![]() | Johannine Comma was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Maybe the article could, somewhere, explain the basic significance of the topic. I've just read the whole lengthy article and am none the wiser r.e. why this omission from the Bible is important/interesting. 82.13.181.124 ( talk) 08:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
In the section "Text", it states that the comma is in italics...and then proceeds to italicise about two or three sentences with more than one comma in them. Which of these commas is the Johannine Comma?-- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) ({{ ping}} me!) 17:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
In reading the article on the Johannine Comma, I couldn't help but notice an advocate of the King James Only movement, one Steven Avery Spencer from Queens NY (who can't read Greek or Latin, the two key languages of the source texts in question), has done a large amount of editing of information in this article.
His, frankly, biased and inaccurate editing of the article has made it very unbalanced and confusing for the uninformed reader.
Much research has come to light in the last few years which has not been included in this article. This includes Bible manuscripts, paratexts, and commentaries. There has also been new research into the context, manuscripts and background of the Patristic references portrayed as proof texts of the Comma, bringing to light evidence that has not been available until now.
Much of the editing by Steven Avery Spencer has added what can only be described as counterfactual information. Matt13weedhacker ( talk) 21:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
In the "Text" section there is the phrase "Erasmus omitted the text of the Johannine Comma from his first and second editions ..." but... did he? Or was the comma simply not included because it was made up at a later date. The entire contention surrounding the comma is that it was made up and doesn't appear until later. This phrasing makes it seem to be Erasmus' intention to leave them out, thus negating the basis of the conflict. Padillah ( talk) 17:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Greek text:καὶ τρεῖς (three) εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (witnesses) ἐν τῇ γῇ (in earth), τὸ Πνεῦμα (the Spirit), καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ (water), καὶ τὸ αἷμα (blood)· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς(three) εἰς τὸ ἕν(one) εἰσιν.
As you can see, in both Greek text above and the following Latin text, the phrase "in earth" is in the middle of a sentence. If Leo deliberately skipped verse 7, then there was no reason for him to quote verse 8 to delete "in earth". The only plausible explanation is that there is no "in earth" in verse 8. If verse 8 does not have "in earth," then Leo's text does not agree with the Textus Receptus, but agrees with the Critical Text.
Latin text: Et tres (three) sunt, qui testimonium (testimony) dant in terra (in earth): spiritus (the Spirit), et aqua (water), et sanguis (blood): et hi tres (three) unum (one) sunt.
Fanwumao ( talk) 04:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This is listed as including the comma in Latin, however when checking the work here https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A22778.0001.001?view=toc the JC does not appear nor a reference to 1 John 5, not in the main text nor notes. I suggest removing it from the list until it can shown to have referenced it. 2A00:23C8:1D07:B401:80CA:4965:237D:D6F3 ( talk) 14:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Johannine Comma was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Maybe the article could, somewhere, explain the basic significance of the topic. I've just read the whole lengthy article and am none the wiser r.e. why this omission from the Bible is important/interesting. 82.13.181.124 ( talk) 08:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
In the section "Text", it states that the comma is in italics...and then proceeds to italicise about two or three sentences with more than one comma in them. Which of these commas is the Johannine Comma?-- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) ({{ ping}} me!) 17:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
In reading the article on the Johannine Comma, I couldn't help but notice an advocate of the King James Only movement, one Steven Avery Spencer from Queens NY (who can't read Greek or Latin, the two key languages of the source texts in question), has done a large amount of editing of information in this article.
His, frankly, biased and inaccurate editing of the article has made it very unbalanced and confusing for the uninformed reader.
Much research has come to light in the last few years which has not been included in this article. This includes Bible manuscripts, paratexts, and commentaries. There has also been new research into the context, manuscripts and background of the Patristic references portrayed as proof texts of the Comma, bringing to light evidence that has not been available until now.
Much of the editing by Steven Avery Spencer has added what can only be described as counterfactual information. Matt13weedhacker ( talk) 21:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
In the "Text" section there is the phrase "Erasmus omitted the text of the Johannine Comma from his first and second editions ..." but... did he? Or was the comma simply not included because it was made up at a later date. The entire contention surrounding the comma is that it was made up and doesn't appear until later. This phrasing makes it seem to be Erasmus' intention to leave them out, thus negating the basis of the conflict. Padillah ( talk) 17:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Greek text:καὶ τρεῖς (three) εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (witnesses) ἐν τῇ γῇ (in earth), τὸ Πνεῦμα (the Spirit), καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ (water), καὶ τὸ αἷμα (blood)· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς(three) εἰς τὸ ἕν(one) εἰσιν.
As you can see, in both Greek text above and the following Latin text, the phrase "in earth" is in the middle of a sentence. If Leo deliberately skipped verse 7, then there was no reason for him to quote verse 8 to delete "in earth". The only plausible explanation is that there is no "in earth" in verse 8. If verse 8 does not have "in earth," then Leo's text does not agree with the Textus Receptus, but agrees with the Critical Text.
Latin text: Et tres (three) sunt, qui testimonium (testimony) dant in terra (in earth): spiritus (the Spirit), et aqua (water), et sanguis (blood): et hi tres (three) unum (one) sunt.
Fanwumao ( talk) 04:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This is listed as including the comma in Latin, however when checking the work here https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A22778.0001.001?view=toc the JC does not appear nor a reference to 1 John 5, not in the main text nor notes. I suggest removing it from the list until it can shown to have referenced it. 2A00:23C8:1D07:B401:80CA:4965:237D:D6F3 ( talk) 14:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)