Wilhelm Kolling (pro) and Karl Endemann (contra)

Steven Avery

BCEME - 303
The controversy in France created unrest elsewhere as well. In a lecture delivered before the General conference of the Silesian Lutheran Union at Liegnitz on 12 October 1892, Wilhelm Kölling eulogised the comma as ‘a precious and genuine pearl of the canon’ and a ‘masterpiece of the heavenly inspirer’, which had been removed from the text in the interests of promoting heresy.100 The lecture went down badly. Emil Schürer lamented that Kölling’s lecture threatened a retrograde reformation back to the seventeenth century.101 Eberhard Nestle characterised such attempted defences of the comma by Protestants as of ‘pathological interest’.102

100 Kölling 1893, 3, 17.
101 Schürer 1894, 110; cf. C. R. Gregory 1907, 131.
102 Nestle 1899, 260.

Kölling, Wilhelm. Die Echtheit von 1. Joh. 5, 7. Breslau: Dülfer, 1893.

Kölling, Wilhelm. Die Echtheit von 1. Joh. 5, 7. Breslau: Dülfer, 1893.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Karl Henrich Julius Endemann -(1836-1919)

tries to counter Kolling, it is mentioned by

There are still some scholars who defined the passage as genuine,27
27. W. Kolling, Die Echtbeit von l.Joh. 5:7(Breslau: C. Diilfer, 1893); cf. the opposing view, Endemann, Neue kirchlicbe Zeitschrift 10 (July 1899): 574-81.

Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, Volume 10
D. W. Koelling und 1. Joh. 5,7.8.
Karl Endemann
p. 574- p. 581

The Independent

Last edited: