Monday, 24 January 2011

Comma Johanneum

The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) contained in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source for translation. In translations containing the clause, such as the King James Version, reads as follows (with the Comma in bold print):

:5:7 "For there are three that bear record 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.'' :5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

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

It does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by many of the early Church Fathers. The words apparently crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages, "[possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist. Erasmus omitted them from his first edition; but when a storm of protest arose because the omission seemed to threaten the doctrine of the Trinity (although that doctrine had in fact been formulated long before the textual variant), he put them back in the third and later editions, whence they also came into the textus receptus, 'the received text'." Modern Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and others tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes. The official Latin text of the Catholic Church (a revision of the Vulgate) also excludes it.

Origins

including 1 John 5:7–9. It lacks the Comma Johanneum. The purple-coloured text says: "There are three witness bearers, the Spirit and the water and the blood".]]

Several early sources which one might expect to include the Comma Johanneum in fact omit it. For example, although Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) places a strong emphasis on the Trinity, his quotation of 1 John 5:8 does not include the Comma. Tertullian, in his Against Praxeas (c. 210), supports a Trinitarian view by quoting John 10:30, even though the Comma would have provided stronger support. Likewise, Jerome's writings of the fourth century give no evidence that he was aware of the Comma's existence. (The Codex Fuldensis, a copy of the Vulgate made around 546, contains a copy of Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Gospels which seems to reference the Comma, but the Codex's version of 1 John omits it, which has led many to believe that the Prologue's reference is spurious.)

The earliest reference to what might be the Comma appears by the 3rd-century Church father Cyprian (died 258), who in Treatise I section 6 quoted John 10:30 against heretics who denied the Trinity and added: "Again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'" Daniel B. Wallace notes that although Cyprian uses 1 John to argue for the Trinity, he appeals to this as an allusion via the three witnesses—"written of"—rather than by quoting a proof-text—"written that". In noting this, Wallace is following the current standard critical editions of the New Testament (NA27 and UBS4) which consider Cyprian a witness against the Comma. They would not do this were they to think him to have quoted it. So even though some still think that Cyprian referred to the passage, the fact that other theologians such as Athanasius of Alexandria and Sabellius and Origen never quoted or referred to that passage is one reason why even many Trinitarians later on also considered the text spurious, and not to have been part of the original text.

The first work to quote the Comma Johanneum as an actual part of the Epistle's text appears to be the 4th century Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, probably written by Priscillian of Ávila (died 385), or his close follower Bishop Instantius. Wallace notes:

"Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text."

No Syriac manuscripts include the Comma, and its presence in some printed Syriac Bibles is due to back-translation from the Latin Vulgate. Coptic manuscripts and those from Ethiopian churches also do not include it. Of the surviving "Itala" or "Old Latin" translations, only two support the Textus Receptus reading, namely the Codex Monacensis (6th or 7th century) and the Speculum, an 8th- or 9th-century collection of New Testament quotations. In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text:

"My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."

While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended on producing a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. Rather his motivation seems to be simpler: he included the Greek text to prove the superiority of his Latin version. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me." He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work:

"But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."

Erasmus's new work was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the first published Greek New Testament, the Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. The second edition used the more familiar term Testamentum instead of Instrumentum, and eventually became a major source for Luther's German translation.

In his haste, Erasmus made a considerable number of translation mistakes. He was unable to find a manuscript containing the entire Greek New Testament, so he compiled several different sources. After comparing what writings he could find, Erasmus wrote corrections between the lines and sent the documents to Froben. Erasmus said the resulting work was "thrown headlong rather than edited" ("prœcipitatum fuit verius quam editum"). He fixed many but not all of the resulting mistakes in the second edition, published in 1519.

Its absence from the first two editions has traditionally been explained as the result of the animosity this provoked among churchmen and scholars, led by Lopez de Zúñiga, one of the Complutensian editors. Erasmus is said to have replied to these critics that the Comma did not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts he could find, but that he would add it to future editions if it appeared in a single Greek manuscript. Nevertheless, it can be traced back no further than the first decades of the 19th century, and a 1980 paper by Professor H.J. De Jonge concludes that no such promise was ever made by Erasmus, and that he never suspected the fraudulent Codex Britannicus (MM 61, the text prepared by the Franciscan) of having been written with the express purpose of forcing him to include the Comma. Rather, Erasmus included the Comma because he wished to avoid any suspicion of personal unorthodoxy which might undermine the acceptance of his translation:

"For the sake of his ideal Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy and thus condemning himself to impotence. That was the reason why Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum even though he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John."

The term Textus Receptus commonly refers to one of Erasmus's later editions or one of the works derived from them. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, a Protestant reference published in 1914, comments:

Isaac Newton (1643–1727), best known today for his many contributions to mathematics and physics, also wrote extensively on Biblical matters. In a 1690 treatise entitled An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, he summed up the history of the comma and his own belief that it was introduced, intentionally or by accident, into a Latin text during the fourth or fifth century, a time when he believed the Church to be ripe with corruption:

Modern views
Nearly all modern major Christian denominations are Trinitarian, with their beliefs reflected in three ancient creeds: The Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. Mainstream Christianity therefore accepts the underlying theology of the Johannine Comma, whether or not they hold it to be a part of the First Epistle of John.

The history of the comma in the centuries following the Textus Receptus has been one of initial acceptance followed by near-total rejection. This history is summed up in the Introduction to the 1808 New Testament in an improved version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, which did not contain the Comma Johanneum, where the editors explained their reasons for rejecting the Textus Receptus as follows: "1. This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. 2. Nor in any Latin manuscript earlier than the ninth century. 3. It is not found in any of the ancient versions. 4. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity they have cited the words both before and after this text 5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. 6. It is first cited by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged. 7. It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament since the Reformation:—in the two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinaus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach. 8. It was omitted by Luther in his German version. In the old English Bibles of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth, it was printed in small types, or included in brackets: but between the years 1566 and 1580 it began to be printed as it now stands; by whose authority, is not known." The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, an edition of the King James Version published in 1873, and edited by noted textual scholar F.H.A. Scrivener, one of the translators of the English Revised Version, set the Comma in italics to reflect its disputed authenticity, though not all later editions retain this formatting. Modern Bible translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV and others tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes.

The Roman Catholic Church was slower to reject the comma. The Council of Trent in 1546 defined the Biblical canon as "the entire books with all their parts, as these have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate," meaning that the comma was included. Yet although the revised Vulgate contained the Comma, the earliest known copies did not, leaving the status of the Comma Johanneum unclear. nor does the English-language New American Bible.

In more recent years, the Comma has become relevant to the King-James-Only Movement, a largely Protestant development most prevalent within the fundamentalist and Independent Baptist branch of the Baptist churches. Proponents view the Comma as an important Trinitarian text and assert that those who doubt its authenticity are threatening the biblical basis for Trinitarian belief.

Manuscript evidence
critical edition of the New Testament explaining at the footnote the reasons for the textual rejection of the Comma Johanneum.]]

Both Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27) and the United Bible Societies (UBS4) provide three variants. The numbers here follow UBS4, which rates its preference for the first variant as { A }, meaning "virtually certain" to reflect the original text. The second variant is a longer Greek version found in only four manuscripts, the margins of three others and in some minority variant readings of lectionaries. All of the hundreds of other Greek manuscripts that contain 1 John support the first variant. The third variant is found only in Latin, in one class of Vulgate manuscripts and three patristic works. The other two Vulgate traditions omit the Comma, as do more than a dozen major Church Fathers who quote the verses. The Latin variant is considered a trinitarian gloss, explaining or paralleled by the second Greek variant.

#No Comma. [... witnessing, the spirit and the water and the blood.] Select evidence: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and other codices; Uncial 048, 049, 056, 0142; the text of Minuscules 33, 81, 88, 104, and other minuscules; the Byzantine majority text; the majority of Lectionaries, in particular the menologion of Lectionary 598; the Old Latin (codices Vercellensis IV and Schlettstadtensis VII/VIII), Vulgate (John Wordsworth and Henry Julian White edition and the Stuttgart), Syriac, Coptic (both Sahidic and Bohairic), and other translations; Irenaeus (died 202), Clement of Alexandria (died 215), Tertullian (died 220), Hippolytus of Rome (died 235), Origen (died 254), Cyprian (died 258), and other quotations in the Church Fathers. #The Comma in Greek. All non-lectionary evidence cited: Minuscules 61 (Codex Montfortianus, c. 1520), 629 (Codex Ottobonianus, 14/15th cent.), 918 (16th cent.), 2318 (18th cent.). # The Comma at the margins of Greek at the margins of minuscules 88 (Codex Regis, 11th cent. with margins added at the 16th cent.), 221 (10th cent. with margins added at the 15/16th cent.), 429 (14th cent. with margins added at the 16th cent.), 636 (16th cent.); some minority variant readings in lectionaries. #The Comma in Latin. testimonium dicunt [or dant] in terra, spiritus [or: spiritus et] aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. 8 et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater verbum et spiritus. [... giving evidence on earth, spirit, water and blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus. 8 And the three, which give evidence in heaven, are father word and spirit.] All evidence from Fathers cited: Clemantine edition of Vulgate translation; Pseudo Augustine's Speculum Peccatoris (V), also (with some variation) Priscillian (died 385) Liber Apologeticus and Fulgentius of Ruspe (died 527) Responsio contra Arianos.

The gradual appearance of the comma in the manuscript evidence is represented in the following tables:

{| class="wikitable" style="width:70%; font-size:90%; border:1px; text-align:center" ! colspan="4" style="background-color:#CCFFCC" | Latin manuscripts |- ! Date !! Name !! Place !! Other information |- | 7th cent. || Palimpsest || Leon Cathedral|| Spanish |- | 7th cent. || Fragment of Freisling || || Spanish |- | 9th cent. || Codex Cavensis || || Spanish |- | 927 A.D. || Codex Complutensis I || || Spanish |- | 10th cent. || Codex Toletanus || || Spanish |- | 8th-9th cent. || Codex Theodulphianus || Paris (BnF) || Franco-Spanish |- | 8th-9th cent. || Some manuscripts
of the Sangallense library || || Franco-Spanish |- |}

{| class="wikitable" style="width:70%; font-size:90%; border:1px; text-align:center" ! colspan="5" style="background-color:#ffdddd;" | Greek manuscripts |- ! Date !! Manuscript No. !! Name !! Place !! Other information |- | 14th-15th cent. || 629 || Codex Ottobonianus || Vatican || Original.
Latin text along the Greek text,
revised to conform to the Latin.
The Comma was translated and copied back into the Greek from the Latin. |- | c. 1520 || 61 || Codex Montfortianus || Dublin || Original.
Reads "Holy Spirit" instead of simply "Spirit".
Articles are missing before the "three witnesses" (spirit, water, blood). |- | 16th cent. || 918 || || Escorial
(Spain) || Original. |- | 16th cent. || 110 || Codex Ravianus
(also called Berolinensis) || Naples || Original. |- | 18th cent. || 2318 || || Bucharest || Original.
Thought to be influenced
by the Clementine Vulgate. |- | 10th cent. || 221 || || Oxford || Marginal gloss: 15th or 16th cent. |- | 11th cent. || 88 || Codex Regis || Naples || Marginal gloss: 16th cent. |- | 11th cent. || 177 || BSB Cod. graec. 211 || Munich || Marginal gloss: late 16th cent. |- | 14th cent. || 429 || Codex Wolfenbüttel || Wolfenbüttel
(Germany) || Marginal gloss: 16th cent. |- | 16th cent. || 636 || || Naples || Marginal gloss: 16th cent. |- | 11th cent. || 635 || || Naples || Marginal gloss: 17th cent. |- |}

Grammar argument
In the 19th century Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney separately published a grammatical justification for the Comma. They noted that the words "Spirit", "water" and "Blood" in 1 John 5:8, found outside the Comma, though grammatically neuter, are immediately preceded by the masculine phrase "the ones bearing witness," and they suggested that this was the result of grammatical gender agreement with the masculine nouns "Father" and "Word" within the Comma. The argument has gained little support among scholars, who do not see it as outweighing the textual analysis described above. The argument of Nolan and Dabney that grammatical gender agreement with the multiple neuter nouns "Spirit" and "water" and "Blood" should occur if John did not write the Comma and that grammatical gender agreement with the multiple masculine nouns "Father" and "Word" in the Comma does occur, thus proving that John wrote the Comma, is not well-based in terms of Greek grammar, as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns never occurs in the New Testament. Two other grammar-based explanations have been advanced. Howard Marshall suggests that although Spirit, water and Blood are all neuter in Greek, John regarded the "Spirit" as a Person and used the masculine gender to acknowledge this, leading to the personification also of "water" and "Blood." This explanation, however, makes little sense, given that the phrase "the thing bearing witness," used in reference to the "Spirit" in the immediately preceding verse, has been allowed to remain neuter. Alternatively, Daniel B. Wallace suggests that the masculine phrase "the ones bearing witness" may be taking its gender from the "men" in the phrase "the witness of the men" in verse 5:9, with whom John is equating "the Spirit and the water and the Blood".

See also

Pericope Adulteræ

Christ's agony at Gethsemane

Textual criticism

References

External links

Comma Johanneum in Manuscript Comparator — allows two or more New Testament manuscript editions' readings of the passage to be compared in side-by-side and unified views (similar to diff output)

Bible.org: The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7–8

Latin Manuscript Evidence Concerning 1 John 5:7-8 (1998) by Gregory S. Neal

Ancient Manuscript evidence and Pre Lutheran examples of 1 John 5:7-8

The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian by Daniel B. Wallace.

Category:Biblical criticism Category:King James Only movement Category:New Testament verses Category:Biblical phrases Category:New Testament history Category:Johannine literature Category:Trinitarianism Category:Christian terms

This text is licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA License. This text was originally published on Wikipedia and was developed by the Wikipedia community.

Email this Page

DA Waite's Flub on the "Comma Johanneum"

Order: Reorder
Duration: 12:14
Published: 2010-10-28
Uploaded: 2010-10-29
Author: labarum312

So how much can you trust KJV Onlyists when they cite manuscript evidence? Here is a classic by DA Waite and the good folks at the Dean Burgon Society! Edition of the Dean Burgon News mentioned in the video: www.deanburgonsociety.org Wikipedia entry for the New Testament Minuscules: en.wikipedia.org

TRINITY CORRUPTION - MATTHEW 28:19 & 1JOHN 5:7

Order: Reorder
Duration: 6:04
Published: 2009-10-07
Uploaded: 2011-01-12
Author: neronei

The Trinity is in reality AN INTERPRETATION and not a DOCTRINE that YESHUA or His apostles TAUGHT! The perpertrators of this doctrine have always argued this doctrine through philosophy without any outright proof that showed these three PERSONS (and not GODS as they cunningly devised) side by side. The only two scriptual passages are Matthew 28:19 and 1John 5:7. These have become the two central and final scriptural pillars, that for a unknowing believer, would always put an end to any Oneness - trinity debate. But we see that Matthew 28:19 has been inserted by the catholic church as Cardinal Ratzibìnger now known as POPE BENEDICT XVI CONFESSES in His " INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY " P50-53 AND THE SAME WITH 1 John 5:7 which was inserted by the TRANSLATOR pressured by the catholic church. But thank YESHUA the LIVING WORD of GOD that their wording was driven by men and not the SPIRIT of YESHUA and have left in their wording the truth as Matt 28:29 says in the NAME and not in the NAMES. These two passages were so obvious as being additions and coruptions that they stood out as sore thumbs. Matthew 28:19 is the only place in the whole of the New Testament that states a trinitarian formular and is the only place where YESHUA proclaims one seeming to conferm a sort of liturgy for the church. 1John 5:7 sticks out of the context in which John is reasonig. That is He is speaking in the previous verses of the WATER, BLOOD and SPIRIT; then all of a sudden there is this declaration ...

Abdullah of the UK on Textual Claims Part 5

Order: Reorder
Duration: 10:54
Published: 2008-06-11
Uploaded: 2010-10-06
Author: DrOakley1689

Continuation focusing on the Comma Johanneum

Water Baptism - Baptism In Jesus Name?

Order: Reorder
Duration: 10:01
Published: 2008-07-05
Uploaded: 2011-01-13
Author: oasisglobal

An in-depth discussion about water baptism, baptism in Jesus name, the Trinity, Jesus Only, Oneness, and theological questions surrounding these issues.

Hochgradierte christliche Gelehrte,verfälschten Evangelien zur Trinitätsstärkung 1v3

Order: Reorder
Duration: 10:55
Published: 2010-04-18
Uploaded: 2011-01-16
Author: DasChristentum

►Alle gesammelten Zitate der Evangelien,sind zum Vergleich mit dem Codex Sinaiticus,der Ältesten heute bekannten Bibel im Vergleich- Sie werden Augen machen codexsinaiticus.org ●~------------▬▬๑✿๑▬▬--------- --~● ★Hochgradierte christliche Gelehrte, verfälschten bis 1986 die Evangelien um die Trinität zu stärken und aufrecht zu erhalten. ★Beschreibung: ►Die Rolle der Kirche bei dem Verbergen und Verfälschen der Wahrheit. ►Einige Beispiele für Verfälschungen in der Bibel, die von christlichen Gelehrten erwähnt werden. ►Die Rolle der Kirche bei dem Verbergen und Verfälschen der Wahrheit ►Unermüdliches Verfälschen am Text der Bibel ►Änderungen in christlichen Schriften ►Beweise für Widersprüche, die von christlichen Gelehrten bei den Überlieferungen der angeblichen Autoren des Neuen Testaments gefunden wurden. ●~------------▬▬๑✿๑▬▬--------- --~● ★Geprüfte Quellen wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen : ●~------------▬▬๑✿๑▬▬--------- --~● ►Alle gesammelten Zitate der Evangelien,sind zum Vergleich mit dem Codex Sinaiticus,der Ältesten heute bekannten Bibel im Vergleich- Sie werden Augen machen codexsinaiticus.org ►History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge (Geschichte des Christentums im Licht des modernen Wissens), Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, S.338 ►W Graham Scroggie, p. 17 ►The Call of the Minaret, Kenneth Cragg, S 277 ►Peakes Commentary on the Bible, S. 633 ►Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Bd. 3, S. 643 ►Secrets of Mount ...

First John 1/2 (First Epistle of John)

Order: Reorder
Duration: 8:53
Published: 2010-10-18
Uploaded: 2011-01-04
Author: Apocryphile1970

The First Epistle of John, usually referred to simply as First John and often written 1 John, is a book of the New Testament. This fourth catholic or "general" epistle is attributed to John the Evangelist, traditionally thought to be the author of the Gospel of John and the other two Epistles of John. This Epistle was written in Ephesus between the years 100-110. The work was written to counter the heresies that Jesus did not come "in the flesh," but only as a spirit. It also defined how Christians are to discern true teachers: by their ethics, their proclamation of Jesus in the flesh, and by their love. Composition The Epistle is traditionally held to have been composed by John the Evangelist, at Ephesus, when the writer was in advanced age. The epistle's content, language and conceptual style indicate that it may have had the same author as the Gospel of John, 2 John, and 3 John. Some modern scholars believe that the apostle John wrote none of the New Testament books traditionally attributed to him. "There are no concrete indications of the identity of the author ... We find here a special form of the horatory or 'paraenetic' style... the writer has his own locutions which give a peculiar stamp to the work... a demonstrative is given first place in a sentence, looking forward to its definition or explanation usually after some article or conjunction... This is one of the features which by its frequency distinguishes the style of the epistle from that of the Gospel of ...

First John 2/2 (First Epistle of John)

Order: Reorder
Duration: 7:06
Published: 2010-10-18
Uploaded: 2011-01-04
Author: Apocryphile1970

Hochgradierte christliche Gelehrte, verfälschten Evangelien zur Trinitäts Stärkung Teil 2v3

Order: Reorder
Duration: 7:25
Published: 2010-04-18
Uploaded: 2010-12-28
Author: DasChristentum

Hochgradierte christliche Gelehrte, verfälschten bis 1986 die Evangelien um die Trinität zu stärken und aufrecht zu erhalten. Beschreibung: -Die Rolle der Kirche bei dem Verbergen und Verfälschen der Wahrheit. -Einige Beispiele für Verfälschungen in der Bibel, die von christlichen Gelehrten erwähnt werden. -Die Rolle der Kirche bei dem Verbergen und Verfälschen der Wahrheit -Unermüdliches Verfälschen am Text der Bibel -Änderungen in christlichen Schriften -Beweise für Widersprüche, die von christlichen Gelehrten bei den Überlieferungen der angeblichen Autoren des Neuen Testaments gefunden wurden. Geprüfte Quellen wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen ═History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge (Geschichte des Christentums im Licht des modernen Wissens), Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, S.338 ═W Graham Scroggie, p. 17 ═The Call of the Minaret, Kenneth Cragg, S 277 ═Peakes Commentary on the Bible, S. 633 ═Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Bd. 3, S. 643 ═Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, S. 117 ═Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, S. 3 ═Aus der Einleitung der King James Bible, New revised and updated sixth edition, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition. ═ Religions in Ancient History, SGF Brandon, S. 228. ═The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the New Testament (Die Schriftrollen des Toten Meeres, das Evangelium des Barnabas und das Neue Testament), von MA Yusseff, S. 81. ═ History of ...