't reopen cases unless there is new evidence. The Comma is not the sort of debate that provides a lot of new evidence.

There's still room for this article to improve, but I think you're doing that job well without me PiCo. I have some dissertation writing to do. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Section "Internal Evidence: Gender"

This section is so dense as to be unreadable. Can someone - preferably the author - please reduce it to about one paragraph? PiCo (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

agreed. it is poorly written and off topic (in addition to being a defense for a obvious addition). i'd say it belongs elsewhere and not in this article as it adds nothing to substance of the issue at hand. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Internal Evidence (Gender) Section

Will whoever keeps deleting the "Internal Evidence (Gender)" section please stop doing so. If you want to explain why you object to this section, do so here. The "Internal Evidence (Gender)" section discusses an aspect of the text which is of interest to many people, though obviously either it is of no interest to you or perhaps it presents information that you simply dislike. As for the size, this section (quoted below) has been condensed to the fewest words possible. As for being off-topic, it most certainly is not off-topic. The preceding sections in the article explain why people disagree on whether or not the Johannine Comma belongs in the text based on the manuscript evidence. This section section explains why people disagree on whether or not the Johannine Comma belongs in the text based on the grammatical evidence. So this section is not off-topic anymore than the preceding sections are off-topic. Many people do not understand how the Majority Text and Textus Receptus differ in 1 John 5:6-9, hence the display of both literal translations for comparison. The presentation of these texts with gender indications is necessary so that the reader can understand how the three views analyze the text. You appear to me to be deleting this section simply because either you don't like the information or you don't understand it. If each individual who didn't like or understand an entry in Wikipedia did as you are doing in this instance, eventually there wouldn't be any entries left. So please stop doing this. 7Jim7 (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry 7jim7, but i just looked at your user and user talk pages and you've been warned several times that this section does not meet wiki standards on several levels. it's like you're desperately trying to include some grad research paper you wrote in defense of the comma. i'm not the only one that has removed this section, nor will i be the last. i'm sorry, but it does not fit with this entry. methinks the best place for it is on your user page, where you have it proudly displayed. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous objections had to do with the article as a separate article. At least two of the administrators who commented regarding that separate article suggested that I include the information as a section in the orginal article "Johanneum Comma," WHICH I DID. Now someone has decided to incessantly delete it even as a section of that original article. I'm NOT defending the Comma. I don't think there is even the slightest possibility that John wrote it. I'm completely convinced that ALL of the evidence, both manuscript and grammatical, PROVES that John could NOT have written it. The very fact that you CAN'T TELL my true position on this matter PROVES that what I've written is NEUTRAL in its presentation. There are many things that I would like to say as PROOF that the grammatical argument favoring the Johannine Comma is PURE NONSENSE, but I can't present it, because it constitutes "personal research." So what's left is this obviously neutral presentation regarding the "Internal Evidence." But here you are, opposing even that! Between you and me, I think that you're the one who is being personally biased. Meanwhile, people who are interested in this grammatical issue but who do not know how to answer the false grammatical argument favoring the Johannine Comma are being deprived of the information that explains what's actually happening in the grammar in 1 John 5:8-9 (the THIRD view) simply because you don't like the subject matter. So now that you know that I am being neutral on the subject, are you still going to continue to delete the "Internal Evidence" section? 7Jim7 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

7Jim7, it's just incredibly too much detail for this article. seriously, it looks like you are attempting to insert some grad paper you wrote. Maybe publish your paper, then footnote it with one sentence in the article. But it completely breaks the flow of the article. I'll let someone else delete it this time. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have to say, however, that I think that the "Manuscript Evidence" section is far more detailed than this "Internal Evidence" section is. But thank's for allowing it to remain.7Jim7 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Internal Evidence (Gender)

In the Majority Greek Text (MT), 1 John 5:6-9 reads (literal translation):

5:6 This-One He-is the-One having-come through water and Blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the Blood. 5:7 And the Spirit (N) it-is the-thing bearing-witness (N), because the Spirit it-is the truth. 5:8 Because three (M) they-are the-ones bearing-witness (M), the Spirit (N) and the water (N) and the Blood (N), and the three-ones (M) for the one-thing they-are. 5:9 If the witness of-the men (M) we-accept, the witness of-the God greater it-is, because this it-is the witness of-the God which He-has-born-witness regarding the Son of-Him.

In the Textus Receptus Greek Text (TR), 1 John 5:6-9 reads (literal translation):

5:6 This-One He-is the-One having-come through water and Blood, Jesus, the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the Blood. And the Spirit (N) it-is the-thing bearing-witness (N), because the Spirit it-is the truth. 5:7 Because three (M) they-are the-ones bearing-witness (M) in the heaven, the Father (M), the Word (M) and the Holy Spirit (N), and these-ones, the three-ones, one-thing they-are, 5:8 and three (M) they-are the-ones bearing-witness (M) on the earth, the Spirit (N) and the water (N) and the Blood (N), and the three-ones (M) for the one-thing they-are. 5:9 If the witness of-the men (M) we-accept, the witness of-the God greater it-is, because this it-is the witness of-the God which He-has-born-witness regarding the Son of-Him.

The text presented above in bold print is the Johannine Comma.

There are three views regarding John’s reason for using the masculine participial phrase “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 in the Majority Text (MT), which is in verse 5:7 in the Textus Receptus (TR).

1. The participial phrase “the-ones bearing-witness” in verse 5:8 (MT) is masculine as a result of grammatical gender agreement with the masculine nouns “Father” and “Word” in the phrase “the Father (M), the Word (M) and the Holy Spirit (N)” in the Johannine Comma and is therefore evidence that John originally wrote the absent (in the MT) Johannine Comma. Dr. Edward F. Hills suggests this view on pages 209-210 in | chapter 8 (almost halfway down the web page) of his book “The King James Version Defended” (1956).

2. The participial phrase “the-ones bearing-witness” in verse 5:8 (MT) is masculine (in reference to persons) in deference to the Spirit in the appositional phrase “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” as an affirmation of the personhood of the Spirit. Dr. I. Howard Marshall suggests this view in footnote 20 on page 237 in his book “The Epistles of John” (1978).

3. The participial phrase “the-ones bearing-witness” in verse 5:8 (MT) is masculine (in reference to persons) because it refers to the men in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9 and/or because of grammatical gender agreement with the single noun “men” in this phrase, to whom John is comparing the Spirit and the water and the Blood, thus personalizing/personifying the Spirit and the water and the Blood, the phrase "the witness of the men" in verse 5:9 referring to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15. This two-or-three-witness (men) Mosaic model is cited in Matthew 18:16, John 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (MT) in the New Testament. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace suggests this view in footnote 44 on page 332 in his book “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” (1996).

I'm genuinely sorry, but I took it out again, purely because it's totally unclear what point is being made. I suggest that if the editor wants it in, he should re-write it with at least an introductory passage telling what bearing this has on the subject. PiCo (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

i second the removal. pico is right: this appears to be the product of some paper written by the author. it makes little sense especially in this context. it does not belong in the article. --XKV8R (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

7Jim7 (02/23/09) ... The preceding sections in the article explain why people disagree on whether or not the Johannine Comma belongs in the text based on the manuscript evidence. This section section explains why people disagree on whether or not the Johannine Comma belongs in the text based on the grammatical evidence. ... Many people do not understand how the Majority Text and Textus Receptus differ in 1 John 5:6-9, hence the display of both literal translations for comparison. The presentation of these texts with gender indications is necessary so that the reader can understand how the three views analyze the text. ... I'm NOT defending the Comma. I don't think there is even the slightest possibility that John wrote it. I'm completely convinced that ALL of the evidence, both manuscript and grammatical, PROVES that John could NOT have written it. The very fact that you CAN'T TELL my true position on this matter PROVES that what I've written is NEUTRAL in its presentation. ... Meanwhile, people who are interested in this grammatical issue but who do not know how to answer the false grammatical argument favoring the Johannine Comma are being deprived of the information that explains what's actually happening in the grammar in 1 John 5:8-9 (the THIRD view) simply because you don't like the subject matter. ...

PiCo (08/09/09) ... I took it out again, purely because it's totally unclear what point is being made. I suggest that if the editor wants it in, he should re-write it with at least an introductory passage telling what bearing this has on the subject.

XKV8R (08/09/09) ... this appears to be the product of some paper written by the author. it makes little sense especially in this context. ...

7Jim7 (08/15/09) This is not the product of a paper written by me, and it is not my invention. As you can see in the presented material itself (what you took out), there really are three views regarding the grammar in 1 John 5:8 in relation to whether or not the Johannine Comman belongs in the text. These three views are described by Dr. Hills and Dr. Marshall and Dr. Wallace in their respective books, and I provide the links to these three descriptions in these three books. In the 19th century, Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney separately published a grammatical justification for the belief that John wrote the Johannine Comma. They wanted a grammatical jusfication for the Comma, so they invented one, making false grammatical claims for which they provided no corroborating example from the Greek New Testament (because none exists). They simply made the whole thing up. Ever since then, proponents of the Johannine Comma have been perpetuating this grammatical myth invented by Nolan and Dabney as “proof” (so they say) that John wrote the Comma. The only correct understanding of the grammar is what Dr. Wallace explains (the third view), which explains why John used the masculine gender (without writing the Comma). But in order to keep the presented material “neutral,” as required by Wikipedia, all three views need to be presented, which is what I have done. Whether you believe it or not, there are many people who wonder about this grammatical issue and who come to Wikipedia looking for an answer, and until you saw fit to remove it, they had their answer. Now, because you removed it, they don’t. How do you figure that this is a good thing? 7Jim7 (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

why refute a nonsense theory? why propagate foolishness? better to leave it out than to lend it even he slightest credibility by including it and then refuting it, especially when to do so takes a disproportionate amount of space. --XKV8R (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What kind of logic is that? According to your logic, the article "Comma Johanneum" itself should not exist, because by mentioning the Johannine Comma and then showing from an historical and manuscript perspective that John did not write it, the article itself is propogating the Johannine Comma, which is not true. The fact is that the Comma is already out there, and this article shows the reader the historical and manuscript evidence that John did not write it. Likewise, the fact is that the pro-Comma grammatical argument is already out there, and the section of this article that has been inappropriately (in my opinion) removed shows the reader the grammatical evidence that John did not write the Comma (that there is a reason for the masculine gender that has nothing to do with the Comma). Now, as a result of the deletion, a reader who has already encountered the false pro-Comma grammatical argument and is unaware that that there is a reason for the masculine gender that has nothing to do with the Comma will be left with the impression (as a result of the silence in this article regarding the grammatical issue) that maybe the grammatical argument in favor of the Comma really is correct and that maybe the manuscript evidence really does show a conspiracy to delete the Comma from the text (as proponents of the pro-Comma grammatical argument claim). By allowing the grammatical section of this article to remain in the article in addition to the manuscript section, both the manuscript evidence and the grammatical evidence is presented to the reader to show that there is neither a manuscript basis nor a grammatical basis for the belief that John wrote the Comma. When something that is incorrect already exists, silence on the matter implies agreement that it is not incorrect. In a formal debate regarding the Comma in 1995, the anti-Comma side presented the manuscript evidence, and the pro-Comma side countered with their pro-Comma grammatical argument, to which the anti-Comma side did NOT respond, remaining silent on the grammatical issue. After the debate, the pro-Comma side claimed to have won the debate, claiming that the silence of the anti-Comma side regarding the grammatical issue proved (1) that the pro-Comma grammatical argument was valid and (2) that the anti-Comma side was wrong about the Comma and (3) that the anti-Comma side had misinterpreted the manuscript evidence. What this shows is that silence is NOT the correct response to a false claim, because the silence implies agreement that the claim is not incorrect. 7Jim7 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim, I deleted your section not because I disagreed with it, nor because I felt it was irrelevant, but, unfortunately, because it was incomprehensible. I couldn't make out what your point was. We need to write for the uninformed but curious lay reader - no-one who already knows all about the comma is going to visit Wikipedia to further his education. In short, you need to give your reader far more help. You've explained yourself far better in your post here than in the section you wrote: you give background, something fatally missing from the section: "In the 19th century, Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney separately published a grammatical justification for the belief that John wrote the Johannine Comma." That should have been the first sentence of your section. I gather you're a scholar of these things. I'm not, I'm a journalist. My skill is writing readable prose - I take a complex argument and reduce it to simplicity, hopefully without distorting it. So, let me suggest that you try a new version of your section, beginning with that sentence, and NOT going into detailed dissection of the grammar, but simply explaing the conclusions of whoever the major authorities are. I'll do what I can to make it reader-friendly, and you can correct my errors. Ok? PiCo (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this?

In the 19th century, Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney separately published a grammatical justification for the belief that John wrote the Johannine Comma. According to their explanation, the masculine nouns “Father” and “Word” in the Comma must be present in the text as antecedent nouns in order to justify the masculine gender of the participle “the ones bearing witness” in 1 John 5:8. Neither Nolan nor Dabney offered any corroborating example from the Greek New Testament in support of any of their grammatical claims. This explanation for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 is expressed by Dr. Edward F. Hills on pages 209-210 in | chapter 8 (almost halfway down the web page) of his book “The King James Version Defended” (1956). However, two other explanations for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 that have nothing to do with the Comma have also been published. (1) In footnote 20 on page 237 in his book “The Epistles of John” (1978), Dr. I. Howard Marshall explains that the gender of the participle “the ones bearing witness” is masculine in 1 John 5:8 in deference to the “Spirit” in the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in the same verse as an affirmation of the personhood of the Spirit. (2) In footnote 44 on page 332 in his book “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” (1996), Dr. Daniel B. Wallace explains that the gender of the participle “the ones bearing witness” is masculine in 1 John 5:8 because it refers to the “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, to whom John is comparatively (this is like that) equating (and thus personalizing/personifying) “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8, “the ones bearing witness / the witness of the men” in verses 5:8-9 referring to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15. This two-or-three-witness (men) Mosaic tradition is cited in Matthew 18:16, John 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28-29, as well as in 1 John 5:8-9 in any New Testament that does not include the Comma.7Jim7 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks much clearer, but I still don't follow this sentence: "(2) In footnote 44 on page 332 in his book “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” (1996), Dr. Daniel B. Wallace explains that the gender of the participle “the ones bearing witness” is masculine in 1 John 5:8 because it refers to the “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, to whom John is comparatively (this is like that) equating (and thus personalizing/personifying) “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8, “the ones bearing witness / the witness of the men” in verses 5:8-9 referring to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15." Can you explain it to me? PiCo (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The third explanation, which is presented by Dr. Wallace in his book (footnote 44 on page 332), is that the reason that the phrase "the ones bearing witness" in 1 John 5:8 is masculine is that it refers directly to "men," not to "the Spirit and the water and the Blood." The phrase "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" states the three THINGS that comprise "the witness of the God ... regarding the Son of Him," whereas the phrase "the ones bearing witness" states the three MEN that comprise "the witness of the men" regarding ANY given matter. This reference to the witness of men is the Mosaic rule that had been in place for centuries among the Israelites. The rule (Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15) is that in order to establish whether something is true, there must be two or three witnesses (men) to give testimony to the truth of ANY given matter where there is a question regarding what the truth of the matter is. John is comparing these three THINGS that comprise "the witness of the God" regarding the truth that Jesus is the Son of God to the three "MEN" who comprise "the witness of the men" (the witness rule). By comparing these three things to the three men, John is merely stating that the three witnesses provided by God to establish the truth that Jesus is the Son of God, even though these witnesses are THINGS (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) instead of MEN, fulfill the requirement originally established by Moses centuries earlier that the truth of ANY matter can be established by two or three witnesses (MEN). The same kind of comparison is made in 2 Corinthians 13:1, where Paul compares his three visits to Corinth (three THINGS) to the two or three MEN prescribed by Moses as witnesses to the truth of ANY given matter. The same kind of comparison is made in Hebrews 10:28-29, where the author compares three THINGS ([1] trampling the Son of God and [2] considering His Blood to be ordinary Blood and [3] insulting the Spirit) to the two or three MEN prescribed by Moses as witnesses to the truth of ANY matter. Moses says that there have to be two or three GUYS to establish whether or not something is true. The author in Hebrews 10:28-29 says that these three THINGS ([1] trampling the Son of God and [2] considering His Blood to be ordinary Blood and [3] insulting the Spirit) satisfy this requirement (even though they are THINGS, not MEN). Likewise, John is saying in 1 John 5:8-9 that these three THINGS ([1] the Spirit and [2] the water and [3] the Blood) satisfy this requirement (even though they are THINGS, not MEN). John's point is that if we accept the testimony of three MEN to prove something to be true, which is the Mosaic tradition, then the testimony of the Spirit and the water and the Blood (the three THINGS comprising God's witness) to prove that Jesus is the Son of God is even MORE compelling, because this is not just MAN'S witness, but GOD'S own witness. This is not much different than requiring an author to cite two or three sources in order to write an article for Wikipedia. In treating these three THINGS (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) as if they were the three MEN prescribed by Moses (comparing these three THINGS to the three prescribed MEN), John is personalizing (personifying) these three THINGS (the Spirit and the water and the Blood). Thus, this third explanation is considered the personalization/personification explanation. In his presentation of the first explanation (that the masculine gender in verse 5:8 requires that the Johannine Comma be present in the text), Dr. Hills incorrectly refers to the second explanation (using the masculine gender to acknowledge the personhood of the Spirit) as the personalization/personification explanation. Dr. Hills correctly concludes in his first explanation that the second explanation makes no sense, given that the masculine gender is NOT used in verse 5:7 to acknowledge the personhood of the Spirit, where John says, "... the Spirit (Neuter) is the thing bearing witness (Neuter) ...." However, Dr. Hills incorrectly concludes that the second explanation is the personalization/personification explanation, when in fact the third explanation is the personalization/personification explanation, which Dr. Hills never addresses.

(Majority Text / Literal Translation) 1 John 5:8 Because three (Masculine) they-are the-ones bearing-witness (Masculine), THE SPIRIT [N] AND THE WATER [N] AND THE BLOOD[N], and the three-ones (Masculine) for the one-thing they-are. 5:9 If the witness of-the men (Masculine) we-accept, THE WITNESS OF THE GOD greater it-is, because this it-is THE WITNESS OF THE GOD WHICH HE HAS BORN WITNESS REGARDING THE SON OF HIM.

In 1 John 5:8-9, John is comparing "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" in 5:8, which comprise "the witness of the God ... the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him" in 5:9, to "the ones bearing witness" in 5:8, who comprise "the witness of the men" in 5:9, hence the masculine gender of "the ones bearing witness" in 5:8.

7Jim7 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cyprian's Own Words Tell the Story

The author of this article says, "The earliest reference to what might be the Comma appears by the 3rd-century Church father Cyprian (died 258), who in Treatise I section 6[5] quoted John 10:30 against heretics who denied the Trinity and added: "Again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6][3] Daniel Wallace notes that although Cyprian uses 1 John to argue for the Trinity, he appeals to this as an allusion via the three witnesses—"written of"—rather than by quoting a proof-text. Cyprian did not say written that. In noting this, Wallace is following the current standard critical editions of the New Testament (NA27 and UBS4) which consider Cyprian a witness against the Comma. They would not do this were they to think him to have quoted it."

Cyprian writes what he says in Latin and he quotes from the Latin New Testament.

Whenever the Latin New Testament includes the Johannine Comma, the phrase “et hi tres unum sunt” (and these three one they-are) always appears in the Comma.

Whenever the Latin New Testament does NOT include the Johannine Comma, the phrase “et tres unum sunt” (and three one they-are) always appears in 1 John 5:8.

Therefore, whenever the phrase “et tres unum sunt” (and three one they-are) is quoted, it is quoted, not from the Comma, but from 1 John 5:8 in the Latin New Testament.

If Cyprian had been quoting from a Latin New Testament that included the Johannine Comma, then he certainly would have at least quoted “et hi tres unum sunt” (and these three one they-are) from the Comma, if not “pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt” (Father, Word and Spirit Holy, and these three one they-are) from the Comma.

Instead, Cyprian says, “de patre et filio et spiritus sancto, scriptum est [of Father and Son and Spirit Holy, written it-is],” and then he quotes “et tres unum sunt” (and three one they-are) from 1 John 5:8.

Therefore, Cyprian is quoting “et tres unum sunt” (and three one they-are) from 1 John 5:8 in a Latin New Testament that does NOT include the Johannine Comma and he is imposing on the phrase “spiritus et aqua et sanguis” (Spirit and water and Blood) in 1 John 5:8 the Trinitarian interpretation “patre et filio et spiritus sancto” (Father and Son and Spirit Holy), just as Dr. Wallace states in his article “The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian.” 7Jim7 (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

LDS views on the comma

The article currently says that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), for example, rejects the Comma as an example of how spurious additions change the meaning of holy texts".

However, the link is to an article in Dialogue, which is not an official church publication.

The LDS Church is indeed not trinitarian, and I doubt the passage is likely to be quoted in support of any particular point of doctrine, but an article in a non-official journal isn't "the Church rejecting the Comma" -- I'd prefer a more authoritative source for such a statement; ideally, a talk in General Conference by a General Authority.

Even a quotation from a book by a General Authority would carry a little more weight, though even those are not official expressions of church doctrine and the authors are not speaking ex cathedra in their published books.

But a citation from a "Marc A. Schindler" whom I've never heard of is, in my mind, only good enough for "some members of TCoJCoLDS[link to citation] reject the Comma as ...". In which case you might as well omit it altogether, since I'm sure there are "some members of the Roman Catholic church" who believe in all sorts of things, and have written about them. -- pne (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Manuscript evidence

I changed the wikilink in the table from Holy See to Vatican Library, which seems a better choice. Other entries probably have the same problem. Dublin should probably be Trinity College, but I don't have access to that right now. Can other editors improve this? -- BPMullins | Talk 04:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Spurious Additions?

The article currently states, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), for example, rejects the Comma as an example of how spurious additions change the meaning of holy texts".

• Spurious additions? That's somewhat aurgumentative and vague. The article wording should to be corrected - it does nothing but open a "can of worms" for the LDS. HBCALI (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)