Talk:Johannine Comma/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

ronhanish addition

The following was an addition placed in the other day that I removed. Clearly ronhanish is not particularly acquainted with Wiki page writing, and he began with his name:

"(ronhanish) The integrity of the scriptures appears to have been compromised to make an argument for the trinitarian view of God. For if this scripture of 1 John 5:7 is not a genuine part of the original scripture, there isn't much left to prove God is three, but there is much in the bible to prove that God (Spirit),John 4:24 became flesh (man),1 Timothy 3:16 to save His people from their sin, Mathew 1:18-23. This also answers the question of why the Apostles and disciples of the Bible only baptized in Jesus name(Acts 2:38,8:16, 10:48,19:6), and not in the trinitarian way from Rome. (Isa 9:6 KJV) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. And finally i believe we must all be reminded that scripture anointed by God was originally intended for us to find salvation, and so we must look at the evidence objectively."

Why did I remove this section ?

While I understand the point that ronhanish was trying to make, that issues of God manifesting in the flesh are different than Trinitarian issues, and consider it to be a point worth real consideration, the way it is above does not really fit into a discussion of the Comma Johanneum. (Is there a Wiki page that legitimately tries to show these questions ? Dunno, it is difficult, in my experience some of the better discussions are in the CARM doctrinal forum, but mixed in with a lot of nonsense too.) And ronhanish also gives personal conjecture from POV "appears to have been.." "if this.. is not". Such conjecturing is legitimate in discussion here, and can be fine in quoting sources, however it is very awkward as simply main page writing. It some ways it is similar to our deficient grammatical section, placing POV as the text.

How is what he did any different than what you've done? He expressed an opinion without substantiating it. So have you. You've claimed in the main article that the Johannine Comma is found in certain places, but you have not substantiated your claims either by quoting the materials in which you claim it is found or by providing links to those materials. You've simply made the claims, and the reader has to take your word for it. In my experience, that is typical of pro-Johannine-Comma people. They make their claims, and they cite each other in making those claims (the pro-Johannine-Comma rumor mill), but none of them actually quotes the actual materials regarding which they have made their claims. There is a very good reason for that. The reason is that if they actually quoted the actual materials, then the reader would see that their claims are false. 7Jim7 (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing (Original Location)

The topic Confusing was started in April 2013 but should have been placed at the bottom of the page where I have relocated it. Jpacobb (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Confusing

I couldn't find in the whole article that which should be in the intro, namely, *why* is there a debate around this issue: when did it arise, who claimed what, what was the 'consensus' before and after. I mean, I gather there is a verse which some believe is original and others believe is an interpolation. But why that verse in particular? What's the story of the controversy? Can someone correct that? Without that, it's pointless to even argue for one position or another. — Precedingunsigned comment added by88.157.194.238 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Though there are a lot of problems with the article, I think it states why there is a problem. From the time that Latin became the language of the western church until the 16th century, these verses were included in every Latin Bible. There was some debate in the 16th century when Greek texts were collated and printed on the printing press for the first time, though they eventually were included. These Greek texts formed the basis of every Bible translation into multiple languages until the late 19th century when the new field of textual criticism challenged whether they belonged. It has been an issue ever since, though the weight of scholarship is against them. Does that help?--Bob Caldwell CSL(talk) 18:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The verse is evidence for the existence of the Trinity ("there are three in heaven..."). The controversy is whether the verse was oroginal, or whether it was added much, much later, after the idea of the Trinity had been developed by Christian theologians. PiCo (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Confused mangling of this talk page

Some edit, somewhere, somehow, mangled the top of the talk page. I have inserted this heading and this comment simply to note the fact. If someone wishes to do some wiki-archaeology to do a better repair, they are welcome to try! --207.191.206.13 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary style

This article has been tagged as "too long" now for half a year. So WP:SUMMARY should be applied. It seems clear to me that the sections "Origins" and "Evidences" should be split off onto pages on their own: they are not really helping with the post-1500 debate. After that it might be easier to see what next. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Deleting of the Grammar Section on March 1, 2013

Someone identified as Jpacobb deleted the grammar section of this article on March 1, 2013, without any discussion. That person simply claimed original research and personal point of view without explaining why. That constitutes vandalism. I undid the deletion. The grammatical section compares the view of four experts in the Greek language and the view of three non-experts in the Greek language, and it quotes examples from the Greek New Testament to show why the four experts are right and the three non-experts are wrong. That is neither original research nor personal point of view. After undoing the deletion, I changed the several uppercase words to lowercase. The uppercase words were intended for emphasis, but they might have been seen simply as shouting, hence the change. 7Jim7 (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question flagged his or her intentions to delete at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Comma Johanneum/1. It certainly wasn't vandalism. StAnselm (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I restored the grammar section after Leszek Janczuk deleted it, again without explanation. I don't know who Jpacobb is. For all I know, Jpacobb could be Steven Avery under a different name. I don't know. I do know, however, that Leszek Janczuk is sympathetic to what Steven Avery has done to the Comma Johanneum article since October in 2012. Both Steven Avery and Leszek Janczuk are opposed to the grammar section because it proves, through the published statements of the experts (Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace) and through the corroborating examples from the Greek New Testament, that there is no grammatical requirement for the Johannine Comma. 7Jim7 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I am not Stephen Avery. More important, as the previous section shows, there has been a long and heated debate over the contents of this section. I am sorry that the short inline explanation of my reasons for deleting the section has been considered insufficient.

  1. OR: This is explained as follows by WP:OR "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Only three of the many paragraphs (17? apart from the biblical citations) contain references, therefore there are about 14 unsupported paragraphs. Furthermore, some paragraphs contain marked evaluation, for example: "Robert Dabney [144] and Edward Hills [145], who are NOT experts in the Greek language, later promote Nolan’s FALSE claim." At best, the references might support Dabney and Hills having promoted Nolan's thesis; but they do not support its evaluation as FALSE and almost certainly do not affirm that they themselves are not experts.
  2. POV: The lack of adequate reliable sources (as exemplified by the preceding example) means that the current section contains a lot of POV (see WP:YESPOV) and the extensive use of capitals is shouting and contrary to the Manual of Style

I hope this makes things clearer. Jpacobb (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Jpacobb is absoluttely right and here is not a good place for promotion for experts like Hills. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Here (below) is what has been said at the good article reassessment page for this article.

  • Delist - Wow, that is a serious stack of tags on the top of the article. They seem to be quite appropriate, too. The article is far too long, at 12375 words, it's over 2000 words above the recommended maximum article size. The lead, at one short paragraph, is nowhere near being sufficient for an article of this size (or even an article half this size). The article is far under-referenced. It attempts to give a blow-by-blow recitation of five centuries of dispute, rather than summarizing the arguments using reliable third-party sources. Way too many quotes, and a bunch of editorializing, especially in the final section (what is up with all of the capital letters there, by the way?). I think that 73 notes is the most I've ever seen in an article, and they include additional quotes, to the point that we may begin to be accused of copyright violations if any of these sources are not in the public domain. Quite a few ibids in the reference section, and at least one in the notes section, as is detailed by yet another tag, in the references section. Tl;dr version: Extensive trimming and reference work necessary before this article is even close to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist Fails 1a. & 1b. (lead section among others); 2c. (eg. final section = "The Grammar of I John 5:7" which is atrocious OR and I propose to delete); 3b. a lot of unnecessary detail; and probably 4. Neutrality – Arguing a case? I also agree with Dana boomer's comments. Jpacobb (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The material you deleted has now been restored. StAnselm (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I am the one who wrote the grammar section of the Comma Johanneum article, and I am the one who restored it. This is what I wrote on the talk page for that article. "Someone identified as Jpacobb deleted the grammar section of this article on March 1, 2013, without any discussion. That person simply claimed original research and personal point of view without explaining why. That constitutes vandalism. I undid the deletion. The grammatical section compares the view of four experts in the Greek language and the view of three non-experts in the Greek language, and it quotes examples from the Greek New Testament to show why the four experts are right and the three non-experts are wrong. That is neither original research nor personal point of view. After undoing the deletion, I changed the several uppercase words to lowercase. The uppercase words were intended for emphasis, but they might have been seen simply as shouting, hence the change." Since when do presenting the published views of people who are identified with a particular topic and quoting examples to show that the experts among those people really do know what they are talking about constitute original research and a personal point of view? As for the rest of the article, I had nothing to do with that. Those who think that the Comma is a Trinitarian addition instead of an original part of the text concede that the Comma was added to the Latin text after Augustine explained and endorsed the Trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD. Therefore, any references in that article to the Comma being quoted AFTER 427 AD do not help the view that the Comma is an original part of the text. Nevertheless, a large part of the volume of information that has been added to that article since October in 2012 refers to citations of the Comma AFTER 427 AD, which no one disputes, and which is not evidence that the Comma is an original part of the text. The goal of adding that large volume of information to that article since October in 2012 appears to be to impress on the reader through shear volume that maybe the Comma belongs in the text after all. 7Jim7 (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist Fails on multiple points. It is too long, has an improper lead section and overuses block quotes. Don4of4 [Talk] 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist OR and POV in the article. It is also too long. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I restored the grammar section after Leszek Janczuk deleted it, again without explanation. I don't know who Jpacobb is. For all I know, Jpacobb could be Steven Avery under a different name. I don't know. I do know, however, that Leszek Janczuk is sympathetic to what Steven Avery has done to the Comma Johanneum article since October in 2012. Both Steven Avery and Leszek Janczuk are opposed to the grammar section because it proves, through the published statements of the experts (Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace) and through the corroborating examples from the Greek New Testament, that there is no grammatical requirement for the Johannine Comma. 7Jim7 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This section is written in an uncyclopedic style. It is too detailed, almost unreferenced, some words are written in capital letters (e.g. ALL). You used formulas "ALL of whom are experts in the Greek language" and "who is not an expert in the Greek language". According to whom they are experts or not? For you Bengel and Bulgaris are experts. They lived in the 18th century. This section should be summarized. Daniel Wallace is enough. You do not need use Edward Hills. I am not sympathetic to what Steven Avery has done to the Comma Johanneum article since October in 2012. It will better if you will not guess. According to me we should restore this version and we can save GA status for the article. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Both Johann Bengel and Eugenius Bulgaris are identified in Wikipedia as experts in the Greek language. My footnote leads to a web page that links to a biography of Bulgaris, which corroborates that. Bulgaris was in fact a Greek. Frederick Nolan, the guy who invented the false grammatical argument favoring the Comma, acknowledged Eugenius Bulgaris as an expert in the Greek language in footnote 193 on page 257 in his 1815 book, where he falsely claimed that Bulgaris analyzed the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 the same way that he did. Either Nolan never actually read Bulgaris’ letter, or he read it, but he did not understand it, or he read it and understood and intentionally lied about, thinking that no one would ever challenge his false claim. John Oxlee is identified in Wikipedia as having been famous for being a linguist who was familiar with over 100 languages. You already know of Daniel Wallace. All of these experts in the Greek language expressed the same opinion regarding the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text and/or Critical Text and Majority Text, which refutes the false claim originated by Nolan and subsequently promoted by Robert Dabney and Edward Hills. The examples from the Greek New Testament corroborate the view of the four experts and refute the view of the three non-experts. The reason that you like the version of the article to which you provided a link, instead of the original version, is that it includes the 12 pro-Comma notes added by Steven Avery in 2011, because you yourself apparently are pro-Comma, which is why you deleted the grammar section. It is not my personal point of view, but an objective treatment of the grammar issue, that led me to write the grammar section, whereas it is not an objective treatment of the grammar issue, but your own person point of view, that led you to delete the grammar section in an attempt to suppress it. What you have said in your explanation for your deletion of the grammar section indicates to me that you never took the time to read the grammar section and the information to which the footnotes provide links, or you didn’t understand it, and yet you nevertheless deleted it simply because it contradicted your personal point of view. The primary complaint about the article is that it is too long. The original article was 3500 words. Then Steven Avery added 1500 words in 12 pro-Comma notes in 2011, which you liked. Then, in 2012, Steven Avery added 20,000 words (mostly pro-Comma), bringing the article to 25,000 words. But what part of all that did you decide to delete? Was it any of the pro-Comma parts in that massive 20,000 word increase? No. You decided to delete the part that objectively refuted the pro-Comma grammatical argument, which was less than 6% of the article, because it contradicted your personal point of view. 7Jim7 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for any detail. Wallace is enough. We do not need experts like Edward Hills. Aland never quoted Hills, Metzger only in footnotes. Why do you promote Hills? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC) And you are wrong I am not supporter of Comma Johanneum. Why do you think so? I'm the author of several printed articles against the Textus Receptus, Luther text and KJV. In my translation Comma was not included. I even do not support the Byzantine text-type (because of conflations). Your guesses are wrong (Jpacobb and Steven Avery are different users). The grammar section is not written in an encyclopedic style. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Probably we need earlier version with 3500 words. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You delete the grammar section, which refers to Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace as experts whose view of the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 refutes the view of the non-experts, Nolan, Dabney and Hills (although, for some reason, you seem to think that I have referred to Hills as an expert), because you say that it is too detailed, because it mentions too many names. Nevertheless, you not only allow but actually promote the version of the article that contains the 12 pro-Comma notes of Steven Avery, which (the 12 notes that you like) refer to Forster, Bengel, Gill, Burgess, Clement, Tertullian, Coxe, Augustine, Metzger, Brown, Hepokoski, Mace, Bugenhagen, Grotius, Hills, Nolan, Prisicillian Athansus, Origen, Cornwall, Fulgentius, Hales and Cyprian, because it is not too detailed, because it does not mention too many names? Do I have that straight? 7Jim7 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Because since October 2011 I lost my interest with this article. I did not read everything what Avery wrote. It was enough to write - according to contemporary scholars it is not authentic". Notes which refer to "Forster, Bengel, Gill, Burgess, Clement, Tertullian, Coxe, Augustine, Metzger, Brown, Hepokoski, Mace, Bugenhagen, Grotius, Hills, Nolan, Prisicillian Athansus, Origen, Cornwall, Fulgentius, Hales and Cyprian" are too detailed and we do not need them. Too much quotes. I've never read all of them. Let us restore version from September 2011. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Here (below) is what has been said at the good article reassessment page for this article.

Let me get this straight. You delete the grammar section, which refers to Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace as experts whose view of the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 refutes the view of the non-experts, Nolan, Dabney and Hills (although, for some reason, you seem to think that I have referred to Hills as an expert), because you say that it is too detailed, because it mentions too many names. Nevertheless, you not only allow but actually promote the version of the article that contains the 12 pro-Comma notes of Steven Avery, which (the 12 notes that you like) refer to Forster, Bengel, Gill, Burgess, Clement, Tertullian, Coxe, Augustine, Metzger, Brown, Hepokoski, Mace, Bugenhagen, Grotius, Hills, Nolan, Prisicillian Athansus, Origen, Cornwall, Fulgentius, Hales and Cyprian, because it is not too detailed, because it does not mention too many names? Do I have that straight? 7Jim7 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
We need grammar section, but not so detailed. It is almost unreferenced. There is some OR. It is correct OR, but it is still OR. I agree that Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace are experts, but we should prefer contemporary scholars, not from the 18th century. "seem to think that I have referred to Hills as an expert" - you quoted him in the main body of the article. You should publish your work in more professional places than wikipedia. But... let us return to this version, because it was much better, and start work again. I do not support work of Steven Avery's, as you wrongly think. Between October 2011 and January 2013 I was not active user on en-wiki. Stop your guesses. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You delete the grammar section, which refers to Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace as experts whose view of the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 refutes the view of the non-experts, Nolan, Dabney and Hills, because you say that it is too detailed, because it mentions too many names. Nevertheless, you NOW promote the original version of the article that does NOT contains the 12 pro-Comma notes of Steven Avery, which (the original article) refers to Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Wallace, Athnasius, Sabellius, Origen, Priscillian, Fulgentius, Augustine, Erasmus, Froben, Metzger, Newton, Jerome, Newcomb and others, because it is not too detailed, because it does not mention too many names. Do I have that straight? Also, let me get this straight. You do not want to retain anything that is cited in the grammar section of the article that has not been written in the present day, because, well, just because. Nevertheless, you want to retain whatever is cited in the other parts of the original article, regardless of when it was written, because, well, just because. Do I have that straight? 7Jim7 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
This section existed before October 2011 (unreferenced). It should be summarized. 12 pro-Comma notes have only a historical meanning and we do not need each one of them. We do not need so many quotes. It is not a book. Your work is OR in 70% (but correct). You can not write in a way "XXX is an expert" "YYY in not an expert". It will enough if you will not quote non-experts. Work of Avery is POV and it is even worse. He tried to quote every one, who supported the Comma in the past. Here is not a place for every one and everything. It is an encyclopedia. Or... it should be an encyclopedia. I suggest you to summarize your grammar section and delete all work of Avery. Of course your OR was correct, but here is no place even for correct OR. Perhaps I made a mistake that I did not verified this article after October 2011, but I really do not have time for everything. I just ignored this article, if you want to know, just like many other users. Two weeks ago one user from pl-wiki turned my attention to this article again. I know that in America there are a lot of supporters of the corrupt Textus Receptus and I tried to avoid edit wars, because I do not have time. On de-wiki and fr-wiki there is no problem with the Comma. We all agreed it is unauthentic reading. The oldest Greek manuscript is from the 14th century and only five or six Greek manuscripts from manu prima. It is a strong argument. Every reading younger then from the 5th century is not authentic. I guess you agreed with me. Why do we discuss this problem so detailed if we have 100% of assurance this reading is not authentic? It is not an academic work. Forget about your wrong guesses. The article should be written in a way of Metzger, Aland, and Wallace. Only important statements and important scholars should be quoted. If not, I will ignore this article again. I have much interesting thing to do. My New Testament manuscript articles are not changed by other users. It is surprising that this article still keep status of GA article. I wrote in September 2011 that it will lost this status, but I thought about period of 2-3 months. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I made some changes. I referenced the seven names. I removed the words "experts" and "non-experts." I made all the words lowercase, except for the articles in the examples. I kept the examples, because the examples explain why the opinion of Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace differs from the opinion on Nolan, Dabney and Hills. Your insistence that the published opinions regarding the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 be present-day is not reasonable. The grammatical issue originated with Nolan in 1815, and Nolan is the one who called attention to Bulgaris in 1780, and Bengel in 1742 is a contemporary of Bulgaris in 1780, and Oxlee in 1822 is a contemporary of Nolan in 1815. Dabney and Hills, who later promote Nolan's claim, are important because they are so frequently quoted by the present-day proponents of Nolan's grammatical claim. If the standard that you apply to the grammar section (with regard to citing only present-day authors) were applied to the rest of the article, then the entire article would have to be deleted. Just as there is a history to the Comma issue, likewise there is a history to the grammar issue. 7Jim7 (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I've also aded Herbert Smyth references as the basis for the explanation of the Greek grammar. 7Jim7 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments My first attempt to comment got lost in an edict conflict; please note:

  1. Much of the above should not appear on this page but rather on the article's talk-page where I shall deal in detail with my reasons for deleting the "Grammar Section"
  2. As stated above, I am not Stephen Avery.

Thanks. Jpacobb (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Could I just say that for someone with very little Greek, like myself, the arguments in the 'Grammar' section are quite hard to follow. While that is understandable, as the arguement is naturally going to be a bit technical, I think that the section would benifit from saying at the end why the things mentioned support that particular point of view, as at the moment it's rather hard to see what the actual significance of the points given is.130.216.68.90 (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


The grammar section is written for those who are already familiar with the grammatical argument that was first presented by Nolan in 1815. It would take too much space in the main article to explain Nolan’s argument to the satisfaction of anyone who never heard of Nolan’s argument.

Below are the two versions of 1 John 5:7-8 expressed in English instead of Greek. The bold print is the Johannine Comma, which appears in the Received Text Greek text version (on which the King James Version of the Bible is based), but not in the Majority Text or Critical Text Greek text version (on which most other versions of the Bible are based).

(Received Text) 1 John 5:7 Because three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness (M) [in the heaven, THE Father (M), THE Word and THE Holy Spirit, and these the three-ones one-thing they-are. 8 And three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness (M) on the earth], THE Spirit (N) and THE water and THE blood, and the three-ones for the one-thing they-are.

(Majority Text and Critical Text) 1 John 5:7 Because three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness (M), 8 THE Spirit (N) and THE water and THE blood, and the three-ones for the one-thing they-are.

Notice that “the-ones bearing-witness” before the bold print is masculine (M), and that “THE Father” in the bold print is masculine (M), and that “THE Spirit” after the bold print is neuter (N).

Nolan claims that the masculine (M) “the-ones bearing-witness” is required to agree in gender with the noun that follows it, and that the fact that the articular (preceded by an article) noun “THE Father” in the bold print is masculine (M) proves that the masculine (M) “the-ones bearing-witness” before the bold print and the masculine (M) “THE Father” in the bold print belong together, and that the author (John) therefore wrote the bold print.

Nolan further claims that the reason that the masculine (M) “the-ones bearing-witness” in the bold print is not neuter (N) in agreement with the neuter (N) articular noun “THE Spirit” after the bold print is that the masculine (M) “the-ones bearing-witness” in the bold print is attracted in gender to the masculine (M) “the-ones bearing-witness” before the bold print.

What Nolan either does not know or is hiding from his readers is that neither of his two claims is grammatically possible.

In order for “the-ones bearing-witness” to agree with a subsequent noun, the subsequent noun has to be anarthrous (not preceded by an article) instead of articular (preceded by an article), and “the-ones bearing-witness” has to agree with the subsequent anarthrous noun in number as well as in gender. That is, it has to function as an adjective modifying the subsequent noun or nouns and thus has to agree in case, number and gender (all three) with the first subsequent anarthrous noun.

Therefore, it would have to be written “the bearing-witness [singular masculine] in the heaven Father [singular masculine], Word and Holy Spirit” instead of “the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine] in the heaven, THE Father [singular masculine], THE Word and THE Holy Spirit.”

Also, there is no such thing in the Greek language as what Nolan claims to be gender attraction. Gender attraction in the Greek language is limited to a relative pronoun (who, which) or demonstrative pronoun (this, that, these, those) agreeing with the grammatical gender of a single noun (referring to the same thing to which the pronoun refers) that is either located side by side with the pronoun or connected to the pronoun by a linking verb (it-is, they-are, to-be).

“The-ones bearing-witness” functions as a substantive (either a noun or a word or phrase that functions in place of a noun), and as a substantive that is not preceded by a single antecedent noun, it has to agree with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed, either plural masculine for a person and things, because THE Spirit and THE water and THE blood are a person and two things, or plural masculine for the three persons who are symbolized by THE Spirit and THE water and THE blood.

The nouns in 1 John 5:7-8 are appositional nouns, which are nouns that are added as modifiers to a preceding substantive to provide additional information. Appositional nouns have to agree in grammatical case with the preceding substantive to which they are added, which they do in 1 John 5:7-8, but they do not have to agree in number with it, which they do not in 1 John 5:7-8, and they cannot agree in gender with it, because the gender of a noun (the appositional nouns) is predetermined by the grammatical gender of the noun, which never changes.

All of the experts in the Greek language (Bengel, Bulgaris, Knox and Wallace) understand that.

The non-experts in the Greek language (Nolan, Dabney and Hills) either do not understand it or are hiding it from their readers.

So that’s the explanation, which is lengthy, which is why it cannot be added to the grammar section in the article.

7Jim7 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

7Jim7 -- I'd just like to chime in and say (even though these comments are a year old) that the section is hard even for myself to follow, and I consider myself to be pretty well-educated and a literate person. What needs to be done is you need to collaborate with another user or two on the subject. I know that you are a good writer and clearly enjoy writing about the topic, however on wikipedia your style needs to be touched up in order to fit with the Manual of Style, and to make it readable for the general public. If you have questions as to why this is, take a look at a featured article. The formatting in your section alone would disqualify it as 'Good' or 'Featured' status. I'm not challenging the content or the sources in your section, just that the formatting is incorrect, the style isn't very good, and it needs quite a bit of work.
Personally I don't have time to make more than cursory edits, but if this section isn't cleaned up, I would agree that it should be nominated for deletion. In the context of the rest of this juggernaut of a page it sticks out, and even though you've cited sources for some things, most of it still reads and seems like WP:OR.
I will check back in a few days and if no progress has been made, I'm going to find an admin and get their opinion on deletion, and proceed with any changes. I think the content of this section is relevant to the debate -- HOWEVER in it's current form it is unencyclopaedic and cannot stand. /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus What'sup, dog? 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
In the grammar section, I state the fact that Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace disagree with Nolan (and Dabney and Hills, who parrot Nolan), and I explain their grammatical reasons for disagreeing with Nolan, and I provide examples in that explanation. The examples prove that Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace are right and that Nolan is wrong. It sounds to me (from your classification of the grammar section as original research) like you want the explanation and examples to be omitted. If the explanation and examples are retained, then when the reader wonders why Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace disagree with Nolan, the reason for the disagreement is ascertained from the explanation and the examples. If the explanation and examples are omitted, then when the reader wonders why Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace disagree with Nolan, the reason for the disagreement remains a mystery, in which case the reader doesn't know whether to believe Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxley and Wallace or whether to believe Nolan. Compare the Wikipedia article for Quantum Machine. The article explains how the quantum machine is presumed to work, and no one has complained about that explanation in that article. Some things require an explanation. In my opinion, the explanation and examples are necessary to the grammar section in the "Comma Johanneum" article so that the reader knows why Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace are right and Nolan is wrong. As for the wording of the grammar section, I think that it is not as bad as you claim. Any description or explanation is tedious to someone that is not interested in the subject matter. The grammar section is not intended for the average reader. It is intended for the reader that is interested in the grammar. The fact that you find the grammar section tedious tells me that you're not interested enough in the grammar to slowly and carefully read each sentence in the grammar section. Anyone that is looking for a fun read is not going to find it in the grammar section. Anyone that is looking for information regarding the grammar is going to find it in the grammar section. Most people find a calculus book to be incredibly boring, and such people are likely to think that the book is poorly written. However, the reason that they are bored is not that the calculus book is poorly written, but that the subject matter is not interesting to them. All the rewrites in the world are not going to make a calculus book less boring or less difficult to follow for someone that is not interested in calculus. Likewise, rewriting the grammar section in this article is not going to make the grammar section less boring or less difficult to follow for any reader that is not interested in the grammar. 7Jim7 (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
In response to the grammar section being hard to follow, the short version is this. An article-adjective or article-participle phrase can function either as an adjective or as a substantive. If the subsequent noun (or nouns) is anarthrous (not preceded by an article), then the preceding article-adjective or article-participle phrase functions as an adjective that modifies the subsequent noun (or nouns) and agrees in case, number and gender (all three) with the subsequent anarthrous noun (if there is one noun) or with the first subsequent anarthrous noun (if there are multiple nouns). If the subsequent noun (or nouns) is articular (preceded by an article), then the preceding article-adjective or article-participle phrase functions as substantive and agrees with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed (neuter for things, or masculine for persons, or masculine for a person and things), the subsequent articular noun (or nouns) being appositional (added for clarification). It is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE for an article-adjective or article-participle phrase to agree with a subsequent ARTICULAR noun. Therefore, when Nolan, Dabney and Hills, who have no credentials regarding Greek grammar, claim that each article-participle phrase in 1 John 5:7-8 (in which the subsequent nouns are ARTICULAR) is required to agree with the first subsequent ARTICULAR noun, they are making a grammatically IMPOSSIBLE claim. In contrast, when Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace, who are up to their eyeballs in credentials regarding Greek grammar, agree that each article-participle phrase in 1 John 5:7-8 (in which the subsequent nouns are ARTICULAR) is required to (and does) agree with the NATURAL gender of the idea being expressed, they are CORRECT. 7Jim7 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This thread has got so long that it is almost unintelligible. In view of Aurelius Decomus' recent comment, I am restarting this topic in a new section below. Jpacobb (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the grammar section in the main article. Although it still contains examples, it is shorter and easier to read. 7Jim7 (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete Grammar Section?

This section fails several criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

  1. User:AirCombat (aka Aurelius Decimus) is quite correct in asserting that it is "unencyclopedic". Encyclopedias provide summary information for the general reader. (See WP:NOTEVERYTHING) Interestingly User:7Jim7 defines the purpose of the section as follows: "The grammar section is written for those who are already familiar with the grammatical argument that was first presented by Nolan in 1815" (see here). This is outside the scope of Wikipedia.
  2. As stated several times in the previous thread, the section contains significant WP:OR, notably the unsourced conclusions of the final two paragraphs.

The Renaissance revived the study of ancient classical Greek, and it did not require an expert to observe that the Greek of the New Testament was not identical with the language used ... in the fifth and fourth centuries before Christ, differences were observed in vocabulary, syntax and style ... Furthermore the New Testament idiom differed from such first century authors as Diodorus, Strabo and Plutarch, and even the Jewish authors Josephus and Philo. We now know that as men of culture, they were attempting to conform to the anciant classical idiom. ... ... in the decades following 1890 when for the first time archeology brought to light masses of papyri containing first century non-literary Greek. ... It was soon recognised that this colloquial non-literary, koine or common language, provided the basic idiom for the New Testament. For the first time biblical scholars attained a scientific understanding of the true nature of the language of the New Testament.

  1. It also fails the reliable source test The experts appealed must have been experts in classical Greek since they wrote before the discovery of any other documents apart from the New Testament which were written in "koine" Greek (the everyday Greek of the first century AD) Since this is a key point I include a box with excerpts from The New Testament and Criticism by George Eldon Ladd (Hodder & Stoughton 1970 p.86f) which substantiate my claim.

I should also add that the purpose of the section is unclear. Whatever its purpose, nothing short of a total rewrite will justify the inclusion of this material in the article

Jpacobb (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I’ve (7Jim7) already said what I have to say on the matter in response to Aurelius Decimus in the talk section above (The Deleting of the Grammar Section on March 1, 2013) dated 09:58, 23 May 2014 (move the scroll bar on the right about one inch up). As for the claim of Jpacobb that what is discussed in the grammar section (The grammar in 1 John 5:7-8) in the main article (Comma Johanneum) does not apply to Koine Greek, but only to Classical Greek, that claim is nonsense. The corroborating examples in the grammar section in the main article are from the Greek New Testament (Koine Greek), not from Classical Greek. That is why the examples in the grammar section are so important. They are the proof of how the grammar works, and they are the proof that what is stated by Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace is correct and that what is stated by Nolan, Dabney and Hills is incorrect. The difference in grammar between Classical Greek and Koine Greek is that Koine Greek uses explicit prepositions more than Classical Greek does and that Koine Greek uses the subjunctive verb tense more and the optative verb tense less. Other than that, the grammar (as opposed to the vocabulary) is the same. Johann Bengel wrote his own Greek New Testament. Eugenius Bulgaris was an expert in all forms of Greek (Classical, Koine and Modern). John Oxlee wrote as an expert in New Testament Greek, as did Daniel Wallace. In contrast, the things that are written by Nolan, Dabney and Hills are so contrary to what actually occurs either in the Greek New Testament (as shown in the examples in the grammar section in the main article) or in Classical Greek that they prove themselves to be absolute frauds with regard Greek grammar. The claims being made by Jpacobb should be proof enough for Aurelius Decimus that the grammar section in the main article (including the examples) is a necessary section in order to avoid the kind of confusion being dispensed by Jpacobb. 7Jim7 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I considered replying in details to 7Jim7's comments but, on reflection, consider this is a secondary trail. The fundamental question to be answered is: Is the section worth including in this article?. This has to be answered on two levels. First, the specific subject of the section must be explained and shown to be encyclopedic. Secondly, the handling of the material presented must comply with Wikipedia's standards. With regards to point one, the section should begin with an explanation of why the grammar of these verses is significant. As the section stands, it appears to be an essay on a point of Greek grammar which bears little relation to the central interest of the article as a whole, that is whether the C.J. is genuine or not. As an essay on a relatively trivial tehnical point, it lies outside the scope of Wikipedia (see "Not everything)". With regard to the handling of the material, I reiterate that it fails various standards set by Wikipedia as indicated by editors above and do not see that it is worth trying to rework it since the section is not relevant for Wikipedia. I therefore propose the section be deleted. Jpacobb (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
"Johann Bengel,[132] Eugenius Bulgaris,[133] John Oxlee [134] and Daniel Wallace [135] STATE THAT THE ARTICULAR (PRECEDED BY AN ARTICLE) PARTICIPLE οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) preceding the three articular nouns ΤΟ πνευμα και ΤΟ υδωρ και ΤΟ αιμα (THE Spirit [or spirit] and THE water and THE blood) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text and in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text functions as a substantive and that it therefore MUST (AND DOES) AGREE WITH THE NATURAL NUMBER AND GENDER (PLURAL MASCULINE) OF THE IDEA BEING EXPRESSED (persons because the Spirit [or spirit] and the water and the blood symbolize three persons [personification]), although they do not all agree on the identity of the three persons that are symbolized by those three nouns. IN CONTRAST, FREDERICK NOLAN [136] iIS THE FIRST PERSON TO CLAIM THAT THE ARTICULAR PARTICIPLE οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text and in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text functions as an adjective that modifies the three subsequent articular nouns ΤΟ πνευμα και ΤΟ υδωρ και ΤΟ αιμα (THE Spirit [or spirit] and THE water and THE blood) and that it therefore MUST (BUT DOES NOT) AGREE WITH THE GRAMMATICAL GENDER (NEUTER) OF THE FIRST SUBSEQUENT ARTICULAR NOUN ΤΟ πνευμα (THE Spirit [or spirit]). NOLAN CLAIMS that the reason that this does not occur in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is THAT THE ARTICULAR PARTICIPLE οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) IN 1 JOHN 5:8 in the Received Text IS ATTRACTED IN GENDER TO THE ARTICULAR PARTICIPLE οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) IN 1 JOHN 5:7 in the Received Text, AND THAT THIS PROVES THAT JOHN WROTE 1 JOHN 5:7 IN THE RECEIVED TEXT. NOLAN CLAIMS that the reason that this does not occur in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text or Majority Text is THAT THE ARTICULAR PARTICIPLE οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) IN 1 JOHN 5:7 IN THE CRITICAL TEXT AND MAJORITY TEXT AGREES WITH THE GRAMMATICAL GENDER (MASCULINE) OF THE FIRST SUBSEQUENT ARTICULAR NOUN ο πατηρ (the Father) IN THE ABSENT JOHANNINE COMMA, AND THAT THIS PROVES THAT JOHN WROTE THE JOHANNINE COMMA."
That is what the grammar section in the main article says. It says that Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace agree that the text is grammatically correct either with or without the Johannine Comma, and that Nolan claims that the text is grammatically incorrect without the Johannine Comma and that the grammatical incorrectness of the text (according to Nolan) is proof that John wrote the Johannine Comma. The grammar section then shows that what Nolan says is grammatically IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore, the grammatical section is important to the article. 7Jim7 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the grammar section in the main article. Although it still contains examples, it is shorter and easier to read. 7Jim7 (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the long delay in respondng, but I wanted to see if anyone would come along and clean it up. For the second time now, 7Jim7, you seem to be completely unaware of Wikipedia's Manual of Style - WP:MOS. PLEASE go read it. Even after your corrections, your section is clearly still a candidate for deletion. It's now been sitting there for over four months as is, and is still an eyesore on a page that is itself mostly an eyesore currently. I know that you've worked hard on your research and writing of this section, but you don't seem to get that we're not arguing with your citations (which I haven't checked yet) but that your writing style is unencyclopaedic, completely, and furthermore, you seem to be writing about a topic that is hotly debated, and which you clearly take a firm stance on.
Example: "In my experience, that is typical of pro-Johannine-Comma people. They make their claims, and they cite each other in making those claims (the pro-Johannine-Comma rumor mill), but none of them actually quotes the actual materials regarding which they have made their claims. There is a very good reason for that. The reason is that if they actually quoted the actual materials, then the reader would see that their claims are false."
That reads very, very biased. I have no idea if there's a 'right' or 'wrong' side, all I know is that BOTH sides deserve equal share in the article; Wikipedia is NOT a forum for debate; and writing about something in which you have a personal stake or interest goes against the rules of Wikipedia. If you are directly involved with this debate outside of Wikipedia, you need to declare those conflicts of interest here. Your entire section reads like an argument against the Johannine Comma, now that I re-read it.
PLEASE, for the last time, clean up the section, declare your biases, or I will find an admin to delete the section. They will almost certainly agree that it is unencyclopaedic, much of it reads like WP:OR, and it needs to be re-written so as not to be biased and/or original research.
If you don't bother to go read the Manual of Style, at least absorb this one sentence: Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus What'sup, dog? 21:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Aurelius Decimus:
“Example: ‘In my experience, that is typical of pro-Johannine-Comma people. They make their claims, and they cite each other in making those claims (the pro-Johannine-Comma rumor mill), but none of them actually quotes the actual materials regarding which they have made their claims. There is a very good reason for that. The reason is that if they actually quoted the actual materials, then the reader would see that their claims are false.’ That reads very, very biased. I have no idea if there's a 'right' or 'wrong' side. All I know is that BOTH sides deserve equal share in the article; Wikipedia is NOT a forum for debate; and writing about something in which you have a personal stake or interest goes against the rules of Wikipedia.”
7Jim7:
I was responding to the pro-Johannine-Comma view, which has been presented by Steven Avery in the article. Further, I was responding to something that was said in the Talk Section by a pro-Johannine-Comma person. Between what Steven Avery has presented in the article (the pro-Johannine-Comma view) and what the original author of the article and I have presented in the article (the anti-Johannine-Comma view), the current version of the article presents BOTH sides of the subject. Therefore, doesn’t the current version of the article do exactly what you say it should do? As you said, “BOTH sides deserve equal share in the article.” Well, the current version of the article, as offensive as it may be to you, DOES present BOTH sides. As for the original version of the article, which all of the critics of the current version seem to like, that original version was VERY one sided. Therefore, I really don’t understand what the critics of the current version of the article are talking about when they praise the original version of the article (which was VERY one-sided) for being encyclopedic (objective) and condemn the current version of the article (which presents BOTH sides) for NOT being encyclopedia (objective).
The FIRST HALF of the GRAMMAR SECTION of the article says, “In 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text, we see the words ‘the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine] in the heaven, THE Father [singular masculine], THE Word and THE Holy Spirit … the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine] on the earth, THE Spirit [singular neuter] and THE water and THE blood.’ Note: The words in bold print are the words of the Johannine Comma. In 1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text, we see the words ‘the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine], THE Spirit [singular neuter] and THE water and THE blood.’ Johann Bengel,[132] Eugenius Bulgaris,[133] John Oxlee [134] and Daniel Wallace,[135] who are highly credentialed in the study of the Greek language, say that each plural masculine article-participle phrase ‘the-ones bearing-witness’ in 1 John 5:7-8 is a substantive and therefore must (and does) agree with the natural number and gender (plural masculine) of the idea being expressed (persons), and that the three subsequent articular (preceded by an article) nouns in each instance are appositional (added for clarification) nouns, and that the article-participle phrase ‘the-ones bearing-witness’ is either plural masculine for persons because the three subsequent appositional articular nouns ‘THE Father, THE Word and THE Holy Spirit’ are three persons or plural masculine for persons because the three subsequent appositional articular nouns ‘THE Spirit and THE water and THE blood’ symbolize three persons, although Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace do not all agree on the identity of the three persons that are symbolized by ‘THE Spirit and THE water and THE blood.’ Frederick Nolan [136] (and Robert Dabney [137] and Edward Hills,[138] who repeat what Nolan says), who is not highly credentialed in the study of the Greek language, claims that each plural masculine article-participle phrase ‘the-ones bearing-witness’ in 1 John 5:7-8 is an adjective that modifies the three subsequent articular nouns, and that it therefore must (according to Nolan) agree with the grammatical gender of the first subsequent articular noun in each instance. Nolan claims that the masculine gender of each article-participle phrase ‘the-ones bearing-witness’ in 1 John 5:7-8 has to be based on the masculine grammatical gender of the grammatically masculine articular noun ‘the Father’ in the Johannine Comma, and that since there is no grammatically masculine noun in 1 John 5:7-8 when the Johannine Comma is not included in the text, therefore the masculine gender of each article-participle phrase ‘the-ones bearing-witness’ in 1 John 5:7-8 is proof that John wrote the Johannine Comma.”
The SECOND HALF of the GRAMMAR SECTION of the article says, “The problem with Nolan’s claim, other than the fact that it is contrary to what Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace say, is that it is grammatically impossible, because the only way that an article-adjective or article-participle phrase can agree with the grammatical gender of a subsequent noun is to function as an adjective that modifies the subsequent noun (or nouns), and in order for that to occur, the subsequent noun (or nouns) must be anarthrous (not preceded by an article), and the article-adjective or article-participle phrase must agree in case, number and gender (all three) with the subsequent anarthrous noun (if there is one noun) or with the first subsequent anarthrous noun (if there are multiple nouns), as in the following examples.(Received Text) John 6:57 … the living [nominative singular masculine] Father [nominative singular masculine] … (Received Text) 1 Timothy 1:11 … the blessed [genitive singular masculine] God [genitive singular masculine] … (Received Text) Titus 2:13 … the blessed [accusative singular feminine] hope [accusative singular feminine] and appearance [accusative singular feminine] … Compare: (Received Text) Revelation 6:14 … every [nominative singular neuter] mountain [nominative singular neuter] and island [nominative singular feminine] … In 1 John 5:7-8, since the subsequent nouns are always articular, and since the nominative plural masculine article-participle phrase “the-ones bearing-witness” never agrees in case, number and gender (all three) with the first subsequent articular noun (either the nominative singular masculine articular noun ‘the Father’ or the nominative singular neuter articular noun ‘the Spirit’), therefore the article-participle phrase “the-ones bearing-witness” has to be a substantive in each instance, and it has to agree with the natural number and gender (plural masculine) of the idea being expressed (persons) in each instance, as stated by Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace. Here are all of the New Testament examples of an article-adjective or article-participle or adjective-article phrase functioning as a substantive, and therefore agreeing with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed, and being followed by three appositional articular nouns. (Received Text) Matthew 23:23 … the-things weightier [plural neuter for things] of-the Law, THE judgment [singular feminine] and THE mercy and THE faith … (Received Text) 1 John 2:16 … every the-thing [singular neuter for things] in the world, THE lust [singular feminine] of-the flesh and THE lust of-the eyes and THE pride of-the life … (Received Text) 1 John 5:7 … the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine for persons] in the heaven, THE Father [singular masculine], THE Word and THE Holy Spirit … 8 … the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine for persons (symbolically)] on the earth, THE Spirit [singular neuter] and THE water and THE blood … (Critical Text and Majority Text) 1 John 5:7 … the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine for persons (symbolically)], 8 THE Spirit [singular neuter] and THE water and THE blood … The same thing occurs in all of those grammatically correct examples.”
I can see how you would object to the second half of the grammar section, which explains how the grammar works, providing examples in support of the explanation. Everything that is said in the second half of the grammar section is correct. But you say that it is not encyclopedic (objective). Well, how about this. What if I didn’t say anything in the second half of the grammar section and merely presented the examples (without any explanation). Perhaps the examples by themselves would be enough for at least some of the readers of the article to see how the grammar works. Would that be acceptable?
As for the first half of the grammar section, I am merely stating what is written in 1 John 5:7-8, and what Bengel, Bularis, Oxlee and Wallace, who are actually credentialed in the study of the Greek language, say about it, and what Nolan, Dabney and Hills, who are NOT actually credentialed in the study of the Greek language, say about it. Although the wording of the first half of the grammar section may be difficult to read, it is certainly encyclopedic (objective), because it merely states the facts of what is written in 1 John 5:7-8 and of what those seven persons say about it. 7Jim7 (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I changed the grammar section in the manner described above. Is that acceptable to you? 7Jim7 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...!

This article is unintelligible to the lay reader! It needs serious pruning.

It used to be a "Good Article", which is a high accolade and reward to achieve. It has lost this status. This massive downgrading is, sadly, a correct judgement because it has massively deteriorated over the years. It seems to have become a brain-dump of knowledge, but lost its ability to communicate that knowledge. What is the point of information if it can't be communicated? Its increased entropy reduces it to mere white noise.

I propose a rewind to something like this version: [1].

Any thoughts?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Any objections to the above proposal? Any alternative suggestions? Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't say I see a proposal to object to. The pruning, as with other changes, can be seen as improvements (or otherwise) depending on what they are specifically. I would suggest you do some editing to take the article in the direction you see as positive and see what the editing community thinks. Evensteven (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
If you revert to the previous version that you suggested, which presents only the anti-Johannine-Comma view, then the pro-Johannine-Comma view, which occupies more than 50% of the current version, will be removed, and then the person that added that pro-Johannine-Comma material will say that the article is no longer objective, and he may even accuse the person that removed it of vandalism. 7Jim7 (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree with User:Feline Hymnic's initial comments. The rewind seems a good point to start the necessary rebuild but I suggest that it would be wiser to open a subpage of this one; put the rewind on it, and then do some work to meet obvious objections and to eliminate weaknesses (e.g. the section on Erasmus is bloated and bits should be transferred to the main article if not there). It might also be worth working on the lead section so that it clearly indicates the structure of the improved new article. A rewind of this type is liable to result in a lot of hurried and ill-considered edits and might well lead back to something like the current article in the absence of well-thought-out improvements which can be quickly incorporated. It might be worth creating more specialist pages to hold some of the details of the patristic evidence which at present overloads the article space but some editors would want to retain. — Jpacobb (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This seems reasonable in intent, but let's not let the subpages idea become too elaborate. It seems good to me that we retain most editing history in the main article. We could also devote a talk page section to each major change proposal, with a subsection for discussion of that change, and when the primary framework has been worked out, integrate it into the article, with further refinements handled in the ordinary way. I agree we want to avoid "hurried and ill-considered edits", and it's not particularly helpful to readers to have to see all the process while change is happening. Whatever we do, let's just be orderly and thoughtful, and try to break the whole into manageable subtasks. Evensteven (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

The article is almost totally incomprehensible. Most confusingly, it says clearly that the coma in question is in bold type. But then there are no commas in bold type except as part of a long section in bold with many commas. So which comma is it? It is not for me to do this, but I think it would be better to junk the lot and start again. it reads like a parody of nonsense verse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.228.207 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 9 January 2015

Please see the article Comma (rhetoric) which is wikilinked from the word "comma" in the lede paragraph. A comma is a short phrase, as explained in the lede paragraph. The whole bolded text is the short phrase, or comma, in question. Elizium23 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerning The appositional nouns (πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον in 1 John 5:7)

You have πνεμα and αγιον backward. Of the first 3 nouns πατηρ, λογος, and αγιον are masculine, while pneuma certainly isn't. So there are 3 things there becoming the one thing.

The phrase πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον is how it is written in Minuscule 61 (Codex Montfortianus), because it is a Greek translation of the phrase pater verbum et spiritus sanctus in the Latin text, because that manuscript (61) is a Greek translation of a Latin manuscript. Erasmus changed it to ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα, which is the Greek style, when he added the Johannine Comma to his 1522 Greek New Testament. αγιον is an adjective that modifies the noun πνευμα. The adjective αγιον is nominative singular neuter and accusative singular neuter and accusative singular masculine. It can modify a substantive in any of those three configurations.
7Jim7 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt the "greek style" was in the first revision, but I do wonder if Erasmus had it right when he "forgot" greek articles. It is also difficult to tell if Von Soden was sloppy with this verse in his apparatus; which is known by even the people who use it to have errors. It is written in there samely, though I can't understand his manuscript notes.207.191.204.204 (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you make a slip, saying, "the first 3 nouns πατηρ, λογος, and αγιον are masculine, . . . ," since αγιον is an adjective? And why are you asserting that αγιον is masculine instead of neuter? (EnochBethany (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC))

No Punctuation Should Be Quoted if not in Original Manuscript

I have deleted the punctuation and indentation from the quote:

""As John says and there are three which give testimony on earth the water the flesh the blood
and these three are in one
and there are three which give testimony in heaven
the Father the Word, and the Spirit
and these three are one in Christ Jesus'"
If the original Latin has little or no punctuation, it is misleading to put it & also misleading to put capital letters where there were none in the original. Note that the punctuation is a critical issue. With no punctuation in the original, modern editions of classics rightly only capitalize the start of quotes and use not quote marks, so that the reader can judge for himself where the end of the quote is, the original having no such indication. I could not find a photocopy of this Latin manuscript, but I did locate what looks like a reliable secondary source that gives mostly uncapitalized Latin & only 1 comma. Thus it might be intepreted as follows,
"As John says, "And there are three which give testimony on earth the water the flesh the blood and these three are in one."
[As Priscillian goes on to comment on 1 John, Priscillian comments:]
And there are three which give testimony in heaven: the Father the Word, and the Spirit. And these three are one in Christ Jesus.
I think we must leave open the possibility that in Priscillian, the Trinitarian statement is his expansion on 1 John. Priscillian apparently does not formally tell us where the quote stops and where his comments begin. Perhaps he would not have thought that necessary since his readers had a copy of 1 John and would know. The original manuscript in Latin requires examination here. (EnochBethany (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC))
Footnote 42 says that the English translation is a quote from a book. If the English translation is a quote, then the quote (including the punctuation of the quote) deserves to be enclosed in quotations marks, regardless of whether or not anyone thinks that the quoted English translation (including the puncuation of the quoted English translated) is accurate. Saying that an English translation should not have punctuation if the Latin does not have punctuation is like saying that an English translation should not have English words if the Latin does not have English words. 7Jim7 (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It is proper to change a quote as is often done by using ellipses and brackets to clarify the quote, so long as it is stated what the changes are (as in "[emphasis mine]" when what an author says is quoted, but the quoter makes some words bold which are not bold in the text quoted. In this case, the punctuation is crucial to deciding what is supposedly a quote of 1 John by Priscillian and what is Priscillian's comments on that quote. The English quote here is given not to verify what the modern English translation says, but to establish whether or not Priscillian knew of the Comma. Thus deletion of the punctuation is quite in order so long as it is stated that it is omitted. The issue is not the use of quote marks around the entire English quote, but the use of internal quote marks around the alleged internal quotation of 1 John, as Priscillian did not use any quote marks, and to quote him as using quote marks is misleading. At that point, the English translation is not a reliable source of what Priscillian wrote. (EnochBethany (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC))
Footnote 42 says this.
Liber Apologetics given in Maynard p. 39 "The quote as given by A. E. (Alan England) Brooke from (Georg) Schepps, Vienna Corpus, xviii. The Latin is 'Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, verbum et spiritus; et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.'"
That is consistent with what is seen on page 158 in Brooke’s 1912 book, where Brooke appears to be quoting Schepps quotation of Priscillian’s Latin text.
https://archive.org/stream/criticalexegetic43broouoft#page/158/mode/2up
Schepps’ quotation of the Latin text includes punctuation. If Schepp’s quotation of the Latin text includes punctuation, then why are you criticizing the punctuation in the English translation of that Latin text?
I’ve never seen the original Latin text (the manuscript) of Priscillian. Have you? Even though punctuation may not have been widely used in his day (the 4th century), punctuation did exist back then. Jerome’s original Vulgate contained punctuation (according to what I’ve read, and according to the images that I’ve seen), and Jerome began writing his Vulgate about the same time that Priscillian’s Latin text was written.
If the translator’s puncuation in the English translation of the Latin text cannot be trusted, then the translator’s English words in that translation cannot be trusted either, in which case no English translation of any Latin text (or Greek text) can be trusted.
According to your reasoning, none of the English versions of the New Testament should have any punctuation, because the first century Greek text did not have punctuation.
At the beginning of the Comma Johanneum article, the English translation of 1 John 5:7-8 contains punctuation. Why don’t you remove that punctuation as well?
Why don’t you remove the punctuation from the English translations of the words of Clement of Alexandria and of Tertullian and of Cyprian in the article while you’re at it?
If you do that, then you will be guilty of further vandalizing the article, just as you are already guilty of having vandalized the article by removing the puncuation from the quotation of an English translation of Priscillian’s Latin text. 7Jim7 (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
In the Comma Johanneum article, the quoted (from Maynard’s book) English translation originally (before EnochBethany removed the punctuation) said this.
"As John says, 'and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.'"
In footnote 42, Brooke’s quotation of Schepps’ quotation of the Latin text, on which the above quoted English translation is based, says this.
“Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, verbum et spiritus; et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.”
The above quoted English translation of the above quoted Latin text should be returned to its original punctuated form. 7Jim7 (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comma Johanneum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comma Johanneum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious Citation

The opening summary includes a citation dated to 1809, referring to the first instance of the Comma Johanneum that is apparently obsolete, based on the Erasmus article where the Comma Johanneum is mentioned, pointing to a significantly earlier date. While yes, the 1809 is referenced, a clarification is needed, because research from 1809 is generally questionable, especially if newer research categorically challenges it... At some point this issue needs to be updated and referenced. Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum → Johannine Comma – 'Johannine Comma' is the most common English name given to this passage in recent scholarship written for a broad audience, for example:

  • Houghton, H. A. G. (2016). The Latin New Testament: a guide to its early history, texts, and manuscripts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 178–179. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744733.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-874473-3.
  • Levine, Joseph M. (1997). "Erasmus and the Problem of the Johannine Comma". Journal of the History of Ideas. 58 (4): 573–596. doi:10.2307/3653961. ISSN 0022-5037. JSTOR 3653961.
  • McDonald, Grantley (2016). Biblical criticism in early modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine comma, and Trinitarian debate. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316408964. ISBN 978-1-107-12536-0.

The Latin appellation Comma Johanneum is by no means obsolete, but tends to be used in more specialist contexts or for readers accustomed to other languages. AndrewNJ (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"the King-James-Only Movement, a largely Protestant development"

The King-James-Only" article does not indicate anyone other than Protestants involved in this. Is "largely" misleading? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. The issue of the Johannine Comma goes way beyond the KJO movement. Those types of references are generally politicized from the pro and con of the KJB movement. Reformation and Confessional supporters, overseas Lutherans like Pieper, Greek Orthodox, Catholics and various others support the verse. There should be at most one reference to the "KJV-only" support. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Length

Article is very long. Seems more like a scholarly paper than an encylopedia entry. I'll be honest, I didn't get all the way through it. But for those who were excited enough to put together this topic, could perhaps parts be united and some of the many separate texts be removed, and still get the main details across? Thanks much! JeopardyTempest (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Oye, apologies on editing other's comments when I posted this. I'd been trying out an obscene language filter. I'd already noticed it'd been filtering all kinds of things that didn't make sense, but hadn't followed through to completion the reality that it would also cause further issues in situations like these. Suffice to say, it's not being used any longer

JeopardyTempest (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The article is too long and technical. See Wikipedia:Article size which says "> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided". Right now the article is well above that.
It also does not get to the bottomline in the introduction. Is the comma included in most current Bibles, or excluded? That should be answered in the first paragraph.
See also Wikipedia:Too much detail and Wikipedia:Fancruft --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is (explicitly) its length. It is that there's no clear summary in expected areas of the article that make it clear that "here is the text that changed" and "here is the essence of why that change is interesting and worthy of scholarly debate." Instead it only seems to talk about when the text changed, while taking for granted that readers would already know what the text and backstory is. Crazytonyi (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

All I wanted to know was what the Johannine Comma was. And after visiting this page I still have no idea. This article covers the original Greek and Latin... but not why the comma matters. What if we started with that?

"The Johannine Comma is an additional comma included in this verse [...]. It was a source of conflict between the early Protestant and Catholic church because it offers two different interpretations of the Trinity. The Trinity is important because [...]. If the Johannine Comma is included in the early texts, as the Catholics(?) argued, then the Trinity is perhaps properly thought of as [...]. Whereas if the original manuscripts didn't include the comma, Protestants argued that meant the Trinity is more like [...]." Cnrmck (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johannine_Comma/Archive_4&oldid=1216533166"