Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
$5.00
Explore the history of the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7, a notable interpolation, and how it was integrated into and later removed from the Bible through the lens of textual criticism and scholarly consensus.
Unraveling the Mystery of 1 John 5:7, 8: The Comma Johanneum
The passage found in 1 John 5:7, 8, known as the Comma Johanneum, presents one of the most debated interpolations in the New Testament. This brief exploration seeks to clarify its origins and the reasons modern textual scholarship views it as an addition rather than part of the original biblical text.
The Passage in Question
In certain Bible translations, after “For there are three that testify,” an insertion reads, “in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth.” This addition is notably absent in a wide array of ancient manuscripts and critical Bible editions.
Discovery and Analysis
Bruce M. Metzger, among other scholars, points out that this passage is missing from nearly all Greek manuscripts, with only a handful, primarily later Latin translations, including it. The absence is telling, especially since no early Church Fathers or Greek writings cite this passage in theological debates where it would have been highly relevant.
Historical Appearances
The Comma Johanneum first surfaces in writings attributed to Priscillian in the late 4th century CE and later in various Latin texts. However, its absence in earlier works, including those by Jerome, and its late addition into Latin manuscripts underline its status as an interpolation.
How the Addition Spread
Initially appearing as a marginal note, the passage gradually found its way into the text of Latin Bibles. This process illustrates how scribes sometimes mistook explanatory glosses for omitted text, leading to their inclusion in the main body of scripture over time. The evolution of this insertion from margin to text highlights the complexities of manuscript transmission.
Scholarly Consensus
The consensus among modern scholars, based on extensive manuscript evidence and historical analysis, is that the Comma Johanneum was not part of the original text of 1 John. Its late addition in manuscripts and absence from early theological discussions suggest it was a later theological insertion rather than an apostolic writing.
Implications for Biblical Reliability
The meticulous scrutiny applied to the Comma Johanneum exemplifies the rigorous standards of textual criticism aimed at preserving the Bible’s integrity. The ability of scholars to identify and debate such interpolations underscores the overall reliability of the biblical texts, as the vast majority of the scripture remains unaffected by such issues. This process ensures that the Bible studied today is a faithful representation of the original writings.
The story of the Comma Johanneum is a fascinating chapter in the history of biblical textual criticism. It serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in transmitting texts across centuries and the importance of a careful, scholarly approach to understanding the Bible’s original message. Despite the challenges posed by interpolations like this, the diligent work of generations of scholars has preserved the authenticity and trustworthiness of the biblical text, affirming its value and integrity for readers today.
The story of how a disputed passage found its way into the Bible translations, notably 1 John 5:7, 8, offers a fascinating glimpse into the early days of printed New Testament texts and the challenges faced by scholars like Desiderius Erasmus and Robert Stephanus (Robert Estienne).
The Challenge to Erasmus
Early Opposition: Desiderius Erasmus, a pioneering scholar of Greek New Testament texts, initially did not include the controversial “comma Johanneum” in his Greek texts published in 1516 and 1519. This decision sparked significant backlash from figures such as Edward Lee and J. L. Stunica, who argued that the Latin Vulgate, being the official Bible, could not contain errors.
A Rash Promise: In response to the criticism and under pressure, Erasmus stated he would include the passage if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained it. This led to the introduction of Codex Montfortianus, a manuscript from the early sixteenth century, based on which Erasmus added the passage in his third edition (1522) but with reservations expressed in a lengthy note.
Examining Codex Montfortianus
Questions of Authenticity: Closer examination of Codex Montfortianus revealed that its Greek text, especially at 1 John 5:7, 8, seemed to be translated from Latin, lacking the Greek definite articles where Latin would not have them. This raised doubts about the manuscript’s value in representing the original Greek text.
Misplaced Semicircle: Robert Stephanus’ 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament introduced another layer of confusion. A critical apparatus in his edition mistakenly suggested that only three words were omitted based on seven manuscripts, misleading readers about the manuscript evidence regarding the “comma Johanneum.”
The Spread of the Interpolation
From Latin to Greek Translations: The disputed passage had already been included in John Wycliffe’s translation from the Latin Vulgate. However, following Erasmus’ editions, it began to appear in translations made from the Greek texts, such as those by Tyndale and Cranmer, albeit with some typographical distinctions initially.
Into the King James Version: By the time of the Geneva Bible (1557) and subsequently the King James Version (1611), the distinction had vanished, and the passage was included as if it were part of the original text, thus solidifying its presence in English translations.
The tale of 1 John 5:7, 8, from its contentious inclusion in Erasmus’ text to its unquestioned appearance in the King James Version, illustrates the complexities and challenges of early New Testament scholarship. It underscores the importance of rigorous textual analysis and the influence of scholarly decisions on the biblical texts we read today. Through the efforts of textual scholars and the advancement of printing technology, the Bible has been preserved with great care, yet the story of the “comma Johanneum” serves as a reminder of the vigilance required to maintain the accuracy of Scripture.
The Ongoing Debate Over the “Comma Johanneum”
The discussion around the controversial passage known as the “comma Johanneum” in 1 John 5:7, 8, continued to evolve well beyond its initial inclusion in early printed texts. This narrative explores the relentless pursuit of truth by scholars, scientists, and theologians across centuries.
The Quest for Codex Britannicus
After its mention to Erasmus and subsequent inclusion in his Greek New Testament, the elusive Codex Britannicus vanished, leaving a trail of questions. The 17th century, under the shadow of the Authorized King James Version, saw continued debate but no resolution on the authenticity of this passage.
Sir Isaac Newton’s Skepticism
In a remarkable turn, Sir Isaac Newton, applying his analytical mind to biblical texts, composed a treatise outlining the spurious nature of the “comma Johanneum.” Though it circulated privately among his contemporaries, it wasn’t published until long after his death, adding a scientific voice to the theological debate.
Advances in Textual Criticism
The field of textual criticism gained momentum as scholars like Richard Simon and Dr. John Mill examined the passage critically. Despite Mill’s personal defense of the verse, Thomas Emlyn argued forcefully for its removal from the biblical text, sparking a heated exchange with defenders like Mr. Martin of Utrecht.
The Impact of English Translators
Daniel Mace’s bilingual edition of the New Testament in 1729 boldly omitted the controversial passage, supported by a thorough examination of manuscript evidence. This move influenced other translators, including William Whiston and John Worsley, to also exclude the verse from their works, signaling a shift in scholarly consensus.
The Controversy Continues
The debate reached new heights with the publication of Edward Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” where he labeled the passage a “pious fraud.” This provoked a fierce defense from George Travis, an archdeacon, whose assertions were met with formidable rebuttals from scholars like Richard Porson and Herbert Marsh. Their detailed analyses further exposed the interpolation, cementing its dubious status.
The Battle Renewed
The “comma Johanneum” stands as a testament to the complexities of biblical textual criticism and the enduring quest for an authentic scriptural text. The engagement of figures across disciplines—from theology to science—highlights the passage’s significance in understanding the development and integrity of the New Testament. The persistent scrutiny and debate over this verse underscore the rigorous standards applied to biblical scholarship and the ongoing effort to discern the original writings of the Christian scriptures.
The Final Verdict on the “Comma Johanneum”
The debate over the “comma Johanneum” found in 1 John 5:7, 8 has spanned centuries, engaging scholars, theologians, and even popes in a discussion about its authenticity. Despite early resistance, the last major bastion of support for the passage, the Roman Catholic Church, eventually reconsidered its stance, marking a significant shift in the acceptance of the text.
Papal Decree and Reevaluation
Papal Decree of 1897: The Roman Catholic Church, one of the final strongholds defending the authenticity of the “comma Johanneum,” issued a decree in 1897, mandating belief in its legitimacy. This decree represented the Church’s attempt to preserve traditional interpretations of Scripture.
Shift Toward Scholarly Examination: By 1902, Pope Leo XIII initiated a more critical approach to Scripture by establishing a commission to reevaluate the passage, recognizing the need for a thorough scholarly examination. Despite initial resistance, this marked the beginning of a more open-minded inquiry into the text.
Changing Views Within the Church
Gradual Acceptance of Textual Criticism: Over time, notable Catholic scholars and translations began to question and then omit the passage, signaling a shift towards aligning with broader scholarly consensus. By the mid-20th century, editions like the Westminster Version of the New Testament and the work of Jesuit scholar A. Merk reflected this change, omitting the controversial passage and citing its absence in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts.
The Role of Modern Manuscript Discoveries
Confirmation by Ancient Manuscripts: The discovery of ancient manuscripts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus, provided concrete evidence that the “comma Johanneum” was not part of the original New Testament writings. These findings have played a crucial role in shaping modern understanding and acceptance of the text’s history.
Scholarly Consensus
Conclusion by Textual Critics: Scholars like F. H. A. Scrivener have concisely summarized the evidence against the inclusion of the “comma Johanneum” in the New Testament. The passage, they argue, originated as a well-intentioned gloss but does not belong in the biblical text.
Strengthening Faith Through Scholarship
The journey of the “comma Johanneum” from contested inclusion to scholarly exclusion exemplifies the dynamic relationship between faith, tradition, and critical examination. This process underscores the importance of rigorous scholarship in preserving the integrity of Scripture. Reflecting on the extensive evidence and the careful work of generations of scholars can deepen our appreciation for the Bible as a reliable and accurately transmitted text. The resolution of this long-standing debate reaffirms our confidence in the Scriptures, reminding us of the care and divine guidance that have preserved God’s Word through the ages.
The Evolution of the “Comma Johanneum” Debate: From the 18th Century to the 20th Century
The journey of the Comma Johanneum, a controversial interpolation in 1 John 5:7-8, through the lens of several pivotal figures in New Testament textual criticism, illustrates the evolving understanding and treatment of this passage from the 18th to the 20th century.
Griesbach’s contributions laid foundational principles for textual criticism. He was among the first to systematically classify New Testament manuscripts into families, which helped scholars understand textual variants. Griesbach was skeptical of the Comma Johanneum due to its absence in the majority of Greek manuscripts and its non-citation by early Church Fathers. His work paved the way for a more critical approach to evaluating textual evidence.
Lachmann was the first to produce a Greek New Testament that relied primarily on ancient manuscripts rather than the Textus Receptus (Received Text, Common Text), which included the Comma Johanneum. By excluding this passage on the basis of its absence in older texts, Lachmann set a precedent for critical editions of the New Testament, highlighting the importance of manuscript evidence over later additions.
Tischendorf’s discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest and most complete New Testament manuscripts, significantly impacted textual criticism. The Codex Sinaiticus, dating from the 4th century, does not contain the Comma Johanneum, providing strong evidence against its originality. Tischendorf’s work underscored the value of early manuscripts in establishing the New Testament text.
Westcott and Hort’s groundbreaking edition of the New Testament was based on their theory that the oldest manuscripts reflect the original text more accurately than later ones, which included the Textus Receptus. Their critical text, which did not include the Comma Johanneum, influenced subsequent New Testament scholarship and translations, emphasizing the passage’s dubious authenticity.
Eberhard Nestle
Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913)
Nestle furthered the work of his predecessors by creating a Greek New Testament that collated readings from several critical editions, including those of Tischendorf, Westcott, and Hort. Nestle’s approach to the Comma Johanneum was consistent with earlier critical scholars, treating it as a later addition based on its absence in the most reliable manuscripts.
Kurt Aland, along with his wife Barbara Aland, significantly contributed to New Testament textual criticism through their work on the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, continuing and expanding upon Eberhard Nestle’s legacy. The editions curated by the Alands continued to exclude the Comma Johanneum, reflecting a consensus among textual critics about its later insertion. The Alands’ meticulous methodology and their development of the Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament further solidified the scholarly stance against the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.
Barbara Aland
The work of Kurt and Barbara Aland on the Novum Testamentum Graece has been instrumental in providing scholars and students with a reliable and accessible edition of the Greek New Testament. Their commitment to textual criticism has helped to ensure that the New Testament continues to be studied and understood in its original language. It’s important to note that the field of New Testament textual criticism is ongoing, with new discoveries and insights being made all the time. The scholars mentioned above represent just a few of the many people who have contributed to this important field of study.
The narrative of the Comma Johanneum, as examined by these eminent scholars, illustrates the critical journey from unquestioned acceptance to scholarly skepticism and eventual exclusion from the Greek New Testament. Each scholar, in their time, contributed to a deeper understanding of the text’s origins, employing rigorous analysis and an increasing array of manuscript evidence to discern the most authentic form of the New Testament text. This evolution of thought, grounded in scholarly integrity and dedication to textual accuracy, underscores the commitment to preserving the fidelity of Scripture for future generations.
The Evolution of the “Comma Johanneum” Debate: From the 20th Century to Today
The debate surrounding the “comma Johanneum,” a textual variant in 1 John 5:7, 8, has seen significant developments from the early 20th century to the present day. Advances in textual criticism, discoveries of ancient manuscripts, and shifts in ecclesiastical positions have all contributed to the evolving understanding of this passage.
Early 20th Century: Scholarly Shifts and Papal Actions
Papal Recognition of Textual Criticism: The early 20th century marked a pivotal turn as Pope Leo XIII’s establishment of a commission in 1902 signified the Roman Catholic Church’s engagement with textual criticism. This move, albeit cautious, opened the door for a reevaluation of traditional texts, including the “comma Johanneum.”
Growing Scholarly Consensus: Scholars outside and, increasingly, within the Catholic tradition began to critically assess the authenticity of the passage. The accumulation of evidence from Greek manuscripts, early church fathers, and ancient translations strengthened the case against its originality.
Mid-20th Century: Transition in Translation Practices
Translations Omitting the Passage: By the mid-20th century, many new translations of the Bible began to omit the “comma Johanneum” from the main text, relegating it to footnotes or omitting it entirely. This shift reflected a broader consensus among textual critics and translators about the passage’s later addition.
Vatican II and Openness to Criticism: The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) heralded a new era of openness within the Roman Catholic Church towards historical-critical methods of biblical interpretation. Although not addressing the “comma Johanneum” directly, the council’s atmosphere encouraged a more critical approach to Scripture.
Late 20th to Early 21st Century: Understanding 1 John 5:7b–8: A Textual Perspective
The passage in 1 John 5:7b-8, known as the “Comma Johanneum,” has been the subject of much debate among scholars, textual critics, and translators for centuries. This discussion delves into the origins, implications, and current understanding of this controversial text.
The Textual Variation
Original Text vs. Variant Reading: The earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts present the text as “because there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are for one [testimony].” However, a later variant introduces additional wording, mentioning “in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth.”
Historical Context and Discovery
Latin Origins: The expanded passage first appeared in the writings of Priscillian, a Spanish figure or his follower, suggesting a Latin origin for this gloss. It was meant to symbolize the Trinity, but originally may have been a marginal note before being incorporated into the text.
Spread Through Latin Fathers: By the fifth century, this addition found its way into Latin texts and became increasingly common in copies of the Latin Vulgate, despite Jerome’s original translation not including it.
Greek Manuscripts and Fathers: Notably absent from Greek manuscripts before the fourteenth century and never cited by Greek church fathers, the passage’s authenticity as part of the original New Testament text is highly questionable.
The Role of Erasmus
Initial Omission: Erasmus, a foundational figure in New Testament textual criticism, did not include the “Comma Johanneum” in his early editions, aligning with the absence of this passage in Greek manuscripts.
Controversy and Inclusion: After facing criticism and being presented with a possibly fabricated manuscript containing the passage, Erasmus included it in later editions, which influenced the Textus Receptus and, subsequently, the King James Version.
Modern Interpretations
Exclusion from Recent Translations: Most contemporary Bible translations omit the “Comma Johanneum” from the main text, acknowledging its later addition and lack of presence in early manuscripts.
Understanding the Passage Without the Addition: Without the interpolation, the passage focuses on the threefold testimony of Jesus’ baptism, death, and resurrection, highlighting His identity as the Son of God without direct reference to the Trinity.
The Journey of the “Comma Johanneum”
The evolution of the “Comma Johanneum” from a marginal gloss to a contested part of the biblical text underscores the complexities of manuscript transmission and textual criticism. The careful examination by scholars over the years has led to a clearer understanding of the original New Testament writings. While the passage offers a profound reflection on the nature of Jesus Christ and His divine sonship, its later addition to the biblical text highlights the importance of grounding scriptural interpretation in the most authentic and reliable manuscript evidence available. This journey from inclusion to exclusion in modern translations demonstrates a commitment to preserving the integrity of the Scriptures, ensuring that readers today have access to a text that is as close as possible to the original writings.
Present Day: Consensus and Continuing Debate
Scholarly Consensus: As of 2024, there is a broad scholarly consensus that the “comma Johanneum” was not part of the original text of 1 John. This consensus is reflected in most modern Bible translations and supported by the majority of biblical scholars across denominational lines.
Educational Efforts and Public Awareness: Efforts to educate both scholars and laypeople about the origins and development of the biblical text have helped to foster an understanding of why certain passages, like the “comma Johanneum,” are considered interpolations. Conferences, publications, and online resources have played significant roles in this educational endeavor.
Continuing Ecclesiastical Reflections: Various Christian denominations have grappled with the implications of textual criticism for faith and doctrine. While some traditions have fully embraced the findings of textual criticism, others continue to reflect on the balance between historical scholarship and theological commitments.
The journey of the “comma Johanneum” from a contested interpolation to a widely recognized addition exemplifies the dynamic and ongoing process of biblical scholarship. Through diligent study, open dialogue, and advances in technology, our understanding of the biblical text continues to evolve, offering deeper insights into the Scriptures that have shaped centuries of faith and tradition.
The journey of the Comma Johanneum, specifically 1 John 5:7-8, into the Bible is a fascinating study of textual criticism, religious tradition, and the complexities of biblical translation. This narrative becomes particularly intriguing when considering the King James Version Only movement (KJV Onlyists), a group that exclusively adheres to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, asserting its supremacy over all other translations. This perspective has significant implications for the acceptance and interpretation of the Comma Johanneum.
The Rise of the KJV-Only Movement
The KJV Only movement gained momentum in the 20th century amidst growing scholarly consensus against the authenticity of certain passages, including the Comma Johanneum. Advocates of this movement argue that the KJV, translated in 1611, is the most accurate and divinely preserved version of the Scriptures. This belief often extends to a strict adherence to the Textus Receptus (TR), the Greek text underlying the KJV New Testament, which includes the Comma Johanneum, despite its absence in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts.
The Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text-type represent a later textual tradition from which the KJV was primarily translated. The TR, compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century, included the Comma Johanneum, primarily because of its presence in later Latin manuscripts and pressure from contemporaneous theological and political forces. KJV Onlyists, valuing the TR’s contribution to the KJV, often dismiss the critical work that has identified earlier and more accurate Greek manuscripts lacking the Comma Johanneum.
The Preface of the 1611 KJV
Interestingly, the original preface of the 1611 KJV acknowledges the translation as a revision of earlier English Bibles and anticipates future revisions based on better manuscripts and understanding of biblical languages. This forward-looking statement contrasts sharply with the KJV Only stance, which opposes revisions or updates to the KJV text, even when such changes reflect a closer alignment with the original biblical writings.
Scholarly Developments and New Translations
Since 1611, a wealth of ancient manuscripts has been discovered, offering a clearer picture of the New Testament’s original text. These discoveries have led to translations like the Revised Version (RV), American Standard Version (ASV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV), and the Updated American Standard Version (UASV), each seeking to provide an accurate reflection of the earliest available texts. These translations, built on a broader and older manuscript base, typically exclude the Comma Johanneum, aligning with the scholarly consensus about its later addition to the text.
The story of the Comma Johanneum’s inclusion and the steadfast adherence of KJV Onlyists to the Byzantine Texts and the Textus Receptus, despite substantial manuscript evidence to the contrary, illustrates the complex interplay between faith, tradition, and textual scholarship. While the KJV remains a literary and spiritual milestone, the evolution of biblical scholarship invites believers to consider the rich tapestry of biblical manuscript traditions and the ongoing quest for a text that faithfully represents the original writings. The 1611 KJV translators’ own words remind us of the importance of revising and improving our understanding of the Scriptures as new evidence comes to light, a principle that undergirds the production of newer translations aiming to bring the biblical text to life for contemporary readers.
The King James Version Only (KJV Only) movement asserts the supremacy of the King James Version of the Bible over all other English translations. Proponents offer several arguments in support of this view. Here, we will explore these arguments and provide counterpoints from a broader textual criticism perspective.
Argument 1: Divine Preservation
KJV Only Argument: The KJV is divinely preserved and is the purest form of God’s Word in English, free from error and doctrinal corruption.
Refutation: Divine preservation does not necessitate reliance on a single translation. The discovery of earlier and more reliable manuscripts since the KJV’s publication has enhanced our understanding of the biblical text. Divine preservation is seen in the manuscript tradition’s richness and diversity, allowing scholars to identify the most authentic text based on a wider array of evidence.
Argument 2: Textus Receptus Superiority
KJV Only Argument: The Textus Receptus, underlying the New Testament of the KJV, is superior to the texts used in modern translations, which are based on “corrupt” manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
Refutation: The Textus Receptus was compiled in the 16th century based on a limited number of late manuscripts available at the time. Modern critical texts incorporate evidence from a broader and older range of manuscripts, providing a more accurate reflection of the original writings. The so-called “corrupt” manuscripts are among the oldest and most valuable witnesses to the New Testament text.
Argument 3: Doctrinal Integrity
KJV Only Argument: Modern translations omit key verses or phrases, affecting doctrinal integrity, particularly concerning the deity of Christ and the Trinity.
Refutation: Most variations between the KJV and modern translations do not impact essential Christian doctrines. Changes often reflect a return to the original text supported by the earliest manuscripts. Modern translations aim for accuracy and clarity, consulting a wide range of textual witnesses to present the most reliable text possible.
Argument 4: Linguistic and Literary Superiority
KJV Only Argument: The KJV’s language is unsurpassed in beauty, dignity, and power, making it the most effective vehicle for conveying God’s Word.
Refutation: While the KJV is undoubtedly a literary masterpiece, the English language has evolved significantly since 1611. Modern translations seek to make the Scriptures accessible and understandable to contemporary readers, fulfilling the same goal the KJV translators had in their time. Accessibility does not diminish the Scriptures’ sacredness or efficacy.
Argument 5: Historical Impact
KJV Only Argument: The KJV has a profound historical and cultural impact, shaping the English-speaking world’s spiritual and linguistic heritage.
Refutation: The historical significance of the KJV is undeniable. However, the measure of a translation’s value is not solely its historical impact but its faithfulness to the original texts and its ability to communicate effectively to its intended audience. New translations can honor the KJV’s legacy while addressing the needs of today’s readers.
Argument 6: Preface of the 1611 KJV
KJV Only Argument: The KJV translators’ own words are sometimes cited to argue for the KJV’s supremacy, suggesting that they viewed their work as the final authority.
Refutation: The translators’ preface actually acknowledges the value of revising the translation based on better manuscripts and understanding. This openness to revision supports the ongoing scholarly effort to produce accurate and understandable Bible translations.
Conclusion
The KJV Only movement’s arguments stem from a deep reverence for the King James Version. While this reverence is understandable, it is essential to recognize that the quest for an accurate and faithful translation of the Scriptures is ongoing. Advances in manuscript discovery and linguistic understanding have not detracted from the sacredness of the Bible but have enriched our comprehension and appreciation of its message. The goal is not to diminish the KJV but to continue the tradition of making God’s Word accessible and understandable to all.
About the Author
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).v
SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION
