Talk:Johannine Comma

Basic explanation

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)

Unclear which comma is the Johannine Comma

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)

- there are three versions presented, one in English, one in Latin, one in Greek - the italics show where the comma was interpolated at the end of verse 7 and the beginning of verse 8. - the "comma" is the interpolation, not the punctuation mark - Epinoia (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Epinoia: - Ah, that makes sense. I've added some clarification to the Text section; seems odd that a phrase with more than one comma would be referred to as a comma singular...--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 17:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: - thanks for your edit, but it may benefit from some tweaking. The first presentation in English is correct with the text in plain type and the comma in italics. The Latin version is all italics, even the non-comma parts. There are no italics in the Greek quote, except for the source, Novum Testamentum omne, but the other sources, the King James Version and Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, are not in italics. I tried to go in and fix it, but was unfamiliar with code you used to make the changes and ended up with a mess, so I am asking you to make the English, Latin and Greek quotes consistent - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Epinoia: - I used the templates {{em}} (which, per the documentation, "can be parsed and acted upon in customizable ways with style sheets, apps and text-to-speech screen readers"); it basically ensures screenreaders know which bit gets emphasised.

I'll go back and make them consistent; it's not a problem.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

- thanks - Epinoia (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

King James Onlyist's Counterfactual Information on the Comma Johanneum

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)

Did Erasmus omit

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)

Did the Greek text quoted by Pope Leo the Great have Comma Johannine

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)