Talk:Johannine Comma/Archive 2

Where is the comma?
Excuse me if I sound rather ignorant, but from a first reading of this article, I cannot find which one of the commas of the text is the "famous" Johannine comma. From the text in "bold print":

'''in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth'''

I find three commas, one colon, and one stop. Which one is the controversial comma?

Thanks for making this clear, as in the article this does not seem clear to me. --200.126.187.48 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Two things, one just formal: put posts at the bottom of the page rather than the top. Maybe it would make more sense the other way round, but this is the convention. Two, your question about the comma: The article says in the first line: "The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause)...". In other words, it's a clause, not a squiggly elongated full stop. The entire portion in bold is the comma, and it's all controversial. PiCo (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted ο πατηρ and ο λογος are not separated by the word και. The trinitarian formula and the comma between are the result of the extra και between the greek for 'father' and 'word' in the Complutensian Polyglot. The extra και doesn't appear in any version of the Textus Receptus this way, or in any other known greek manuscripts. It would appear to be a pro-unitarian verse instead! (?) --207.191.211.248 (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It is rather moronic to say the verse is an obvious when reference to the trinity when it isn't. All the controversy of the verse would die, if most unitarians could demonstrate how it obviously calls the father, the word, in the greek. There isn't a shred of evidence connecting it to the doctrine of trinity, and this is why Sinacticus which is edited under Eusebius's authority doesn't have it. It also doesn't have heavenly, and earthly witnesses, just witnesses. Why do most manuscripts have heavenly or earthly for the witnesses?--207.191.223.116 (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Specific passages
Tatian's Diatessaron. Written around the year 175, give or take, Tatian's Diatessaron is a "harmony" of the four Gospels; that is, Tatian took the Gospels and edited their four stories into one continuous narrative, leaving out the stuff he found to be inconsistent. The most significant omissions are the Pericope Adulteræ ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", etc.) and the genealogies of Jesus, which do not agree between Matthew and Luke, partly because Matthew skips generations. According to Biblical scholar L. McFall, the resulting compilation is about 72% the length of the four Gospels combined. The translations I have read of the Diatessaron do not include any phrasing which resembles the Comma Johanneum; to double-check, I have searched through an English translation made via the Arabic, but without luck. It does contain plenty of passages which might support a Trinitarian reading, e.g.,


 * And in that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I acknowledge thee, my Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto children: yea, my Father; so was thy will. And he turned to his disciples, and said unto them, Everything hath been delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. (XV, 37)

Tatian's own views on the Trinity are complicated and do not seem thoroughly orthodox. He calls the Logos, the Word, "a Spirit born from the Father", and he says "the spirit which pervades matter [is] inferior to the more Divine Spirit". These views sound like a Homoiousion or an Arian speaking, one who believes in "different substance" rather than "same substance". Using Tatian to support orthodox Trinitarianism is more than a little disingenuous, particularly since after his death, his works were called heretical. Theodoret says the Syriac churches which used the Diatessaron "did not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more than 200 such copies held in respect in the churches in our parts. All these I collected and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the four Evangelists." Irenaeus says that Tatian was "elated, puffed up as if superior to other teachers, and forming his own type of doctrine." 

While the Diatessaron circulated in Syriac and pre-Vulgate "Old Latin" versions, but as the Vulgate came to be widely adopted, the Diatessaron was "corrected" to conform to Vulgate readings. Later manuscripts written in Latin are therefore very poor sources of independent information.

All in all, I'm surprised anyone would even look in the Diatessaron for the Johannine Comma, since the Diatessaron is a compilation of the Gospels. It includes the Gospel of John, not the First Epistle of John. Granted, out of all the Johannine books, these two are most likely to have the same author&mdash;but still! And if you do believe that Tatian is somehow a guide to what texts are "inspired", then your Gospels will have to omit the story of the woman caught in adultery, as well as the Davidic descent of Jesus.

The phrase "damned if you do, damned if you don't" springs to mind.

Tertullian. As I indicated earlier, Tertullian quoted John 10:30, not 1 John 5:7–8, even though the Johannine Comma had it existed in his Scriptures would have provided a stronger buttress for his argument. (It is interesting that, as Edward Gibbon reports in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Tertullian was the one who had to defend Christianity against the charge that Christians ate pagan babies. No joke.  This is what the Romans say behind your back when you go around talking about "eating the flesh of the Son of Man".)

Council of Carthage. This is very interesting, and I thank you for pointing it out to me. The chronology is confusing: St. Eugenius of Carthage lived well after the Fourth Council of that city (he was appointed bishop in 480). He appears to have made a Comma-esque statement around the year 485. I have been unable to find an original source for this, and I cannot for certain tell whether Eugenius was using the Johannine Comma as a part of 1 John or if he was merely glossing another verse (like Cyprian). People have also claimed that the Fourth Council of Carthage, which met in the 410s, approved the Johannine Comma, but this is even harder to document. Unless the fellow were extremely long-lived for those times, it would have to be a different Eugenius who read the Comma to the assembled churchmen and got their approval. (And why wouldn't they approve? They were gathered for the express purpose of upholding the Trinity against the Arian heresy.  A statement of straight-up Trinitarian belief like the Comma would surely be met with widespread acclaim.)  Or perhaps the people writing about the Council made a mistake. Mistakes do happen. Until somebody straightens out the confusion over Eugeniuses, I don't know what to make of this.

It is also worth noting that the most famous Carthaginian of them all, St. Augustine, wrote a book called On the Trinity right within this time interval, around the year 425. On the Trinity doesn't mention the Comma. You'd think that if it mattered so much....

One thing is clear: whether or not a guy named Eugenius or somebody else said "pater et verbum et spiritus sanctus" (or whatever declension of those nouns you prefer), it still happened at least thirty years after Priscillian put the verse into his version of 1 John. So, what good is it? Maybe the only copy of 1 John laying around was Priscillian's&mdash;books took a long time to make in those days&mdash;or maybe, being hot-blooded Trinitarians, the bishops meeting in Carthage that day just thought Priscillian's version was the best.

Jerome's Epistle to Eustachian. I believe this is a misprint for "Jerome's Epistle to Eustochium." The date 450 is also implausible, as sources agree that Jerome was born around 347 and died in the year 420. As one archivist says, the Epistle to Eustochium is
 * Perhaps the most famous of all the letters. In it Jerome lays down at great length the motives which ought to actuate those who devote themselves to a life of virginity, and the rules by which they ought to regulate their daily conduct. The letter contains a vivid picture of Roman society as it then was&mdash;the luxury, profligacy, and hypocrisy prevalent among both men and women, besides some graphic autobiographical details (? 7, 30), and concludes with a full account of the three kinds of monasticism then practised in Egypt (34–36). Thirty years later Jerome wrote a similar letter to Demetrias (CXXX.), with which this ought to be compared. Written at Rome 384 A.D.

Again, this Epistle does not include the Johannine Comma. The article already addresses the Codex whose copy of Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Epistles mentions the Comma; since that Codex's copy of 1 John itself doesn't include the Comma, well, the less said the better.

On certain Points of Greek grammar
I'm surprised that no one has yet raised the claims about 1 John 5's Greek grammar, specifically the notion that removing the Johannine Comma makes the passage grammatically incorrect. (I've also heard it said that, like the passage in Josephus which mentions Christ, the Comma interrupts the logical flow of the text around it, but let's leave that aside for now.) Perhaps this is because people find Greek grammar just too dull even for debates over Biblical canon. Unfortunately, the best source online for this issue is in French. Called "Le comma johannique, les « textes grecs » et les Pères de l'Eglise" ("The Johannian Comma, the "Greek Texts" and the Church Fathers") it cites many sources in English, but not belonging to a country where the KJV is standard, it throws less of a hissy fit than most references I've read.

One might like to reason that omitting the Comma Johanneum makes the passage grammatically incorrect, but&mdash;
 * Un tel raisonnement est trompeur, car il n'est pas rare, dans le " Nouveau Testament ", de rencontrer des passages où les règles d'accord ne sont pas suivies, en ce qui concerne le genre, le cas, ou le nombre. Citons quelques exemples pour illustrer cela.

In English:
 * Such reasoning is mistaken, since it is not rare, in the New Testament, to find passages where the rules of agreement are not followed, in that which concerns the gender, case or number. Let's cite some examples to illustrate this.

Such examples include Matthew 23:23, in which "justice" [krisin, feminine], "mercy" [eleon, masculine] et "fidelity" [pistin, feminine] are the antecedents to the neuter demontsrative pronoun tauta ("these things"). Other examples of the same kind&mdash;to say nothing of other grammar glitches&mdash;include 1 Corinthians 13:13 and Galatians 1:22–3.

...And so forth, and so on, from alpha to omega, unto the end of days. So, rather than saying that the argument is too dull and dusty (I happen to like grammar, anyway), we might as well just say that it's wrong.

On the question of Doctorates
Peter Ruckman is, indeed, a large and famous figure in the King-James-Only Movement. "Famous" is perhaps not so good a word as "infamous": though it is hard to take a census of these things, the majority of KJV-Only partisans often go to considerable lengths to avoid even being associated with him, and they do not consider him a good representative of their opinions. I find this attitude understandable: if you claim, as Ruckman has, that the KJV supercedes even the Testaments in their original languages, then all the arguments about different sources and versions go out the window. In 1983, Ruckman claimed that the KJV is not a copyrighted work. This is factually wrong. He has claimed that there was no Greek translation of the Old Testament before Origen, also factually wrong. D. W. Cloud, himself a KJV-only advocate, wrote to Ruckman in 1985, telling him that his extremism was doing more harm to the Textus Receptus and the Authorized Version than even the TR's most vocal opponents. Almost twenty years later, Cloud wrote, "I know these words make even some of my friends cringe, but I still believe this. Why?  Because his strange ideas, his multiple divorces, his angry spirit, his arrogance, his Alexandrian cult mentality, his extremism regarding the KJV being advanced revelation, and his bizarre private doctrines tends to cause men to reject the entire issue." 

Many "degree mills" have advertised themselves by making their own articles on the Wikipedia. If I had any inclination, I could look one of them up, write a check or money order and in six weeks become Dr. Anville, Certified Professional Theologian. This would give me the "right" to append those letters to my name, but would it add the slightest jot or tittle of credibility to anything I say? In order to judge the worth of Dr. Ruckman's doctorate, I would have to go to Bob Jones University (a place he has denounced, anyway), interrogate his old professors, examine his doctoral thesis, evaluate the extent of the school library, et cetera. I have neither the time nor the will nor the need to do this&mdash;and even if I did, the No Original Research policy makes such arguments inadmissable in the Wikipedia.


 * The No Original Research policy is only specific to authors who adopt it. It isn't universal.--207.191.223.116 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The people whose work I cited in building this article have degrees too: the bibliography points us to Drs. Metzger, Mann, Williams and others. The editors of the Schaff-Herzog and Catholic Encyclopedias also have extensive academic qualifications (otherwise they wouldn't have gotten those jobs). I did not make a grand point about listing everyone's full set of letters, because I am used to writing in subjects where that is not necessary. In the vast, vast majority of scientific journal articles, for example, one does not see the authors identifying themselves with "Dr." or "Ph.D." At most, one sees "Professor of X at Y University", or usually just "Y University". The tradition in academic discourse is to judge the content, not the speaker.

Yes, I am aware of the ad hominem argument and how it is a logical fallacy. I do not wish to dispel Ruckman with such an argument. Instead I ask, in the interest of civil and civilized discourse, that we use our sources in the proper fashion. Again I ask, if one has not read Tertullian, should one cite Tertullian&mdash;only by "Tertullian" I wish to indicate as shorthand all the ancient writers, Cyprian, Jerome or whosoever. When drafting material for this article, I made every effort to specify the secondary sources which quoted and translated the relevant ancient writers, and to give Web-accessible sources when possible, so that people who do not have the time, money and linguistic skills to read hundreds or thousands of manuscripts can verify the story, as much as they humanly can. This way, one can read what a professor says that Jerome said, or better yet a translation of what Jerome himself said. Reading what Ruckman said that Gill said that Tertullian wrote about (all "in the house that Jack built", as it were) is just too much. I repeat my point that claiming we got a particular datum out of Gill, when in fact we got it out of Ruckman who read Gill, is poor practice. Even if Ruckman had never been accused of distorting others' words&mdash;and he has been, even by KJV admirers&mdash;it would not be the proper thing to do.

One should focus, I believe, upon the actual arguments presented. As I have outlined above, those arguments are not very good, never mind their source, though I'm sure errors could have been introduced in the copying from one book to another and eventually to the Internet. Even in this electronic age, we are scarcely less error-prone than the copyists of Priscillian's day.

So yes, I suppose I am disparaging the "Doctorate". I am criticizing the reliance upon letters prefixed or suffixed to a name. The Bard of Avon himself said that even a name is not "hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man." If a name is so little, what's in a title? To prefer a title over a human being is, ultimately, to prefer the Pharisees over Christ. If it came to a theological debate between a Bob Jones University graduate and a carpenter's son from the back-hills country, to which would you listen?

Concluding remarks
I paraphrase some remarks of A. Barnes, in his Notes on the New Testament. As Barnes says, the Johannine Comma does not contribute to the logical progression of the Apostle's discourse, and in fact it completely interrupts his thread of discussion. In 1 John 5, the author is speaking of things which witness to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah. Three things were very well known to the people to whom John was writing, namely the Spirit, the blood and the water (the Crucifixion story of the spear, in other words). How does saying that in the heavens there are three things which render witness (three things which have no relation with the subject in question) reinforce the main point? Without the Comma, the discussion has a very clear and appropriate sense. There are three things, says John, which witness that Jesus is the Messiah. He mentions them in 1 John 5:6, and in immediate consequence, he affirms (1 John 5:8) that their witness really does bear upon the point and is totally harmonious. To say that there are other witnesses besides, and to say that these are somehow "one", contributes nothing toillustrating the nature of the witnessing of these three, the blood, the water and the Spirit. The "internal sense" of the passage furnishes no better proof of the Johannine Comma's authenticity than does the "external proof".

It reminds me, in a funny way, of the seventh chapter of Isaiah. Y'all remember the story, now, right? The nation of Judah was in dire straits (wasn't it always?) with the threatening kingdoms of the hour gathering their might. The prophet Isaiah went to King Ahaz and told him what he, the King, had to do. Isaiah even offered a divine sign as proof that, as a prophet, he knew what he was talking about. "A young woman shall conceive," he told the King, "and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel." And before Immanuel was old enough to tell good from evil, the threat would collapse.

As it so happens, Isaiah never said that an "Immanuel" was born. A little later in the book, however, he has a vision in which God directs him to name his own son Maher-shalal-hash-baz. (Think of the ribbing the poor child would receive come kindergarten, unless all the other children were similarly cursed with prophetically-commanded names!) When one translates the names "Immanuel" and "Maher-shalal-etc.", one finds that the meanings are equivalent. One promises good will for Judah, and the other promises a speedy end to the threatening kingdoms to the north, but the symbolism is the same. It is eminently reasonable to conclude that Isaiah's own wife is the "young woman" he mentioned to Ahaz, and that the predicted Immanuel is none other than his own son.

How could it be otherwise? Could Isaiah offer as a sign, "Seven hundred years from now, a child will be born and called Immanuel&mdash;"

At which point, Ahaz would interrupt, "Seven hundred years? Judah is in deadly peril now!  Get this windbag 'prophet' out of my sight."

Despite this, countless people have read (or been told to read) Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy of Christ. I will never understand the emotional or intellectual appeal of this. Does no one read on to Isaiah 8? Presumably, the rise of a divine Being on Earth is important enough on its own account that it does not need to be "justified" by stretching Old Testament verses beyond all measure. (Could one even imagine a time when Jesus did not know the difference between good and evil?) Remember, Matthew is the fellow whose genealogy of Jesus doesn't even match the list of Judean kings given in the Old Testament's historical books, so if he erroneously cited a verse in Isaiah, we could cut him a little slack. It's even possible that the Greek translations of Isaiah he had to work with really did say "virgin" instead of "young woman" in verse 7:14, so that he made his mistake honestly. Why would they say this? Well, Greek mythology is replete with virgin births, divine beings springing from the blood of other divine beings, and all sorts of stuff like that. Roman legends have it that Romulus and Remus were born of a Vestal Virgin impregnated by Mars. If it was good enough for the two heathens who founded Rome, why wasn't it good enough for the Messiah?

I suppose one could go back to the seventh chapter of Isaiah and say, "It had a literal meaning at the time, but it was really a prophecy". OK, symbolism and extra layers of meaning, that's cool&mdash;but then we've really taken ourselves right out of the Fundamentalist view, haven't we? If one says that a book like Isaiah had a literal meaning for the audiences of its day and a prophetic or symbolic one hundreds of years later, then it's equally valid to say that Genesis had literal meaning during the Babylonian Exile but is really, in symbolic terms, a prophecy of the Big Bang.

Like I said a while ago, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Pick one!

Finally, I am exasperated by the people who constantly ask "WWKJVD?" as if it were a great and momentous question. To quote the translators of that very Authorized Version,


 * we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. [...] No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

A little later, they say that the Bible has many words which only appear once, and that the Scriptures name many rare "birds, beasts and precious stones" upon which not even the Hebrews themselves could agree on the definition. Being good people, the translators admitted that in such cases, they might have screwed up. What's more,


 * it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain."

Or, as the scandalous old proverb says, "There are other Kings than Scottish Jimmy."

I'm out of time and have to move on to other things. Without a better indication of the specific manuscripts and passages in question, I really can't say more than I already have.

Cordially,

Anville 11:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar
For your suggestions - note that I'm trying to express this in terms which the lay-person and the grammatically challenged, such as myself, will understand. The piece of French argument I got from an old thread up near the top of this talk page - apparently we're not the first to have come this way. (I've deleted Wallace's discussion of Deuteronomy because it isn't directly relevant to the explanation of the grammar).PiCo (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

''In the 19th century, Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney separately published a grammatical justification for the Comma: the words spirit, water, and blood, found outside the Comma, are normally grammatically neutral, but here are given masculine grammar. Nolan and Dabney suggested that this was done in order to agree, in terms of their grammar, with the normal masculine nouns "Father" and "word" within the Comma. "If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity." The argument has gained little support among scholars, who do not see it as outweighing the textual analysis described above. Nor is it seen as being particularly well-based even in terms of Greek grammar, as it is not rare to find passages in the New Testament where the rules of agreement are not followed. Some grammar-based explanations have nevertheless been advanced: the gender of the phrase “the ones bearing witness” may be masculine in order to personalise the “Spirit” in the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the Blood”; and Daniel B. Wallace suggests that it is agreeing with “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, with whom John is equating “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8. ''


 * Five things.


 * 1. “... the words spirit, water, and blood, found outside the Comma, are normally grammatically neutral, but here are given masculine grammar.”


 * The nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood” are not normally grammatically neutral. They are always grammatically neuter. A noun in the Greek language is given a grammatical gender (the way that it is spelled) when it is first conceived and it always has that grammatical gender.


 * For example, the noun “hand” in Greek is grammatically feminine (the way that it is spelled). It is always a feminine noun. This is its grammatical gender.


 * In contrast, natural gender refers to the nature of the referent (the idea to which a word or phrase refers) of a word or phrase, either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons.


 * So the grammatical gender of the noun “hand” is always feminine in Greek because that is the grammatical gender (the manner in which it is spelled) that was given to it when it was first conceived, whereas the natural gender of the noun “hand” is neuter because a hand is a thing.


 * When you say that the neuter nouns “are given masculine grammar,” if you mean that a masculine participle is being used in association with these neuter nouns, then you are not incorrect. However, the phrase “are given masculine grammar” may be misunderstood by the reader to mean that the grammatical gender of a noun is subject to change, which it is not.


 * In order to avoid this misunderstanding, I think that it would be better to simply state the fact that the masculine participle “the ones bearing witness” is used in association with the neuter nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood.”


 * 2. “Nolan and Dabney suggested that this was done in order to agree, in terms of their grammar, with the normal masculine nouns ‘Father’ and ‘word’ within the Comma.”


 * Again, the nouns “Father” and “Word” are not normally masculine. They are always grammatically masculine because that is the grammatical gender (the manner in which they are spelled) that was given to these nouns in Greek when they were first conceived.


 * As for natural gender (the nature of the referent), if these nouns refer to persons, then the natural gender of these nouns is masculine for persons.


 * Whereas grammatical gender refers to the spelling of the noun, which is always the same gender, natural gender refers to the nature of the referent (the idea to which it refers) of the noun.


 * In the Comma, the grammatically masculine noun “Word” refers to a Person (the Son of God). Consequently, the natural gender of this noun in the Comma is masculine for a person.


 * However, when the grammatically masculine noun “word” is used elsewhere, it refers not to a person, but to a thing (something that is spoken or written), in which case the natural gender of this noun is neuter for a thing.


 * 3. “‘If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity.’”


 * These are the words of Dr. Hills, not the words of Nolan or Dabney. Nolan and Dabney both refer to the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 as being a grammatical “difficulty.” OOPS! I see what you did. You credited Dr. Hills with the quote in footnote #2. So ignore this third thing.


 * 4. “... as it is not rare to find passages in the New Testament where the rules of agreement are not followed.”


 * This is the claim of the French explanation cited earlier on this discussion page. This is incorrect. The fact that grammatical gender agreement does not occur with the multiple nouns in Matthew 23:23 and in Galatians 5:22-23 is NOT an example the rules of agreement not being followed. To the contrary, there is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns. It never happens.


 * There are only 8 instances in the New Testament in which the referent of a pronoun or substantival (functioning as a noun) participle is represented in the text by multiple nouns (Matthew 5:19-20 and 23:23, John 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21 and 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:5-7 and 3:12-14). Grammatical gender agreement does not occur in any of these 8 instances, even when all of the multiple nouns have the same grammatical gender (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:22-23).


 * The reason for this is that grammatical gender agreement can occur ONLY when the referent of the pronoun or substantival participle is represented in the text by a SINGLE noun, as dictated by common sense and as corroborated by what is consistently observed to actually occur in the Greek language throughout the New Testament.


 * Whereas the grammatical gender of a noun is always the same, and whereas the gender of any adjective that modifies the noun always conforms to the grammatical gender of the noun that it modifies, the gender of a pronoun or substantival (functioning as a noun) participle is determined, as a rule, by the natural gender (the nature) of the referent (the idea to which it refers) of the pronoun or substantival participle, either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons.


 * The one exception to this is that if the referent of the pronoun or substantival participle is represented in the text by a SINGLE noun, and if the author wants to emphasize the fact that both the pronoun or substantival participle and the SINGLE noun refer to the same thing, then the author conforms the gender of the pronoun or substantival participle to the grammatical gender of the SINGLE noun.


 * Grammatical gender agreement with a SINGLE noun in the text is not a requirement. It is merely a frequently used option.


 * That’s it. That’s how gender works in the Greek language.


 * As you can see, if the referent of a pronoun or substantival participle is represented in the text either by no noun or by multiple nouns, there is no opportunity for grammatical gender agreement with any noun in the text, and therefore the gender of the pronoun or substantival participle is determined by the natural gender (the nature) of its referent (the idea to which it refers), either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons.


 * 1 Corinthians 13:13 does not belong in the same category with the previously mentioned 8 instances in the New Testament because in this verse, it is not a pronoun or substantival participle whose referent is represented in the text by multiple nouns, but a substantival adjective (“three”), and the gender of a substantival adjective never conforms to the grammatical gender of any noun in the text, even if its referent is represented in the text by a single noun.


 * So the French reply to Nolan and Dabney that non-grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns is an instance of the rules of agreement not being followed incorrectly gives credibility to the false claim of Nolan and Dabney there is such a thing as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns.


 * The truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns. It never happens, because it cannot happen, because grammatical gender agreement can occur only with a SINGLE noun.


 * Contrary to the French reply, non-grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns is NOT an instance of the rules of agreement not being followed. The gender of a pronoun or substantival participle being determined by the natural gender (the nature) of its referent when its referent is represented in the text either by no noun or by multiple nouns IS the rule.


 * 5. “... the gender of the phrase ‘the ones bearing witness’ may be masculine in order to personalize the ‘Spirit’ in the phrase ‘the Spirit and the water and the Blood’ ...”


 * The verb “personalize” means to personify, which means to treat a thing as if it were a person, which describes the third explanation for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 (Dr. Wallace), in which “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” (three things) are treated as if they were three persons (the three “men” in “the witness of the men”), whereas in the second explanation (Dr. Marshall), the author considers the “Spirit” in the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” to be a Person and therefore uses the masculine participle “the ones bearing witness” (masculine for persons) to acknowledge the personality (personhood) of the “Spirit.”


 * 7Jim7 (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An application of these changes results in this.


 * In the 19th century, Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney separately published a grammatical justification for the Comma. The words “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood,” found outside the Comma, are grammatically neuter, but here in 1 John 5:8 they are immediately preceded by the masculine phrase “the ones bearing witness.” Nolan and Dabney suggested that this was the result of grammatical gender agreement with the masculine nouns "Father" and "Word" within the Comma. As Edward F. Hills states, "If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity." [Footnote] The argument has gained little support among scholars, who do not see it as outweighing the textual analysis described above. Nor is it seen as being well-based in terms of Greek grammar, as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns never occurs in the New Testament (Matthew 15:19-20 and 23:23, John 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21 and 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:5-7 and 3:12-14). Two other grammar-based explanations have been advanced: I. Howard Marshall suggests that the gender of the phrase “the ones bearing witness” may be masculine to acknowledge the personality of the “Spirit” in the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” [Footnote]; and Daniel B. Wallace suggests that it is agreeing with “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, with whom John is equating “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8. [Footnote]


 * 7Jim7 (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the first of the three explanations for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8, Nolan and Dabney incorrectly claim that a grammatical gender agreement of the masculine participle "the ones bearing witness" with the multiple neuter nouns "Spirit" and "water" and "Blood" should occur (if John did not write the Comma) and that a grammatical gender agreement of this masculine participle with the multiple masculine nouns "Father" and "Word" in the Comma does occur (if John wrote the Comma). This first explanation is refuted by the fact that grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns never happens, as all 8 examples of a multiple-noun grammatical construction in the New Testament prove. In the second explanation, Dr. Marshall incorrectly claims that John made the participle "the ones bearing witness" masculine in order to acknowledge the personality (personhood) of the "Spirit" in the phrase "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" in 1 John 5:8. This second explanation is refuted by the fact that John uses the neuter participle "the thing bearing witness" in reference to the "Spirit" in 1 John 5:7 (in any New Testament that does NOT include the Comma). Why would John not use the masculine gender to acknowledge the personality of the Spirit in verse 5:7 but then use the masculine gender to acknowledge the personality of the Spirit in verse 5:8? The obvious answer is that he would not do so. This leaves the third explanation for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 as the only valid explanation, specifically, that the masculine participle "the ones bearing witness" in verse 5:8 refers to the "men" in the phrase "the witness of the men" in verse 5:9, to whom "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" in verse 5:8 are being comparatively equated. If we're going to refute the first explanation, why not refute the second explanation as well? But does Wikipedia allow this? Doesn't this amount to "personal research" and violate "neutrality?" That was why I did not either promote or refute any of the three explanations in my original section regarding the grammar (which was removed); I simply presented the three explanations and left it up to the reader to choose which of the three was most reasonable. So how do you want to approach this? Do you want to present all of the facts, including the refutations of the first two explanations, or do you want to simply present the three explanations and leave it at that?


 * 7Jim7 (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * this still looks awful. there are in-line texts leading to off-wiki sites, wp editing mistakes, and what kind of reference is 'halfway down the page'? it's a poor argument to begin with and still should not be in the article. i recommend removing it and working on it further. try to find sources that are not articles self-published on the internet. if you use internet articles, they should be on a refereed website. --XKV8R (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up the editing problems. I do feel that the argument has to be raised - Wallace sees fit to mention it in his Greek Grammar, if only to refute it, and for sure if we don't deal with it then advocates of the Comma are going to point this ommission out. Now I have a question. This sentence: In the 19th century Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney separately published a grammatical justification for the Comma. They argued that the words “Spirit”, “water” and “Blood,” found outside the Comma, are grammatically neuter, but here in 1 John 5:8 they are immediately preceded by the masculine phrase “the ones bearing witness.” It leaves me, as a tyro, saying "so what?" Why shouldn't grammatically neuter words be preceded by a masculine phrase? Is there a rule of Greek grammar that should make the words and the phrase agree? If there is, this fact needs to be stated. PiCo (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Grammar argument" section states,"They argued that the words “Spirit”, “water” and “Blood,” found outside the Comma, are grammatically neuter, but here in 1 John 5:8 they are immediately preceded by the masculine phrase “the ones bearing witness.” Nolan and Dabney suggested that this was the result of grammatical gender agreement with the masculine nouns "Father" and "Word" within the Comma. The argument has gained little support among scholars, who do not see it as outweighing the textual analysis described above. The argument is not well-based in terms of Greek grammar, as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns never occurs in the New Testament.


 * Your question, "So what?" is a good question. Given that grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns never occurs in the Greek New Testament, there is no reason to expect the phrase "the ones bearing witness" (masculine) to agree with the neuter grammatical gender of the nouns in the phrase "the Spirit and the water and the Blood." If the phrase "the ones bearing witness" did in fact refer directly to the phrase "the Spirit and the water and the Blood," then John's use of the masculine phrase "the ones bearing witness" would indicated that John considered at least one of these three things (obviously, the Spirit) a Person, which is Dr. Marshall's argument. But this raises the question that if this is what John was doing, then why would he use the neuter phrase "the thing bearing witness" in direct reference to "the Spirit" in the immediately preceding verse, where John states, "Because the Spirit (neuter) is the thing bearing witness (neuter), because the Spirit is the truth?"


 * The truth of the matter is that the neuter form of a pronoun or substantival (functioning as a noun) participle is ALWAYS used in reference to the noun "pneuma" (Spirit/spirit) throughout the New Testament. Also, the water and the Blood are things, not persons. So one would expect John to use the neuter form "the things bearing witness" in reference to "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" if he were in fact referring directly to "the Spirit and the water and Blood," which is contrary to what Dr. Marshall has suggested. NOTE: The participle would be neuter, NOT because of grammatical gender agreement with the three grammatically neuter nouns, as there is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns, but because "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" would be regarded as three things (natural gender).


 * The problem with the argument of Nolan and Dabney is that their claim that grammatical gender agreement with the multiple neuter nouns in 1 John 5:8 SHOULD occur and that grammatical gender agreement with the multiple masculine nouns in the Comma DOES occur is a FALSE claim, because, as shown in those 8 examples (Matthew 15:19-20 and 23:23, John 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21 and 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:5-7 and 3:12-14) that have been removed from the article, grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns NEVER happens. Either Nolan and Dabney never bothered to check their claim against the facts, but they presented their claim as if it were a fact anyway, in which case they were being dishonest, or they did check their claim against the facts and found that their claim was false, but they presented their claim as if it were a fact anyway, in which case they were being dishonest. Either way, they simply made the whole thing up. They wanted a grammatical justification for the Comma. So they invented one. It's as simple as that.


 * Regarding the deletion of the 8 New Testament examples of non-grammatical-gender-agreement with multiple nouns, if the claim that grammatical gender agreement NEVER occurs with multiple nouns is to be retained, isn't there an obligation to supply the proof (the 8 examples) of this? Aren't proponents of the pro-Comma grammatical argument simply going to say that this claim that grammatical gender agreement NEVER occurs with multiple nouns is a lie? Aren't these 8 examples the proof that it is not a lie?


 * By the way, I returned the phrase "the thing bearing witness" to the singular form in the article because it is in fact singular, not plural, in 1 John 5:7 (Majority Text [which does not include the Comma]).


 * Also, I re-inserted the adjective "grammatical" in the phrase "grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns" because it is in fact grammatical gender agreement that does not occur with multiple nouns, as opposed to natural gender agreement, which does occur. What Nolan and Dabeny are claiming concerns grammatical gender agreement, not natural gender agreement.


 * If John were using the participial phrase in 1 John 5:8 in direct reference to "the Spirit and the water and the Blood," then he almost certainly would have used the neuter form "the things bearing witness," because the neuter form is ALWAYS used in reference to the neuter noun "pneuma" (Spirit/spirit) in the New Testament and because water and Blood are things. The fact that John uses the masculine form "the ones bearing witness" (oi maturounteV) instead of the neuter form "the things bearing witness" (ta marturonta) indicates that John is NOT referring directly to "the Spirit and the water and the Blood," but to something else, specifically, the "men" in "the witness of the men."


 * I suppose that one might argue that the fact that the neuter form is always used in reference to the noun "pneuma" (Spirit/spirit) in the New Testament is simply a matter a strict adherence to grammatical gender agreement with the SINGLE noun "pneuma." Thus, it could be argued that the neuter participle "the thing bearing witness" (to marturoun) is used in reference to the SINGLE noun "pneuma" (Spirit) in 1 John 5:7 (Majority Text) simply out of strict adherence to the grammatical gender of the SINGLE noun "pneuma" (Spirit), whereas in verse 5:8, where multiple nouns are involved, which brings natural gender into view, John feels obligated to recognized the personhood of the "Spirit" in the phrase "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" (Dr. Marshall's argument). But one has to assume that John considers the Spirit of God to be a Person in order to accept Dr. Marshall's argument. What if John does not consider the Spirit of God to be a Person? What if all of the writers of the New Testament consider the Spirit of God to be a thing, an aspect of God, not a separate Person, just as the spirit of a man is a thing, an aspect of the man, not a separate person? Maybe that's why the masculine gender is never used in reference to the Spirit of God in the New Testament.


 * The most important objection to Dr. Marshall's explanation is the context in 1 John 5:8-9. His explanation ignores the fact that John is comparing "the witness of the God / the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him" in verse 5:9 to "the witness of the men" in verse 5:9, and thus he is comparing "the Spirit and the water and the Blood" in verse 5:8 to "the ones bearing witness" (the men) in verse 5:8.


 * Thus, the first explanation has no credibility because there is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns, and the second explanation has little credibility for the reasons just discussed, whereas the third explanation is very reasonable and is in fact free of any problems either with regard to grammar or with regard to logic.


 * 7Jim7 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In January, 2011, someone added the following comments to the Grammar Argument section of the Comma Johanneum article, saying, “... The argument has gained little support among scholars, who do not see it as outweighing the textual analysis described above. ....” The comment “citation needed ... looks like a bunch of original research ” refers to the phrase “the textual analysis described above,” which refers to the immediately preceding Manuscript Evidence section of the article. I don’t know why this comment has been placed here in the Grammar Argument section of the Article instead of being placed in the Manuscript Evidence section of the article. The comment “weasel-inline” refers to the word “scholars,” in which the scholars are not identified. Here are two such scholars. The two most famous New Testament Greek grammarians in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries are Dr. A. T. Robertson and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace. In his | comments on 1 John 5:7, Dr. A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) says in his 1932 book, Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, “The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on THIS SPURIOUS ADDITION.” In his | comments on 1 John 5:7, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace (1952 – ) says in footnote 44 on page 332 in his 1996 book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, “1 John 5:7 ... oi marturounteV refers to to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima (verse 8), all neuter nouns [this is a reference to 1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text Greek text, which does NOT contain the Johannine Comma]. Some see this as an oblique reference to the Spirit’s personality ... but the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender. The interpretation also has in its behalf the allusion to Deuteronomy 19:15 (the necessity of two or three witnesses), for IN THE OT, TESTIMONY ONLY OF MALES WAS ACCEPTABLE. THUS, THE ELDER MAY BE SUBTLY INDICATING (VIA THE MASCULINE PARTICIPLE) THAT THE SPIRIT, WATER AND BLOOD ARE ALL VALID WITNESSES.” Obviously, these two most famous New Testament Greek grammarians consider the grammatical argument favoring the Johannine Comma to be FALSE. I have never heard of anyone who knows Greek (well enough to teach it) having a favorable opinion of the grammatical argument favoring the Johannine Comma. The reason for this is that every grammatical claim in the grammatical argument favoring the Johannine Comma is the opposite of what the actual rules of Greek grammar actually state. The reason that no proponent of the grammatical argument favoring the Johannine Comma since its invention in 1815 by Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) has ever presented even one corroborating example from the Greek New Testament in support of any of the grammatical claims in the grammatical argument is that no such corroborating example exists. The reason that no such corroborating example exists is that all of the grammatical claims in the grammatical argument favoring the Johannine Comma are FALSE. 7Jim7 (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Another Metzger reference
I checked Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford, 3rd edition, 1992 ISBN 0195072979). This text is in concord with the article. --Blainster 23:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

=
(new note 9-2011)

Bruce Metzger is specifically given as a footnote twice.

And the first reference is simply wrong.

From the article:


 * "(The Codex Fuldensis, a copy of the Vulgate made around 546, contains a copy of Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Gospels which seems to reference the Comma, but the Codex's version of 1 John omits it, which has led many to believe that the Prologue's reference is spurious.)[5]"
 * [5] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1993.

Note the lack of a page number. In fact, the Bruce Metzger text omits totally the reference to the Vulgate Prologue. You can read his section here, from the Michael Marlowe page.

1 John 5:7-8, from his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993). http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

(3) The passage .... is not found .... in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541–46] .... " (Bruce Metzger, 1993 Textual Commentary)

Bruce Metzger omits the reference to the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, as given in many Vulgate editions, including the earliest extant, Codex Fuldensis, entirely. Even if Metzger is given a pass on an incredible scholarly omission (blunder) there is no reason to use him as a reference for the very fact he omits ! And also for the supposed conclusions from the facts he does not reference !

Next look at:

"which has led many to believe"

On top of the errant Metzger reference, the theory of the discordance within Codex Fuldensis helping to generate the theories of a forgery is a total anachronism, historically impossible and also counter-intuitive. Since the Fuldensis discovery was about 200 years after those theories surfaced. And those forgery theories were largely predicated on the lateness of the extant manuscripts of the Vulgate Prologue at the time of the theory. Thus the Codex Fuldensis discovery is actually a very strong argument against the forgery concept. Especially when combined with more knowledge of the expertise of Victor of Capua, who directed the Codex Fuldensis project and other elements.

e.g. The Prologue and the text were the same scribe, which strongly indicates that both were passed down independently (since if the scribe or his director had created the problem by his own initiative the two elements would almost surely have been harmonized) which thus brings both very close to the time of Jerome.

Note, it is fair to ask why there has not been a review and significant scholarly reevaluation of the forgery theory by the textual critics after the Fuldensis discovery. That takes us a bit afield at the moment, where we are focusing more on direct factual and conceptual errors in the wiki article.

And in point of fact, the simplest explanation of the discordance, the dropping of the verse from the 1 John text, is that it would actually be a verification of what was specifically warned about in the Prologue reference (which text is not given in the Wiki page, which is very sparse on actual quote-references pertaining directly to the verse).

“But as I have long since corrected the evangelists according to the rule of truth, so these Epistles I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, Blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which, above all places, the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one.”

As translated in:

The Monthly repository of theology and general literature, Volume 21 (1826)

Ben David - http://books.google.com/books?id=GX4UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA214

Other translations are identical in sense.

So I will wait a bit for a comment on the above, and then work on a rewrite of the section to be far more informative and accurate.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC) StevenAvery.ny

Three Patristic Works - ECW inclusion and omission
Also, from the same quote right above, what are the "three patristic works" ? Also what are the "dozen major Church Fathers who quote the verses" ? And if a church writer quotes 1 John 5:7 in the context of water baptism, is it proper to talk about an omission of 1 John 5:7 which is not on that topic ?

To be clear, a homily that runs through 1 John and goes from verse 1-2-3-4-5-6-8 is very clearly an omission. A loose discussion of 1 John that jumps from 6 to 8 may be considered an omission, even if it does not mention all the verses. Some cases are gray areas, some should not count at all. So if some one talks about a dozen this and that, they need to be specific as to names and methodology.

Any help on this appreciated. Else I will simply delete what is undefined, vague and very questionable.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Actual Rules of Greek Grammar
On pages | 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) is the first person to claim (1) that the masculine participle in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text agrees with the masculine grammatical gender of the subsequent nouns in that verse, and (2) that the reason that the masculine participle in verse 5:8 does not agree with the neuter grammatical gender of the subsequent nouns in that verse is that it is attracted in gender to the masculine participle in verse 5:7, and (3) that this proves that John wrote verse 5:7 in the Received Text.

On pages 191-234 in the 1871 (volume 22) edition of the Southern Presbyterian Review, the anonymous article, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, appears, which is in part a review of Nolan’s 1815 book. The grammatical argument that Nolan presents on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book is presented on page | 221 in the 1871 article.

The fact that Robert Dabney (1820-1898) is the author of the anonymous 1871 article is corroborated in the 1890 book, Discussions Theological and Evangelical, which is a compilation of the previous writings of Dabney, in which the 1871 article is presented on pages | 350-390 as having been written by Dabney.

Although Dabney initially accepts Nolan’s grammatical argument, as seen on page 221 in Dabney’s 1871 article, Dabney later rejects it, as seen on page | 182 in the 1878 (second) edition of Dabney’s book, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, where Dabney states that the genuineness of 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text is doubtful.

In order to reach his conclusion that the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text requires John to have written verse 5:7 in the Received Text, Nolan violates the actual rules of Greek grammar as explained by the secular Greek grammarian Herbert Smyth (1857-1937) in his 1920 book, | A Greek Grammar for Colleges.

Smyth explains in sections 1018-1020 on page 272 and in sections 1053-1058 on pages 277-278 in his 1920 book that whereas an adjective modifying a single noun agrees with the grammatical gender of the single noun, an adjective modifying multiple nouns is plural and agrees with the natural gender of the multiple nouns, either neuter for things or masculine for persons or feminine for female persons or masculine for persons and things.

Smyth explains in sections 1018-1023 on pages 272-273 and in sections 1154-1156 on page 293 in his 1920 book that an articular participle that is not connected to a noun in any of the three articular attributive positions (article-participle-noun, article-noun-article-participle, noun-article-participle) is a substantival articular participle, whose gender agrees with the natural gender of the idea being expressed, unless it is preceded by a single antecedent noun, in which case its gender agrees with the grammatical gender of the single preceding antecedent noun.

Smyth explains in section 916 on page 257 and in sections 976, 979 and 981 on pages 266-267 and in sections 1018-1019 on page 272 in his 1920 book that subsequent nouns that are added to a preceding substantive to modify it are appositives, which are the equivalents of adjectives modifying and agreeing with the preceding substantive to which they are added as modifiers, and that it is grammatically impossible for the preceding substantive in an appositive construction to agree in any way with the subsequent appositive nouns, because the direction of modification and agreement in an appositive construction is from the subsequent appositive nouns (the equivalents of adjectives) to the preceding substantive, not from the preceding substantive to the subsequent appositive nouns. The subsequent appositive nouns must agree in grammatical case with the preceding substantive to which they are added as modifiers, but they do not have to agree in number or gender with it.

Smyth explains in section 926b on page 259 and in section 1239 on page 307 and in sections 2502e and 2502f on page 563 in his 1920 that gender attraction in the Greek language is limited either to a demonstrative or relative pronoun being attracted in gender to a substantive in the same clause referring to the same person or thing or to a relative pronoun being attracted in gender to an immediately (side by side) preceding substantive referring to the same person or thing.

Therefore, if the articular participle το μαρτυρουν (the-thing bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:6 was an adjective modifying the single noun πνευμα (Spirit) in that verse, then it would be neuter in agreement with the neuter grammatical gender of that single noun.

Likewise, if the articular participle οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text was an adjective modifying the multiple nouns πατηρ, λογος and πνευμα (Father, Word and Spirit) in that verse, then it would be masculine in agreement with the masculine natural gender (for three persons) of those multiple nouns.

Likewise, if the articular participle οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text was an adjective modifying the multiple nouns πνευμα, υδωρ and αιμα (Spirit, water and Blood) in that verse, then it would be masculine in agreement with the masculine natural gender (for a person and two things) of those multiple nouns.

However, those articular participles in 1 John 5:6, 5:7 and 5:8 in the Received Text are not adjectives, but substantival articular participles, because they are not connected to a noun in any of the three articular attributive positions (article-participle-noun, article-noun-article-participle, noun-article-participle).

The substantival articular participle το μαρτυρουν (the-thing bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:6 agrees with the neuter grammatical gender of the single preceding antecedent noun πνευμα (Spirit) in that verse.

Since the substantival articular participle οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text is not preceded by a single antecedent noun, it agrees with the masculine natural gender of the idea being expressed (three persons), and the subsequent nouns πατηρ, λογος and πνευμα (Father, Word and Spirit) in that verse are appositive nouns (the equivalents of adjectives), with which it is grammatically impossible for the preceding substantive οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) to agree in any way, because the direction of modification and agreement in an appositive construction is from the subsequent appositive nouns (the equivalents of adjectives) to the preceding substantive, not from the preceding substantive to the subsequent appositive nouns.

Since the substantival articular participle οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is not preceded by a single antecedent noun, it agrees with the masculine natural gender of the idea being expressed (either a person and two things or the three persons to whom a comparison is being made), and the subsequent nouns πνευμα, υδωρ and αιμα (Spirit, water and Blood) in that verse are appositive nouns (the equivalents of adjectives), with which it is grammatically impossible for the preceding substantive οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) to agree in any way, because the direction of modification and agreement in an appositive construction is from the subsequent appositive nouns (the equivalents of adjectives) to the preceding substantive, not from the preceding substantive to the subsequent appositive nouns.

The participle in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text cannot be attracted in gender to the participle in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text, because gender attraction in the Greek language is limited either to a demonstrative or relative pronoun being attracted in gender to a substantive in the same clause referring to the same person or thing or to a relative pronoun being attracted in gender to an immediately (side by side) preceding substantive referring to the same person or thing.

So everything that Nolan says on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book is the opposite of the actual rules of Greek grammar as explained by Smyth in his 1920 book. According to the actual rules of Greek grammar, there is no grammatical requirement in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text for verse 5:7 in the Received Text. In order to reach his conclusion to the contrary, Nolan invents his own rules of Greek grammar, which are the opposite of the actual rules of Greek grammar. Although Dabney initially accepts Nolan’s grammatical argument, as seen on page 221 in Dabney’s 1871 article, Dabney subsequently rejects Nolan’s grammatical argument, as seen on page 182 in Dabney’s 1878 book.

Nolan’s claim in footnote 193 on page 257 in his 1815 book that what Eugenius Bulgaris, the Archbishop of Cherson and an expert in the Greek language, says regarding the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text in his | 1780 letter is the same thing that he (Nolan) says regarding the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book is a false claim. According to Eugenius, the genders of the participles in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text are based, not on the grammatical gender of any noun, and not on gender attraction, but on the natural genders of the ideas being expressed, the participle in verse 5:7 being masculine in reference to the three persons (the Father, Word and Spirit) in verse 5:7, and the participle in verse 5:8 being masculine in reference to the three persons (the Father, Word and Spirit in verse 5:7) to whom the spirit, water and blood (three things, according to Eugenius) in verse 5:8 are being symbolically compared.

Eugenius admits at the end of his 1780 letter that his grammatical argument favoring John having written 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text is a minor point (a jug / a two gallon container) instead of a major point (an amphora / a nine gallon container), because his argument does not actually require John to have written 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text. His argument merely presents one of three possible explanations for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text. (1) It could be masculine in reference to the person and two things (the Spirit, water and Blood) in verse 5:8. (2) It could be masculine in reference to the three persons (the men in the witness of the men in verse 5:9) to whom the Spirit, water and Blood in verse 5:8 are being compared. (3) It could be masculine in reference to the three persons (the Father, Word and Spirit in verse 5:7) to whom the Spirit, water and Blood in verse 5:8 are being compared.

What Eugenius (an expert in the Greek language) says regarding the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text in his 1780 letter is consistent with the actual rules of Greek grammar as explained by Smyth (an expert in the Greek language) in his 1920 book, and it is contrary to what Nolan says regarding the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book.

So here we have two experts in the Greek language (Eugenius and Smyth) saying one thing regarding the rules of Greek grammar, and we have Nolan (not an expert in the Greek language) saying the opposite, and we have Dabney (not an expert in the Greek language) initially accepting what Nolan says, but subsequently rejecting it.

Conclusion. Eugenius (1780) and Smyth (1920) are right, and Nolan (1815) is wrong, and Dabney is initially wrong (1871) in accepting what Nolan says, and Dabney is subsequently right (1878) in rejecting what Nolan says.

(Received Text) 1 John 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα ... 5:8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα ... 5:9 ... την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων ...

5:7 Because three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness in the heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit ... 5:8 And three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness on the earth, the Spirit and the water and the Blood ... 5:9 ... the witness of-the men ...

(Corrected/Critical Text and Majority Text) 1 John 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 5:8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα ... 5:9 ... την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων ...

5:7 Because three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the Blood ... 5:9 ... the witness of-the men ...

Both in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text and in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Corrected/ Critical Text and Majority Text, the gender of the substantival articular participle οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) is correctly determined by the natural gender (masculine either in reference to a person and two things [the Spirit, water and Blood in verse 5:8] or in reference to the three persons [the men in the witness of the men in verse 5:9] to whom the Spirit, water and Blood in verse 5:8 are being compared) of the idea being expressed, because there is no single preceding antecedent noun with which to have grammatical gender agreement, and the subsequent nouns πνευμα, υδωρ and αιμα (Spirit, water and Blood) are appositive nouns, with which agreement of any kind (either grammatical case or number or gender) by the preceding substantive (οι μαρτυρουντες / the-ones bearing-witness) is grammatically impossible, because the direction of modification and agreement in an appositive construction is from the subsequent appositive nouns (the equivalents of adjectives) to the preceding substantive, not from the preceding substantive to the subsequent appositive nouns.

Nolan’s claims to the contrary are false. Nolan simply invented his own rules of grammar to accommodate the predetermined conclusion that he wanted to reach, which are the opposite of the actual rules of Greek grammar as explained by Smyth in his 1920 book and as corroborated by Eugenius in his 1780 letter.

7Jim7 (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed section: Lay out primary and special Evidences
There is a lack of organization in the article in expressing even the very major and special arguments for inclusion, for scriptural authority. This is partly due to the common lack of background to the material even among those who write on the topic.

Proposal: There should be a single section where the basic overarching evidences are given

1. Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts (huge majority of both)

2. Internal and grammatical evidences (including textual theories of omission contra inclusion).

3. Historical church writer and council usage (noting also the Charles Forster book)

Combined with the three individual super-unique evidences, each one of which has had a very special place in the historical debate on the verse..

1. Cyprian .. (along with corroborative Ante-Nicene allusions)

2. Council of Carthage of 484 AD.

3. Vulgate Prologue

First, I believe it will be better to correct the many errors in the article within the current structure (working on a "facts first" basis) however I want anybody trying to read and understand to consider this proposal. Generally there is such an outline given in the literature for what are considered the negative reasons for exclusion, the arguments for for interpolation and non-Johannine originality. So I propose that the two sections be honed individually and run sequentially in the article.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Error in photo caption?
A photograph in this article bears the caption, "Greek New Testament published at 1524, missing the Comma Johanneum". I am confused by this. Is this a photo of Erasmus's Novum Instrumentum omne? I am unaware of any Greek New Testament that was published in 1524. According to Novum Instrumentum omne, the 3rd edition of Novum Instrumentum omne was published in 1522 and contained the Comma Johanneum, and the 4th edition was published in 1527 and it also contained the Comma Johanneum. Wideangle (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there were various lesser known editions in that era, some with, some without the verse. It is possible that it is the Cephaleus edition of 1524 http://www.archive.org/stream/introductiontokn01dibd#page/112/mode/2up The person who placed the pic should have tried to indicate more and if they had that from a source vague, then that should have been referenced here in the discussion. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was not Erasmian edition. Thanks for your last edits in the article. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Doctrinal Assumptions and Presumptions
"The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

Statements about Trinity belief and the heavenly witnesses verse are sprinkled throughout the article. Many are questionable, or even simply wrong such as the error that Cyprian was discussing Trinity doctrine in "Unity of the Church". (Discussed in another section.)

Yet there is an element of truth in terms of how the verse was seen in the debates of 1700-1850, by many of the participants. With the notable exception of John Jones (Ben David). And how the verse is often seen today. However, as learned writers have noted, including Edward Hills, this may not reflect very well the actual doctrinal "facts on the ground" in the early centuries.

The concern is that many of the theories of verse non-use and exclusion specifically consider the idea that the verse was seen as discomfiting to some orthodox Trinitarians, e.g. in the context of "Sabellian" discussions, because of "and these three are one". Some Trinitarian doctrines (e.g. the Social Trinity)emphasize "threeness" so much that any statement of unity can be seen as Trinity-discomfiting. Note that the emphasis of the Vulgate Prologue, ascribed to Jerome, is not the recognition of "Trinity" but that the "Unity of the Trinity .. is proved to be one".

My proposal is that the ten or so Trinity references should not be erratically placed throughout the article but that many, or most, of them should be coalesced into a paragraph that tries to tackle this question in a relatively brief, but cogent, fashion. I grant that this is not easy, but it is really necessary to improve the current article out of its patch-quilt style.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparatus Difficulties
"The numbers here follow UBS4, which rates its preference for the first variant as { A }, meaning "virtually certain" to reflect the original text"

In its current state the article is confused about the basic purpose of an apparatus. Look at "The numbers here...". And then you see a discussion of the letter rating, which is then dropped from the discussion. It is impossible to tell what is being followed.

Apparently what is meant is something like

"The weighted evidence placement decisions here follows UBS4..."

The problem with this is that, especially in terms of early church writer entries, it is well known that on this variant the very limited utility of an apparatus is compromised by a combination of bungling and bias. Along with the limitations of trying to condense complicated textual analysis into a one word placement. To discover this you simply read the historical material on each early church writer. Currently on the TC-Alternate forum a thread is in process showing just the incredible degree of error within this apparatus (beyond changes from one edition to another). Thus the only proper method of placing such writers is by direct analysis and citation. Many place easily, some do not and need special attention. What is there now needs drastic overhaul.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Clement of Alexandria
Clement is referenced a couple of times in the article. The first is:

"For example, although Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) places a strong emphasis on the Trinity, his quotation of 1 John 5:8 does not include the Comma"

I have never seen this "strong emphasis on the Trinity" referenced from Clement, and the word Trinity is unused, afaik there are not Trinitarian expressions like "persons" or even "God the Son". Discussing the Granville Sharp rule, Daniel Wallace says that quotes of Clement and Polycarp represent "naive modalism". This book has a bit of a summary of the Clement Christology:

A History of Christianity: Beginnings to 1500 By Kenneth Scott Latourette (1993)

http://books.google.com/books?id=ujQHy_jQZnIC&pg=PA146

There is a quote from Clement as follows: "For he who has been sealed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit in beyond the threats of every other power and by the three Names has been released from the whole triad of corruption."

However this is pretty distant from an "emphasis on the Trinity" being in his writings, in any sort of normal doctrinal, apologetic or Christological sense.

The second Clement reference is where he is included in the "no comma" group, based on the Casssiodorus fragment (Cassiodorus has his own separate quote supporting the verse). The evidentiary value of that quote is limited by the context (note the lack of any reference to Trinity, even allegorical) and the usage of "et iterum" indicating that it is not a continuous quote.

In addition Clement has a second quote from Clem. Alex., Eclogae propheticae 13.1,

"Every promise is valid before two or three witnesses, before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; before whom, as witnesses and helpers, what are called the commandments ought to be kept."

Which has been seen by some learned writers as a rather solid allusion to the heavenly witnesses verse. Overall, Clement is weak as a "no Comma" early church writer, and you will rarely find modern scholars actually discussing the fulness of the Clement evidence.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparatus Data
Hi, I placed on box.net the UBS-4 apparatus, so that we can be sure we are on the same page. http://www.box.net/shared/egqdxbovkq6ja9xnrl1b#/shared/egqdxbovkq6ja9xnrl1b/1/117137900/940566354/1

While I believe this apparatus has many difficulties, first things first, we need to know what it says ! As, e.g. the article earlier claimed that Cyprian was negative in the apparatus, which was simply wrong and backwards, and had been used as a major part of the confirmation of the Daniel Wallace position on Cyprian ! Also note that the helpful Laparola apparatus is in the external links section.

Technically there should be no problem showing or pointing to this picture in the article under fair use. As to where and how it would be hosted I am not sure of the Wiki protocol, e.g. I could put it up on a webpage, or I could invite the hosts of the TC-Alternate forum to do similar. Any comments are appreciated. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Adjusted "The Comma in Latin" to match the UBS-4 apparatus, even though UBS-4 omits some strong references and has one unclear entry "Ps-Cyprian", since this is likely the same as Rebaptism. The only change I made was changing Varimadum to Contra-Varimadum, since that is well-known, the author is usually considered Vigilius Tapsensis and the books on the Trinity were written against Varimidum. We could improve the section a lot, using scholarly resources and having pages for some of the entries (e.g. Ps-Vigilius could point to the Council of Carthage of 484 AD), however I figure the first step is to improve the list by bringing it in line with UBS-4, which is considered, somewhat questionably, a standard of sorts (in fact UBS4 did correct UBS-3 in four or more very significant errors, but left many more in).

For a reference using Contra-Varimadum see http://books.google.com/books?id=9i8EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA139. Other names are possible, but Varimadum is simply wrong. Georg Strecker uses Contra-Varimadum as well.

There is a question why it starts like this "All evidence from Fathers cited: Clementine edition of Vulgate translation;". If no one has an explanation, I will reword this, since the Clementine and Sixtene Vulgate editions are not "evidence from Fathers". Also the Stuttgart is mentioned contra the verse despite not having an individual entry in UBS-4, the Sixtene I believe is handled similarly.

Note: (... with some variation)would be better omitted in this context, I believe. However, if it is going to be used, then we can follow UBS-4, which I did with "these three with some variation".

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine Majority - Orthodox Church
From Johnwander: > It also appears in the Byzantine Majority Text, on which the Textus Receptus is derived, which is the authorised Greek text of the Orthodox Church.

Hi, John. While it is proper to point out that the Orthodox churches (Greek Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Russian Orthodox et al) today generally include the verse this is not because it is in the "Byzantine Majority Text". Those Byzantine manuscripts generally had the verse omitted, and yet the Orthodox churches accepted the Reformation textual work to incorporate some verses that had fallen from the Greek line. Please reconsider how you have this worded, and feel free to explain here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenAvery.ny (talk • contribs) 03:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Vulgate Manuscripts
The article is woefully deficient in describing the actual manuscript evidence in the Vulgate manuscripts as well. Before getting into that, I have a question:

This statement appears to lack any source.

"The third variant is found only in Latin, in one class of Vulgate manuscripts and three patristic works. The other two Vulgate traditions omit the Comma, as do more than a dozen major Church Fathers who quote the verses"

According to this statement, there are two "Vulgate traditions" that omit the verse, and "one class" that includes the verse. Does anybody have even the remotest idea what to what this is referring ? The problem is that deleting that information makes it necessary to delete this whole analysis, so I would like to have some one try to salvage this before deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenAvery.ny (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made some improvements in the table. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Erasmus and the Textus Receptus
While I believe that the prominence given to this topic (right after the introduction as well as scattered about) is questionable, since it is at the expense of proper consideration of the early church writer and council history as well as the debate on the internal evidences and the significance of the historical debate overall .. other issues arise even within the Erasmus section (which is generally reasonable, as it goes into the "promise" controversy).

Wideangle pointed out a problem that needs correction.

"Its absence from the first two editions has traditionally been explained as the result of the animosity this[clarification needed] provoked among churchmen and scholars, led by Lopez de Zúñiga, one of the Complutensian editors."

Wideangle added "clarification needed" and he is right in questioning, the logic is backwards. The time-scenario can be partially summarized.

1) Erasmus excludes the verse from the 1st (and later 2nd) edition, lack of Greek exemplar

2) Protests and discussion, well documented with Lee and Stunica, along with many other verses

3) Eramsus involved in research and discussion, including requesting the reading of Vaticanus

4) Codex Britannicus is considered as evidence by Erasmus

5) Erasmus includes the verse in the 3rd edition, with attendant sharp annotation.

6) Verse is discussed at the Valladolid inquiry involving Erasmus

7) Annotations updated

Much more could be written, such as the paraphrase of Erasmus, and the Erasmus reference to the grammatical question, and the details of the Vulgate Prologue discussion, and the issues absent in discussion and how the annotations changed within editions. However this is, hopefully, one of the better short 1-7 style summaries, covering almost two decades.


 * What does Erasmus say about the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8? 7Jim7 (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Now the quote highlighted by Wideangle is simply wrong, anachronistic and is in the body of the article. The animosity of some verse defenders did not cause the omission, it was the result of the omission. Thus a rewrite is needed. I believe Wideangle noted this problem.

And, on the whole, the section is supposed to be about "Eramsus and the Textus Receptus" .. however there is much more to the Textus Receptus history than Erasmus. Especially involving Robert Étienne (Stephanus) & Theodore Beza. e.g. Beza is quoted as follows "I am entirely satisfied that we ought to retain this verse".

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Strouse - fabrication in reference
In the article:

"Many proponents view the Comma as an important Trinitarian text and assert that those who doubt its authenticity are threatening the biblical basis for Trinitarian belief" - Thomas M. Strouse, "Fundamentalism and the Authorized Version (1996)".

We have to be careful about allowing people with a doctrinal agenda behind their writings to put in supposed conclusions, supported by citations that cannot be easily checked.

However this short article is in archive.org.

Fundamentalism and the Authorized http://web.archive.org/web/20080419030000/http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fundamentalismkjv.htm

And reading the article finds absolutely nothing remotely like the position given to Thomas Strouse. It is not even the topic.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Cyprian and Priscillian
I deleted from the lead the piece that says the Comma was "known since the 4th century." The reference given for this statement is from Bible.org - The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian. When I read this, I found that it says exactly the opposite: "[T]hat Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely."

Further down, in the body of the article, I found a confused group of paragrpahs that seemed like two separate attempts to deal with the same material (made me feel rather like an early source critic unraveling the Torah). I believe I'm correwct that this is what was goiing on, but other editors can review my conclusion. Anyway, to make the two sets of paragrpahs cohere, I removed this: "One account of its origins suggests that the Comma originated in a Latin homily elaborating on this passage in the Vulgate. The 3rd-century Church father Cyprian quoted John 10:30 and added, :"Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est&mdash;Et hi tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Ecclesiæ,''  "On the Unity of the Church", vi).
 * ("And again it is written of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit&mdash;and these three are one.") PiCo (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)PiCo (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your text PiCo. Ardent Comma advocates may feel it a touch too confident, but I think it fair. I am, however, concerned that full treatment be given to Cyprian. The major critical versions cite Cyprian against the comma, Wallace is an outstanding authority in explaining why.
 * On a technical note, you've removed two references cited elsewhere in the article, leading to red cite-error flags in the Notes section of the article.
 * On a personal note, I hate to lose Cyprian's Latin, since this is the only authority I, as a reader, would finally accept for the issue. Obviously, it's no surprise that the experts correctly handle it though. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Alastair. Please keep in mind though that I have no knowledge in this matter, and my edits were just an attempt to correct what I saw as a misreading of a source and to tidy up our article's prose.
 * I tried to fix the footnotes but the result is not very aesthetic.
 * I'll try now to reinsert Cyprian's Latin. PiCo (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alastair, I've tried to reinsert Cyprian in a way that makes sense. Please proof it carefully for me and make sure I'm not making any major error. PiCo (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll do a bit more tidying. Fulgentius is considered a witness for the Comma. If he was interacting with Cyprian, perhaps he could have misread him. That would be a fascinating and possible source for the Comma. Most believe the comma is earlier.
 * Personally, I'm surprised variants like the Comma are not more common, and that the Comma itself is not more widespread. There's some pretty dodgy mss out there, but overall, it seems the scribes were pretty disciplined.
 * Thanks for restoring, I hope my current text is OK, but as I said, there's a little more to come. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved Fulgentius down from the end of the first paragraph to a paragraph all of his own at the end of the article. The reason comes in two parts: first, the opening line of the first paragraph speaks of early writers who fail to quote the Comma when logically they should; since F. does refer to the Comma, he doesn't belong in this paragraph. Second, if he has to move, where to? One answer is simply to make him the second paragraph, but that interrupts the temporal flow of the section (it currently moves from the earliest writers to the middle ages). So I took a combined chronological/themeatic approach and moved F. and the Africans down to the end of the section, where they stand for the witnesses to the genuine canonicity of the Comma. Ok, now, if you like this structure, one thing is needed: I've said that F. is quoted as evidence of the canonicity of the Comma, but by who? I have no idea - like I said, I'm approaching this as a copy-editor, not as someone with knowledge of the subject. PiCo (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perfect. I was thinking that was where Fulgentius fits myself. NA27 and UBS4 cite Fulgentius as evidence for the comma, as part of listing all manuscripts for and against. Neither considers F. or other mss to be sufficient evidence to consider the comma to be original, so he remains in the apparatus and not in the text. UBS4 goes further, rating every textual decision { A } almost certain, through to { D } uncertain. The comma is rated by UBS4 as almost certainly not original. Almost any textual critic would make the same assessment given the evidence. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"The major critical versions cite Cyprian against the comma"

This is simply false. The Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition, 4th printing, 2000 (Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos,Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger for Münster) cites Cyprian as favorable to the verse, with a (Cyprian) parenthesis. This looks to be generally the place given in the apparatus for the Cyprian citation, although back in 1966, in the 2nd edition (and likely into the 3rd edition) Cyprian was listed negatively. In 1983 in the preface [p. x] of this UBS 3rd edition they announced plans for a "thorough revision of the textual apparatus, with special emphasis upon evidence from the ancient versions, the Diatessaron, and the Church Fathers."

When I try to rewrite the Cyprian section more sensibly, I will point out how a number of fine scholars accept this Cyprian citation as supporting the verse being in his Bible (with varying opinions as to whether this reflects Johannine origin.)

What we have now in the text:

"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."

Is simply terribly wrong.

And note, to use "standard critical edition" information is extremely limited on a specialized discussion and analysis verse like the heavenly witnesses. Such information in an apparatus is extremely scanty, and often quite dubious, where you can have simply one word to try to represent what can be very fascinating and involved analysis where scholars disagree.

"So even though some still think that Cyprian referred to the passage, the fact that other theologians such as Athanasius of Alexandria and Sabellius and Origen never quoted or referred to that passage is one reason why even many Trinitarians later on also considered the text spurious, and not to have been part of the original text."

This is the type of side-show diversionary and even circular reasoning that should be removed from the article. (And is very common throughout the article, which often tries to be more an agiprop puff piece than real scholarship.) e.g. There is in fact decent evidence for Athanasius (Disputation between Athanasius and Arius and the Synopsis of Scripture) and Origen (Scholium on Psalm 122:2) referring to or alluding to the verse.

And we have virtually nothing from Sabellius of scripture quotations (generally what we have is second-hand from his opponents) so to say that Sabellius "never quoted or referred to that passage" is an absolutely absurd, even juvenile, evidence from silence. One that I have never seen in the scholarly material. In fact, William Hale (Faith in the Holy Trinity, Vol 2, 1818, p. 182) states his view that the Tertullian verse allusion relates directly to "Sabellian" usage of the verse by Praxeas. Similarly, Edward Hills conjectures that opposition to Sabellianism may have contributed to disfavor with the verse (King James Bible Defended, chapter 8) that contributed to its dropping out of the Greek manuscript line.


 * (Latin Vulgate) John 10:30 EGO ET PATER UNUM SUMUS


 * 10:30 I AND FATHER ONE-THING WE-ARE.


 * (Latin Vulgate) John 16:13 cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis docebit vos in omnem veritatem non enim loquetur a semet ipso sed quaecumque audiet loquetur et quae ventura sunt adnuntiabit vobis 14 ille me clarificabit quia DE MEO ACCIPIET et adnuntiabit vobis 15 omnia quaecumque habet Pater mea sunt propterea DIXI quia DE MEO ACCIPIT et adnuntiabit vobis


 * 16:13 But when he-will-come, that-one, Spirit of-truth, he-will-teach you in all truth. For not he-will-speak from him himself, but whatever he-will-hear he-will-speak, and what going-to-be they-are he-will-announce to-you. 14 That-one me he-will-make-known, because OF MINE HE-WILL-RECEIVE and he-will-announce to-you. 15 All-things whatever he-has, Father, mine they-are. Therefore, I HAVE SAID OF MINE HE-WILL-RECEIVE and he-will-announce to-you.


 * Tertullian ( – 220 AD), Praxeum (text 121, cap. 25):


 * … DE MEO SUMET INQUIT sicut ipse de patris ita connexus patris in filio and filii in paraclito tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero QUI TRES UNUM SUNT non unus QUOMODO DICTUM EST EGO ET PATER UNUM SUMUS ad substantiae unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem …


 * … OF MINE HE-WILL-TAKE [John 16:14], HE-SAYS, as himself of Father [John 16:13-15]. Thus, connection of Father in Son, and of Son in Paraclete, three-ones it-effects, cohering one out-of other, WHICH THREE-ONES ONE-THING THEY ARE, not one-person, AS HAVING-BEEN-SAID IT-IS, I AND FATHER ONE-THING WE-ARE [John 10:30], to substance unity, not to number singularity. …


 * (Quoted from the Latin text by Augustine in Contra Maximinum in 427/428 AD) 1 John 5:7 Tres sunt testes 8 spiritus et aqua et sanguis ET TRES UNUM SUNT [no Johannine Comma]


 * 5:7 Three they-are, witnesses, 8 Spirit and water and Blood, AND THREE-ONES ONE-THING THEY-ARE. [no Johannine Comma]


 * (Latin Vulgate / Johannine Comma added AFTER Augustine) 1 John 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo pater verbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt 8 et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra spiritus et aqua et sanguis ET TRES UNUM SUNT


 * 5:7 Because three they-are who witness they-give in heaven, Father, Word and Spirit Holy, and these three-ones one-thing they-are. 8 And three they-are who witness they-give on earth, Spirit and water and Blood, AND THREE-ONES ONE-THING THEY-ARE.


 * Note #6 in the Comma Johanneum article:


 * Tertullian's use of tres unum sunt in Against Praxeas, "Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non unus quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus," has been seen by many commentators as a textual allusion to 1 John 5:7, e.g. Latin Christianity: It’s Founder, Tertullian p.631 (1903), where editor ARTHUR CLEVELAND COXE SAYS, "IT APPEARS TO ME VERY CLEAR THAT TERTULLIAN IS QUOTING I. JOHN V. 7. IN THE PASSAGE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION.” The English section is on p. 621, left column, bottom.


 * Jim: Tertullian is commenting on John 16:13-15, where Jesus is discussing the “Father” and “Me” (the Son) and the “Spirit” (the Paraclete). Tertullian is quoting from verse 16:14, saying, “Of Mine He-will-take,” and Tertullian is saying, regarding what Jesus is saying in John 16:13-15, that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Paraclete (the Spirit). Then Tertullian says regarding those three Persons whom Jesus is discussing in John 16:13-15, “which three-ones one-thing they-are,” which is a Trinitarian statement regarding the three Persons whom Jesus is discussing in John 16:13-15. Then Tertullian explains why he says this, the explanation being that it is written in John 10:30, “I and Father one-thing we-are.” Tertullian concludes that if Father and Son “one thing we are” in John 10:30, then Father and Son and Spirit “one thing they are” in John 16:13-15. The statement, “which three-ones one-thing they-are,” is a Trinitarian statement regarding the Father, Son and Spirit in John 16:13-15, which is based on Jesus’ statement in John 10:30 that “I and Father one-thing we-are.” Tertullian’s statement, “which three-ones one-thing they-are,” is not a quotation of anything. Tertullian does not even quote, “AND three-ones one-thing they-are,” from the last clause in 1 John 5:8, much less quote, “AND THESE three-ones one-thing they-are,” from the Johannine Comma. If there had been the existence of a statement in John’s first epistle that “Father, Word and Spirit Holy … these three-ones one-thing they-are,” then Tertullian would most certainly have quoted it in support of his Trinity statement, “which three-ones one-thing they-are,” regarding the Father, Son and Spirit in John 16:13-15, instead of resorting to a quotation of John 10:30, in which Jesus says, “I and Father one-thing we-are.” Tertullian is forced to rely on John 10:30 as support for his Trinitarian statement regarding the Father, Son and Spirit in John 16:13-15, because the Johannine Comma has not yet been added to the Latin text. 1 John 5:7-8 says the same thing in the Latin text in Tertullian’s day that it says in Cyprian’s day and in Augustine’s day, which is this: Three they-are, witnesses, Spirit and water and Blood, and three-ones one-thing they-are. The Johannine Comma has not yet been added to the Latin Text. That does not begin to happen until AFTER Augustine’s explanation and endorsement of the Trinity interpretation (the phrase "and three ones one thing they are" implying the Trinity, and the words "Spirit" and "water" and "Blood" symbolizing "God" [the Father] in John 4:24 and the "Spirit" in John 7:38-39 and the "Word" in John 1:14) of 1 John 5:7-8 (Three they-are, witnesses, Spirit and water and Blood, and three-ones one-thing they-are) in the Latin text in Contra Maximinum in 427/428 AD. 7Jim7 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

However, all that aside, the basic problem is simple. A section on Cyprian should focus on Cyprian, and should avoid conjectural suppositions representing one perspective and bringing in A, B, C, in a dubious manner. Theoretical conjectures about the verse history should be localized in their own properly supported section, and not sprinkled in a weak manner throughout the article.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There are problems everywhere on the Cyprian section. Even the context of Cyprian's writing in Unity of the Church is sorely misrepresented.

"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 ""The Comprehensive New Testament", Cornerstone Publications (2008), p. 709, ISBN 978-0-977873-71-5 quoted John 10:30 against 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".

This is another example of doctrinal glasses writing an article without checking facts. Simply go to the Cyprian sections which you can see here: http://books.google.com/books?id=aDcMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA423 and you quickly find that this is not written "against the heretics who denied the Trinity". The section is written as a divine exemplar of the unity of the Church. The "Trinity" is unmentioned in the section and the context is a scriptural teaching, not the refutation of heretics.

If you are looking for a section which could be considered an argument against the heretical Christology of Marcion, involving the Trinity (albeit in a somewhat vague representation) you would go to Epistle 52 to Jubaianus (the section with the supporting, secondary reference from Cyprian for the verse) at http://books.google.com/books?id=aDcMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA380, a section about the question of rebaptism. There a discussion leads up to "Does Marcion then maintain the Trinity ?" and then, a couple of pages later, the supporting secondary citation section: "If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?" .

However there is simply no way to see "Unity of the Church" as a discussion involving heretics and Trinity. I will plan on simply removing that idea when doing a Cyprian section rewrite. Placing the context with the second citation is possible, but probably a bit too deep for the overall Wikipedia page. However, the supporting secondary citation should be referenced, as it is given significant supporting and corroborative emphasis, even by writers like Scrivener.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The first change being made here is changing the Clontz reference #5 (# ^ Clontz, T.E. and J., "The Comprehensive New Testament", Cornerstone Publications (2008), p. 709, ISBN 978-0-977873-71-5) to a straight Cyprian edition and adding the url to the google book edition and more of the actual text. The earlier ISBN link there did not lead to the book. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Old Latin Manuscripts
Hi. Every aspect of the Old Latin evidences, positive and negative, needs lots of work. The first problem is under "External Evidences" and is related to the apparatus.

"No Comma. μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα. [... witnessing, the spirit and the water and the blood.] Select evidence: .... the Old Latin (codices Vercellensis IV and Schlettstadtensis VII/VIII)"

How could Vercellensis and Schlettstadtensis have 1 John 5 (or even verse 8 in some manner) and thus be considered to be missing verse 7 ? Vercellensis (it3) is an Old Latin Gospel manuscript and Schlettstadtensis (it57) is only the Book of Acts. This information is even available within Wikipedia, making the blunder especially puzzling.

List of New Testament Latin manuscripts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_Latin_manuscripts

a.......Codex.Vercellensis.......3.......350.....Gospels....Jülicher

r.......Codex Schlettstadtensis. 57.......700.....Acts.......Morin

Could anyone explain where this came from ? And now that it has been copied all over the internet, can I ask what type of fact-checking was done on this article ?

Thanks.

Later, I will try to do an improved edit of all the Old Latin (mis)information throughout the article.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC) stevenavery.ny

OLD LATIN - Pro Heavenly Witnesses manuscripts

And we we look at the pro side of the Old Latin reference the situation is similarly poor scholarship. Here the problem is not mis-reference but large-scale omission with an assertion that is simply false:


 * "Of the surviving "Itala" or "Old Latin" translations, only two support the Textus Receptus reading, namely the Codex Monacensis (6th or 7th century) and the Speculum, an 8th- or 9th-century collection of New Testament quotations.[4]"
 * ^[4] a b c d e f Catholic Encyclopedia, "Epistles of St John"

The reference here is to an article in 1910 by Walter Drum:

Catholic Encyclopedia (1910)= Walter Drum

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Epistles_of_Saint_John (1913)

.... Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis (q) of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum (m), an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.

Now it is unclear here whether Walter Drum was doing some word parsing with "present reading of the three witnesses" .. which could conceivably exclude Old Latin manuscripts that have variations e.g. the heavenly witnesses verse yet also adds "in Christ Jesus".

Yet such verse clearly do support the Textus Receptus reading (what is written in the article and is the more pertinent question) but may allow Drum's statement to be technically true while deceptive by word-parsing. Or perhaps Walter Drum was simply not well informed.

In point of fact the Old Latin manuscripts are heavily in favor of the verse.

First, about:

"Codex Monacensis (6th or 7th century) and the Speculum, an 8th- or 9th-century collection of New Testament quotations."

the 8th or 9th century is the date of the Speculum is of the earliest extant manuscript. It is important to mention that composition is considered much earlier, with some scholars placing it as from Augustine.

Other manuscripts that can be considered Old Latin support for the verse include:

c- XII-XIII Colbertinus

dem - XIII - Demidovianus

div - XII - Divionensis

l - VII - Legionensis (Palimpsest)

p - XIII Perpignan (orthographical evidence -- a copy of a ms no later than the VI c)

Tepl (Old German)

Now, the Old Latin designation is often subjective. e.g. Demidovianus and Divionensis could show up on a Vulgate list instead of Old Latin as mixed texts. And the Tepl, despite its great historical significance unto the German Bible, is often overlooked and is difficult to categorize.

However there are similarly only two manuscripts that make a compelling Old Latin case for exclusion, and those two have similar categorization issues.

So the count of Old Latin manuscripts end up something like 8-2 for the heavenly witnesses, and a reader of the current Wikipedia article would be completely misled about the actual testimony.

(This is without getting into the very significant issue of additional corroboration of this strong manuscript evidence from writers and councils, from the Council of Carthage of 484 AD, Fulgentius, Cyprian, Priscillian, Cassiodorus and other sources.)

Once again, I will let this new information sit for awhile, awaiting consideration and counterpoint, and then I will plan on helping make the article properly informative and accurate.

And again, I ask, where was the proof reading and checking ? At the very least "l - VII - Legionensis (Palimpsest)" should have been easily seen, since that is listed in the apparatus section of the article. And the Neal-Holland discussion, given in external links, has a good chunk of this information as well. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Leszek, when you disagree with my edit, please indicate why rather than a silent revert. I am talking specifically here about the Old Latin section, and it is clearly improper what the text says now :

"Of the surviving "Itala" or "Old Latin" translations, only two support the Textus Receptus reading".

UBS-4 gives many more manuscripts (it has something like 6-1 in favor) and the 8-2 ratio I placed in the article is easy to document, as it is discussed on the textual criticism lists. The current claim is puzzling, it may be based on some arcane word-parsing, and every solid apparatus shows this Old Latin plus for the reading.

For ease, here is Laparola, which is largely based on ubs-4: http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=69&rif2=5:7 Note that the apparatus it-c it-dem it-div it-l it-m itp it-q favors the heavenly witnesses and only it-ar (Book of Armagh) favors omission. In fact, it is a bit more complex than that, but this is enough to show that the current claim in the article is wrong, even to the point of deception (not by you, but by the original word-parser).

So I will wait a day or two for you to discuss this, and present your thinking, before reverting the revert. I appreciate your efforts on the page, so let us try to coordinate. Thanks.

Oh, I see that my edit may have accidentally deleted two sentences that I did not mean to touch, as they are reasonable:

"No Syriac manuscripts include the Comma, and its presence in some printed Syriac Bibles is due to back-translation from the Latin Vulgate. Coptic manuscripts and those from Ethiopian churches also do not include it."

I am fairly new to this editing thing, so I apologize if that is what triggered the revert. On my next attempt I will be more careful, and not remove anything by accident ! If putting that back was your principle motivation, I fully understand.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is no place for Original Research, only reliable sources should be used. I have found today that one false Greek manuscript is listed. Minuscule 110 does not contain Comma. "Codex Ravianus" is not manuscript of the Greek New Testament (former 110). It was deleted from the list in 1908, by Gregory, and it is no longer listed. You can use this document in the article, but not like manuscript of the New Testament. Rewritten from Complutensian... There are more errors. Probably this article should be removed from the list of GA-articles.
 * "Daniel Wallace does not offer an explanation of why, by his explanation, the Trinitarian "gloss" first appears clearly in the writings of the non-Trinitarian Priscillian." Typical OR. According to whom Wallace does not offer an explanation. In Encyclopedia we do write in that way.
 * I have UBS4. More manuscripts? Marginal notes added by a later hand are not strong argument.
 * I did not delete your work, I only reverted this edit, because it was really too much - "no Syriac manuscripts include the Comma", "Coptic manuscripts and those from Ethiopian churches also do not include it". These informations should be included in the article. Why they were removed? It is like vandalism... almost. I did not removed your edit, though some of edits should be neutralised. This article is not reliable... too much errors. Author do not distinguish between original hand and marginal additions of later hands. Manuscripts rewritten from printed Bibles can not be used as the argument. We can not use this article if we want to survive GA-status.

It-c (Cod. Colbertinus) represent Old Latin text only the Gospels and Acts, in the rest books it is a Vulgate; it-dem is from 13th century, it-div (Divionensis) contains only Pauline epistles and Apocalypse, it-l (Legionensis) has only small Old Latin parts, in 1 John 5:7 it has text of Vulgate; Perpinianus - Vulgate, except small parts; and Frisingensia (q) is lacunose and does not contain; Speculum (m), actually I do not have time for verification, and it is not important, probably it is mixed. Use more reliable sources, these informations are easy for verification, but it always takes a time. Generally I agreed with your work, but please remove a small POV from the article. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Leszek, please read my talk discussion above. I acknowledged that I accidentally removed two sentences that belong. When I do the re-edit correcting the misinformation on the Old Latin that is in the article now, I will be sure not to accidentally delete any wrong material ! That was not my intention.

Above, you are arguing above against the apparatus of the Old Latin manuscripts. Why ? They are all given by the authoritative sources (the apparatus is decent on ms, less so on early writers where they make many easily shown errors). The article is terribly wrong claiming only two manuscripts when even the apparatus gives many more. Those manuscripts include 1 John 5:7 .. and they are listed as Old Latin BY THE UBS-NA27 APPARATUS !!!!!!!! If the apparatus lists them, you really are in no position to overrule them based on this or that interpretation. The solid question is whether Divionensis does include 1 John 5:7, since it is currently missing and there is some historical ambiguity. The UBS and NA apparatus had different entries on this (Maynard, p. 53) which I learned looking up your question, and I will try to research it further. Note, I even included a sentence pointing out that the manuscripts are often fluid as to categories, however it is UBS-4 NA-27 whose categories I am following (noting the Divionensis disharmony) !!!

Here is a question, from your point of view, how many Old Latin manuscripts support the verse omission ? In other words, what is your pool of Old Latin manuscripts for 1 John 5. Surely you agree that if the article says x manuscript support one view, they should say y supports the other. e.g. On the Vulgate manuscripts about 95% of many thousands of manuscripts support the verse, and that should be clearly referenced, even while special attention is given to manuscripts given special note, like the Fuldensis situation.

Incidentally the article is, quite unfortunately, full of POV conjecture. However only on one side. Lots of conflicting and confusing conjecture about possible interpolations and doctrinal theories that generally have not a smidgen of hard support. (This happened like this, maybe.) I will make an effort to point this out in the days ahead. The grammatical section is truly a horror, it is so bad I have waited on even addressing it.


 * The grammatical section is not a horror. It's just brief. That's all. The administrators were not going to allow it at all because of the amount of space that fully addressing the grammar would take, in addition to which they thought that an analysis of the Greek would be too complex for the vast majority of readers to understand. As I recall, there was only one administrator who thought that a section regarding the grammar was warranted. All of the other administrators wanted to exclude it. I asked that one administrator what would be acceptable, and he wrote a small paragraph and asked me to edit it. I limited the amount that I edited it because I didn't want to push the matter, because I was just happy that anything at all regarding the grammar was being allowed. There are a few things wrong with that small paragraph, all of which are my fault, because it was up to me, as the one editing the small paragraph, to get it right, and I didn't do an adequate job of that. For instance, when I wrote that the grammatical argument was published separately by Nolan and Dabney, that was not entirely true, because this was not an instance of Nolan and Dabney coming up with the same idea separately, but instead an instance of Nolan's 1815 book being reviewed by Dabney in an 1871 article. Dabney was merely repeating on page 221 in his 1871 article (The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek) the grammatical argument that Nolan had previously presented on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book (An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate). For another instance, when I wrote that the fact that the neuter gender is used in reference to the Spirit in verse 5:6 lessens the likelihood of the masculine gender being used in verse 5:8 as a result of the Spirit, water and Blood being a person and two things (masculine natural gender), that was not correct, because even if the gender was masculine because the Spirit, water and Blood are a person and two things (masculine natural gender), the neuter gender would still be used in verse 5:6, because agreement with the grammatical gender (neuter) of the single preceding antecedent noun (Spirit) in verse 5:6 is what happens when there is a single preceding antecedent noun. If there is no single preceding antecedent noun, then the gender is determined by the natural gender of the idea being expressed, as in verse 2:16 (every the-thing [neuter for things because lust, lust and pride are three things] ... lust [feminine] ... lust [feminine] ... pride [feminine]) and verse 5:7 (the-ones bearing-witness [masculine for persons because the Father, Word and Spirit are three persons] ... Father [masculine] ... Word [masculine] ... Spirit [neuter]) and verse 5:8 (the-ones bearing-witness [masculine for a person and two things because the Spirit, water and Blood are a person and two things / or masculine for persons because the men in the witness of the men in verse 5:9, to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared in verse 5:8, are three persons] ... Spirit [neuter] ... water [neuter] ... Blood [neuter]). When added nouns are added as modifiers to the verb's subject or direct object to provided additional information, the added nouns agree in grammatical case (nominative or accusative) with the verb's subject or direct object to which they are added, but not in gender with it, because the added nouns' genders are predetermined by their grammatical genders, which never change. The grammatical genders of the added nouns are irrelevant to the gender of the verb's subject or direct object to which they are added. Verse 2:16 (neuter ... feminine ... feminine ... feminine) proves that Nolan's claim that agreement with the grammatical genders of the added nouns occurs in verse 5:7 (masculine ... masculine ... masculine ... neuter) is a false claim, and verse 2:16 (neuter ... feminine ... feminine ... feminine) likewise proves that Nolan's claim that agreement with the grammatical genders of the added nouns should occur in verse 5:8 (masculine ... neuter ... neuter ... neuter) is a false claim. Nolan's grammatical argument is discussed here. 7Jim7 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just now rewrote the grammar section of the article to explain in more detail Nolan's grammatical argument. It's about five times as long as the original paragraph. Time will tell whether or not an administrator objects to the size of that section. 7Jim7 (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In the Erasmus section on this discussion page, you refer to "the Erasmus reference to the grammatical question." I never knew that Erasmus ever said anything about the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text. What did he say? 7Jim7 (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And there are problems almost everywhere. The Council of Carthage of 484 AD with hundreds of bishops in attendance affirming the verse in their statement of faith is not even included in the article ! And that is arguably the single most important historical evidence. What is most inappropriate is how the conjectures sans hard evidence are not placed in their own "theory" location but are peppered around the article.

Now I am quite happy to avoid POV, and I hope you will assist me in removing all the unsupported non-factual stuff that is in the article. Historically, Charles Forster studied the verse history far more deeply than Daniel Wallace, so if one scholar is given a special place to conjecture, it should not be one-sided. It should be put in a "textual history theory" section, with presentations on both side. Now, to be fair, we have started to do some improvement in a couple of places before this glitch today. Which overall, I appreciate, even the back and forth, since iron sharpeneth ! Please do not take my writing here the wrong way, I appreciate that you were on top of the issue and noticed the two sentences omitted. Be well. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing above against the apparatus of the Old Latin manuscripts. They are given in apparatus, but they are not explained in apparatus - of UBS4 - in which parts they have Old Latin texts. There is no room for these explanations. The same manuscripts are also listed as manuscripts of Vulgate (with different sigla). Look to Berger, White, Cavallera, Fischer, de Bruyne, Metzger and other authors. Majority of these manuscripts have an eclectic or mixed text. I have created or expanded almost every of these manuscripts and sources were given in these articles. I know these sources. Usually they are available in internet. It is difficult to find a pure Old Latin manuscript older than 8th century (Codex Gigas is the exception), but every one knows that Comma is older than Vulgate. Possibly it was in Old Latin text, though currently we do not have a pure Old Latin manuscript of 1 John. Generally I like your work.
 * You know, I had read many web-sites with arguments that there are 17 Greek manuscripts with Comma. After 1908 manuscripts were renumbered and authors like White used twice the same manuscripts in their books. They do not understand that some manuscripts have mixed text (Greek and Latin), and not always they can be cited as witnesses of the Old Latin text or witnesses of the Byzantine or Alexandrian text. According to these books Jerome used the Alexandrian text for his Vulgate. Vulgate is much closer to the text of majority than to the Alexandrian text. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Leszek, The 17 (or 20) manuscripts is usually the double count, the "Carl Drexler error" and is mentioned in Michael Maynard's book on p. 264 and was originally made by the Dean Burgon Society and was even made by Floyd Nolen Jones, normally a skilled writer. Another common error is Wizanburgensis. We could also email about this Old Latin situation, and I can post it on textual criticism discussion forums as well. (Or set up a separate page ?) My understanding is that insisting on "pure" Old Latin manuscripts is overkill, not normative, and essentially reduces the pool of Old Latin manuscripts of 1 John 5 to 2 or 3, unnecessarily. Thus, understand, making the statement that there are "only 2" obviously tinged and biased, since that is all that is being allowed to be counted ! On the textual forums the apparatus count of Old Latin manuscripts is considered normative, it is not overruled by various different scholars offering caveats about each manuscript (this is a lectionary, this is considered Vulgate here, this is missing, this is 13th century) which caveat will differ with each scholar. btw, Roger Pearse of Tertullian.org has a page on Divionensis with good information. And apparently it was copied by Guden in the 1660s which I sent to Roger. So we hope to have a better answer on that later. Your Greek manuscript work I like, as well as the inclusion of the David Robert Palmer Greek textual work in the external links. And the direct link to the apparatus page of Laparola I will add. (Personally I consider the Greek manuscripts a minor issue in the verse discussion, even the Brittanicus question, but it was a big issue from 1700 to 1825, David Martin through Porson and Travis, when they misinterpreted the Stephanus data. It was also a big issue for Erasmus in the sense of supplying a Greek exemplar, although he did not require one on Acts 9:5-6. There are many such tidbits that right now are hard to find cohesively discussed anywhere.) Think about the Old Latin situation a bit, I will wait a day or two and then would like to do a reedit and would prefer to discuss it with you or send it to you ahead of time. As to "every one knows that Comma is older than Vulgate" this is not true. People reading the article in its earlier form often would get the impression that the Comma was begun around or even by Priscillian, which is the time of the Vulgate. In fact, that was the actual Karl Künstle theory that was popular from about 1905-1915 and still is given or implied frequently on the Internet. This is one reason why the Old Latin confusion is primary. I wrote about this the other day on the textual criticism forum, which I think you might enjoy in terms of helping understand the Wikipedia article problems http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/6647. Oh, please feel free to let me know what you see as possible errors in the Tim Dunkin article ("errors" could be said about any source, including the apparatus and the Daniel Wallace paper). As I know that Tim would quickly correct any demonstrable factual errors, and consider more subjective error views, the article is actively kept up to date. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, not everyone, but probably every scholar. As well as I know every scholar agreed that these manuscripts are mixed. UBS4 cited only it-l and it-q. Why? Because the other mss do not represent Old Latin tradition in text of John 5:7. Scholars like : Berger, White, Cavallera, Fischer, de Bruyne, Metzger, Black, Wikgren, Omanson are agreed in these case. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that UBS-4 changed the Old Latin list (dubiously) from UBS-3, which included the longer list, so we will work with the shorter list, properly expressed. it-l is not mentioned in the article, Legionensis, the 7th century, one of the earliest Latin evidences. So it should be added. Then for accurate, neutral POV the article should be worded in this manner :

"3 of the 4 pure Old Latin manuscripts support the verse"

Rather than "only 3".

and it preferably would also add a note or footnote about the mixed manuscripts that are included in some apparatuses.

When you say: "Because the other mss do not represent Old Latin tradition in text of John 5:7.". hopefully you mean the full catholic epistles section are not considered Old Latin ? Since if they say "in the text of 1 John 5:7" an obvious logical circularity is involved. It is the Old Latin manuscripts and references,including Carthage, Priscillian, Tapsensis and Fulgentius .. and the contested Cyprian reference .. that show us the "Old Latin tradition". All those early church writers referenced are writing BEFORE any extant manuscripts and before any likelihood of Vulgate influence (Cassiodorus is the first such writer who is considered as having Vulgate influence as a significant factor.)

Can you explain the absence of Codex Ulmensis from the Latin list ? The Scrivener citation (given by Maynard p. 50) is note 2 on p. 650 of the 3rd edition of Plain Introduction: http://books.google.com/books?id=hZQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA650.

And if we are showing all the Latin ms through, say, the 9th century with the verse, why not list the ones without the verse as well ? My understanding is that the list is similarly short and will help give perspective and balance, also mentioning if possible any editions like Fuldensis that have the Vulgate Prologue.

Since you are working closely with the manuscripts, do you have any objection to removing Codex Vercellensis and Codex Schlettstadtensis from "No Comma". And can you tell which apparatus was used to put in these erroneous entries ? StevenAvery.ny (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I do not see any problem. I have just created the articles Codex Ravianus and 918 they have some historical importance, so they should be on wikipedia. By the way I do not intend to create articles for all manuscripts of the New Testament. Only for those manuscripts, which were described by several scholars. Thanks for your work. Currently I do not know why Cod. Ulmensis was deleted. List_of_New_Testament_Latin_manuscripts should be verified, perhaps there are still some errors. Codex Monacensis is wrongly linked. Maybe later it takes too much time. I want create the articles for each Old Latin manuscript, but I do not have too much time. Thanks for your work. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In removing Vercellensis and Schlettstadtensis as Old Latin representatives of "no Comma" I wondered if there is anything that would be a suitable replacement. The closest is the Book of Armagh, but the Wikipedia page says "It contains text of Vulgate, but there are many Old Latin readings in the Acts and Pauline epistles" which does not sound like it fits our stringent definition of a pure Old Latin manuscript. The other possibility in mind is the Mabillon lectionary, but afaik that does not make the apparatus, so it would have hurdles to climb. So for now I am just removing the Old Latin line from the "No Comma" section.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

de-obfuscate
The article contains a lot of solid references, but its structure and prose appear to deliberately obfuscate the matter. Once you work your way across, it becomes clear, as it were in spite of the efforts of the authors, that the comma is an Early Medieval insertion to the text, and that the gloss itself may date to Late Antiquity. This is not the place to discuss whether the Church fathers themselves adhered to the trinitarian doctrine. We have the article Trinity of the Church Fathers dedicated to that.

It is perfectly possible to assume that at least some Church Fathers embraced trinitarianism from the 2nd or 3rd century, and commented on the text of the epistle to that effect. That still doesn't make the comma part of the epistle's text. The job of this article is to trace the origin of the gloss, and the history of its inclusion in the text itself. It is not the job of this article to lose itself in doctrinal disputes about the origin of the trinity doctrine. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you changed the sequence in the article, placing the grammar issue, which is a secondary issue, in front of the manuscript issue, which is a primary issue. The grammar issue is an afterthought compared to the manuscript issue. That is why in any article regarding the Johannine Comma, the manuscript record is ALWAYS discussed before the grammar issue is discussed, if the grammar issue is even discussed at all. The reason that the manuscript record is more important is that it is factual. In contrast, the grammatical argument favoring the Johannine Comma is nothing more than a circular argument that Nolan invented, in which Nolan reverses the rules of Greek grammar in order to falsely claim a grammatical requirement for the Johannine Comma that does not actually exist, on top of which Nolan claims that Eugenius (an expert in the Greek language) says the same thing in a 1780 letter that he (Nolan) says on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book, when in fact Eugenius says the exact opposite of what Nolan says. 7Jim7 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Introductory Sentence
"The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) contained in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source for translation."


 * The reader still doesn't know what the Comma is. 1 John 5:7-8 needs to be quoted both in Latin and in Greek (with English translations), showing the Comma in bold print. Otherwise, the reader will not understand. 7Jim7 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC) ... I went ahead and added it myself. 7Jim7 (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It is good to put the English, Latin and Greek right at the top. I switched it to the commonly understood English of the Authorized Version (which I think is what we had earlier, before the edit) rather than the private "literal" translation that is awkward for the readers and never seen anywhere. I also removed the text about manuscripts, which does not belong in the explanation of what is the Comma. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This introduction is factually wrong and conceptually weak. The sources for translation for the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version, the Reina-Valera and dozens of Received Text or Reformation Bible editions (see Jaroslav Pelikán, The Reformation of the Bible, the Bible of the Reformation for a country-by-country discussion) that include the heavenly witnesses is, on a general level, the Stephanus 1550 edition in the UK, and/or the later Beza-Elzivir editions of the Greek New Testament on the Continent. Or eclectic decisions made from both sources and considering the use of other Received Text edition sources, such as the Complutensian and Erasmus edition..

Apparently the writer is trying to indicate (in a confused manner) that the Erasmus 3rd edition included the verse, but this Erasmus edition is very far from being the "sole source for translation" for the AV or Geneva or any TR-based Bibles after about 1535. Dozens of substantial variants (like Luke 2:22 and 1 John 2:23b) can be very different in those TR-based Bibles than the Erasmus 3rd edition. The 3rd edition of Erasmus would be a very minor source, if used at all.

And conceptually it is very weak to define the verse by simply viewing "translations" from 1522-1881 (the Revised Version from the Westcott-Hort text, the first major printed Bible edition without the verse, although some minor editions like Daniel Mace of 1729 and the 1808 "Improved Version" had done so previously). Since thousands of manuscripts in Latin before 1522 contain the verse and it was a major part of the Lateran Council of 1210, the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and many historic references. And was accepted by the large majority of Reformation-era and beyond scholarship of wide doctrinal backgrounds. And the verse is in many Bible editions published today. The basic method of discussion here is flawed in the very first sentence.

Later I will try to make the sentence accurate, there are some other considerations as well that I am checking a bit..

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition there is another major problem.

"in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522"

The implication here is that published Bibles before 1522 did not have the verse (the word "translations" is confusing in this context). Published Bibles before 1522 also had the heavenly witnesses. Printed Bibles began in 1456 by Gutenberg and thus there were many printings of Latin Bibles by Jacobus Sacon (1506) and the publishers like Froben and others even before the Complutensian Polyglot and Erasmus. Many such editions are covered in "The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition" and, until Erasmus in 1516 these published Bibles invariably contained the verse if they contained 1 John. The two editions of Erasmus without the verse were exceptional, not normative, for published editions. And there were no English published editions "translations" until Tyndale of 1535 and these contained the verse as well. And after the third edition of Erasmus most all Greek editions contained the verse. There were some exceptions and some editions with special markings, generally verse inclusion was normative in published Bibles in English until the Revision of 1881 (Daniel Mace and the "Improved Version" were two exceptions). And normative in the Greek New Testaments published earlier, since they would generally be Received Text base. Exceptions include the Griesbach GNT, and other versions that were independent works.

24.90.54.139 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The article was largely written for POV rather than information, and even the citations are unreliable.

One of the first first sentences has a quote from the late Jaroslav Pelikan (who was a superb church historian, including his book on "The Bible of the Reformation", yet not a textual writer, generally steering clear of those issues):

Wikipedia : The words apparently crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages, "[possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist. Erasmus omitted them from his first edition; but when a storm of protest arose because the omission seemed to threaten the doctrine of the Trinity, he put them back in the third and later editions, whence they also came into the Textus Receptus, 'the received text'."[1]

Yet the quote itself has:

"They may have begun as one of those medieval glosses"

....the doctrine of the Trinity (although that doctrine had in fact been formulated long before the textual variant), he put them back in the third and later editions, whence they also came into the textus receptus, "the received text. ...

The first part should simply use the full Pelikan wording "They may have begun.." since the writer's concepts end up mixed with Pelikan with the confusing "apparently" and "possibly" mish-moshed together. Pelikan was more precise than the Wikipedia writers.

On the second part, we were not even given a "....." . If Pelikan is to be quoted, he should be quoted properly, and if text is to be omitted, "...." is a scholastic necessity.

And, overall, I strongly believe that such historical-doctrinal conjecturing should be moved to its own section, properly organized, more than one position given, and this tendency to stick POV into the article should be drastically reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenAvery.ny (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. Avery, if you want to add comments to the discussion page, then do so. But do NOT delete the preexisting material. I have reverted the discussion page to what it was before you replaced the entire discussion page with your own comments. This version contains the preexisting material plus a few comments that you added to it. If you want to add your other comments as well, then do so. But do NOT delete the preexisting material. 7Jim7 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jim. Please be specific as to what material you think I deleted. Even better, can you find it in the log of my edits ? That would be helpful. Afaik, I deleted absolutely zero material of any contributor on the discussion page, so I am rather curious.

Plus, did you actually "revert" this in such a way that many of my comments (which on some issues are rather extensive) were not included. If so, I will have to either add them back in (with all the original dates lost) or get involved in a re-revert. Before doing that, though, I would like to hear what you think I deleted. Thanks. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is only small misunderstanding. The discussion was archived by bot and it should be archived. So everything is correct. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Leszek. However, I think the changes/revert by 7Jim7 may have smashed away substantive conversations of the last month. What is the best way to check this and place everything in order ?

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. Avery, I am sorry that I misunderstood that an automatic archive of older discussion material had been performed by Miszabot. I went back into the "history" of the discussion page and returned the page (hopefully) to the way that I found it. The older discussion can be viewed by clicking the "archive 1" or "archive 2" buttons. I apologize for falsely accusing you of having deleted the old discussion material. 7Jim7 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Apology gratefully and gracefully accepted.

I will check around a bit, to see if everything is reasonably in order, however I am not overly concerned at this point, since archives can be checked if necessary. Two posters on other forums got a little egg on their face by jumping on your accusation :) .. however their lack of due diligence is not your fault. You placed your concern in the proper place, Wikipedia discussion of the forum post. And I agree that learning the ins and outs of WIkipedia can be a little daunting.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The recent edit to the first sentence creates new problems.

"The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) in the First Epistle of John (1 John 5:7–8 ) according to the Latin Vulgate text as transmitted since the Early Middle Ages, based on Vetus Latina minority readings dating to the 7th century. It was inserted into the Latin text based on a gloss to that text; "

Very little of this section is factual, it assumes and tries to express (in a rather cumbersome manner) a questionable textual transmission theory. (And in so doing it makes it very hard for the new reader to understand the basics of what is the Commma Johanneum).

My suggestion: -- There should be a separate section giving major textual theories (at least two, one for authentic, one for inauthentic) and the above after "1 John 5:7-8" moved to that area. The most egregious sentence is the last, since there is no hard evidence whatosever that "It was inserted into the Latin text based on a gloss to that text" .. this is simply a theory, one that has difficulties.

"the gloss itself may date to as early as the 3rd or 4th century".

Again, this is simply theory and POV and has not a single hard factual reference. My understanding is that such writing is against Wikipedia guidelines.

"It was included in the Textus Receptus (TR) compiled by Erasmus of Rotterdam because of its doctrinal importance in supporting Trinitarianism."

This begs the question that there were many verses that were based largely on Latin evidences in the Received Text editions, starting with Erasmus #1. Also it misses the actual history of the inclusion, including discussion of components like the Vulgate Prologue and Codex Brittanicus. Also there were many verses where Erasmus was influenced by criticism, and "supporting Trinitarianism" was only one component of the discussions, when it existed at all.

Again, the proper way to handle this would be to include a section on "Trinitarian Aspects" or "Christology" or something of that sort and reference actual scholarship that directly goes into issues like the Erasmus-Lee-Stunica correspondence. Even secondary source quotes could be helpful, but very little should be written by modern doctrinairists, blithely, either pro or contra "orthodox Trinitarian" as it makes the article into polemic rather than substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenAvery.ny (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A recent edit by Lawrence518 says:


 * "However,the Comma Johanneum was quote by Cyprian bishop of Carthage (200-258AD) in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.V 418,423. This disputes this article original author's claim that it was not quoted by the early church fathers. . Vigilius of Thapsus also quotes it in the 5th century. "

We are avoiding trying to write in a conflicting manner on the page. Your statement may have been true on the original author's article, but I do not think there are any such claims now on the page. You will find two notes in the article to Tapsensis (Thapsus). What I think would help the whole situation is to pull out the negative claims (like the 1808 Improved Version section) into a section giving arguments against authenticity, and a similar section giving arguments for. Once we do that, which is a better structure, some of the out-of-place 'swipe' comments can be moved to the proper section I will give you some time to read this, however if I do not get counterpoint (discussion), I plan to revert your edit. Nothing personal, the sense you give is true, but it works against the article, which has been improving over the last month.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)