Talk:Johannine Comma

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)

"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)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121128093449/http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm to http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801102659/http://home.sprynet.com/~receptus/comma.htm to http://home.sprynet.com/~receptus/comma.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, see above Zarasophos (talk) 11:44, 18 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.

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)