TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Another mystery "symbols" interpretation.
the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Another mystery "symbols" interpretation.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
An objection to the Comma text in verse 8 (KJV-numbering).
One would argue that the plural masculine gender adjectives and participle in 1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) are completely superfluous.
Why did the Scribes who copied the Comma in Greek keep the masculine plural adjectives and participle in verse 8 (KJV-numbering) if the verse is about "on earth, the blood and the water and the Spirit"?
It makes no sense grammatically because Steven argues they can't possibly concord with the "the blood and the water and the Spirit".
That being the case who, how and why do the plural masculine gender adjectives and participle in 1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) ACTUALLY CONCORD WITH in the Comma text?
Steven Spencer Avery is intentionally avoiding a clear and simple answer to this question.
One would argue that the plural masculine gender adjectives and participle in 1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) are completely superfluous.
Why did the Scribes who copied the Comma in Greek keep the masculine plural adjectives and participle in verse 8 (KJV-numbering) if the verse is about "on earth, the blood and the water and the Spirit"?
It makes no sense grammatically because Steven argues they can't possibly concord with the "the blood and the water and the Spirit".
That being the case who, how and why do the plural masculine gender adjectives and participle in 1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) ACTUALLY CONCORD WITH in the Comma text?
Steven Spencer Avery is intentionally avoiding a clear and simple answer to this question.
You yourself cited an example of metaphoric constructio ad sensum from Col 2:19 where "head" (f) being followed by whom (m) is a metaphor for Christ (m).
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
constructio ad sensum
NOTES: Check work done on this on 1 Timothy 3:16 (done, it is mostly a different study, although it would be nice to keep them in the same mix) ========= constructio ad sensum constructio ad synesis constructio kata synesins sense figure sense construction „Konstruktion auf den Sinn hin“...
www.purebibleforum.com
Last edited:
I'm not with you on this one: what participle and adjectives are you referring to?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The scribes copied what John wrote.
After the heavenly witnesses dropped out of the Greek line, it was not the job of the scribes to change the remaining text.
In your way of thinking, what does Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) "concord with"?
(Allowing authenticity.)
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
1 John 5:6 [Clause-D] τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ (feminine) ἀλήθεια (feminine).
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Again, to your way of thinking, if you had 1 John 5:7 and there was no 1 John 5:6?
what does Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) "concord with"?
Would it be discordant?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
1 John 5:8 (TR)
[Clause-A] καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Clause-B] ἕν τῇ γῇ, [Clause-C] τὸ Πνεῦμά καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [Clause-D] καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσὶν
masculine participle μαρτυροῦντες masculine adjective τρεῖς
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Are you saying "the Spirit of the truth" in verse 6 (context of blood and water) is different to "the Spirit" (also context of blood and water) in verse 8?
Last edited:
Thanks - my issue. (Biblehub interlinear contains the first part of the Comma in brackets, in 1 John 5:7 but omits the second part of the Comma entirely in 1 John 5:8. So half a Comma only: very novel.)
The answer to your original question was recently supplied by Georgios Babiniotis in an email to Nick Sayers : he gives a reason based in the parallelism of 5.7 & 5.8. This was exposited in a recent Youtube video rhetorically (I'm being charitable) entitled "1 John 5:7 Is Authentic Proved by Legendary Greek Grammarian"
In Babiniotis's own words:
"I will not comment on Bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης (Eugenios Voulgaris). Linguistically - although with another explanation - Bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης is right to consider 5.7 as obligatory for the existence of 5.8.
What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the specific aspect of the text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek
The use of the masculine and not the neuter gender on 5.8.
[The masculine gender] is linguistically justified on the ground of syntactic parallelism on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same - parallel in structure with that of 5:7. So for modern linguistic analysts what is important is not the mere "grammatical gender agreement rule" but the overruling schema of syntactic parallelism which is 'much more stronger' (sic.) than a gender agreement rule. Conclusion: the issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage. It is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntatic rule that would lead to a neuter gender and furthermore would elminate 5.7.
[End]."
And here is the statement of Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης on the Johannine Comma:
Johannine Comma and Eugenios Voulgaris - Textus Receptus
In summary, Βούλγαρης presents an argument based on symbols:
"Therefore the three who give witness in heaven are ... the very same three witnesses [that] are brought in, to confirm on earth the same witness, through these three symbols. ..... These are the ones giving witness also on the earth, and they are made manifest to us through symbols. These symbols are the spirit, through which the Father is revealed, the blood, through which the Son is revealed, and the water, through which the Holy Spirit is revealed. But these three, who above by way of revelation through the divine names themselves are presented as giving witness in heaven, are the same on earth through remembrance in the divine plan presented repeatedly by way of symbols."
(A confusing use of symbolism here - why are we being taught symbols when Christ came to impart reality? Symbolism is for the OT. Christ gave us symbols in the bread and wine. Something wrong here.)
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Yes, they are different, as the three (earthly) witnesses fit perfectly with the Johannine verses on the crucifixion/passion of the Lord Jesus.
==========
John 19:30 (AV)
When Jesus had tasted it,
he said, “It is finished!”
Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
John 19:34
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,
and forthwith came there out blood and water.
These two verses cover the three component (earthly) witnesses. And their being written by John gives us a strong indicator of the crucifixion/passion interpretation strength.
Notice that the Johannine 1John theme of bearing record comes forth in the very next verse.
John 19:35
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true:
and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
==========
However, I am willing to discuss it with you as if they are the same in your redundant short text. Or as your understanding of the long text.
Two questions.
(1)
Can you show any grammarian or commentary who discusses your explanation? Which has the noun pneuma (in 7 and/or 8) being in grammatical concord, as a referent, with verse 6?
(2)
Again, to your way of thinking, if you had 1 John 5:7 and there was no 1 John 5:6?
what does Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) "concord with"?
Would it be discordant?
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This is more an exegetical add-on. Before he goes into symbols, Eugenius has already clearly stated the solecism and that the heavenly witnesses verse is needed for the (earthly) witnesses verse to properly stand.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Colossians 2:19 (AV)
And not holding the Head,
from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together,
increaseth with the increase of God.
I've added some notes on the page.
One key point is that the pronoun οὗ is either neuter or masculine.
Carl Conrad, the admin on the b-greek forum, wrote:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-June/038939.html
Except that (I think) hOU is more likely neuter than masculine.
In which case there is no constructio ad sensum at all.
In fact, this does appear to be the sense from the learned men of the AV, notice "from which" contrasted with:
Acts 22:5 (AV)
As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders:
from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus,
to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.
Ephesians 4:15-16 (AV)
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
If it is a metaphoric construction ad sensum, it is very simple.
the Head=Christ
Colossians 1:18 (AV)
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Colossians 2:10 (AV)
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Compared to complex metaphoric (mind-reading) ideas like:
witnesses in a Jewish court of law
must be male people
ergo spirit, water, blood are people.
Eugenius:
"It is very well known, since all have experience with it, and it is clearly a peculiar genius of our language, that masculine and feminine nouns may be construed with nouns, adjectives and pronouns in the neuter, with regard to the actual sense (τὰ πράγματα). On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns."
Going round in circles: "μαθητεύσατε πάντα (n.) τὰ (n.) ἔθνη (n.), βαπτίζοντες (m.) αὐτοὺς (m.)" Matt 28:19.
(So it seems even a Greek can be unacquainted with the practice of the Koine of an earlier age.)
Steven Avery
Well-known member
More likely, Eugenius did not consider the limited examples of contructio ad sensum, (mostly multitudes, Gentiles, nations as in Matthew 28:19) as needful to make a diversion from the basic point. Neuter grammar is very flexible with masculine and feminine nouns being common, while masculine grammar is highly unusual with neuter nouns, and is a grating solecism in 1 John 5:8 in the short text.
Similarly, Georgios Babiniotis did not bother with the minor exception that does not apply to the heavenly and earthly witnesses. In a follow-up note from Nick Sayers, Babiniotis read an article that emphasized the constructio ad sensum exception and commented that this does not change the grammatical problem and the syntactic parallelism explanation.
This is in the Facebook NT Textual Criticism thread that I have mirrored on PBF, that I mentioned earlier.
PBF - "Facebook NT Textual Criticism thread on Georgios Babiniotis and syntactic parallelism"
You can see the Babiniotis additional response on the Wiki page from Nick Sayers,
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Johannine_Comma_and_Georgios_Babiniotis
There is a bit more context on the Facebook thread, with some relevant back and forth.
Last edited:
Why so? Κεφαλήν is feminine so still have a gender shift.
But why would οὗ be m. in Ephesians 4:15, if n. in Colossians 2:19?
Whether you call it construction ad sensum or an implied relation back to an earlier (i.e. not obviously adjacent) substantive seems to be largely irrelevant, for in practice they often amount to the same thing. Wallace et al. clearly prefer the implied grammatical relation back to an earlier non-adjacent substantive (even to an absurd extent going back many verses). Others prefer construction ad sensum. Does it really matter if both arrive at the same conclusion? It seems to be in the nature of hair splitting.
If anything construction ad sensum is to be preferred because those who prefer the Wallace way, come out with silly statements such as the adjacent position of a noun and non-matching gender pronoun are grammatically irrelevant, and equate it to an appositive or an accident. It isn't irrevelant as everything is relevant.
In regard to I John 5:7 (non Comma), we can also use either argument.
First the three (legal) witnesses are first introduced as we would expect in the masculine, ὅτι τρεῖς (m.) εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (m.)
(What are these witnesses of? Answer: οὗτός (m.) ἐστιν ὁ (m.) ἐλθὼν (m.) δι’ : The way in which the one, having come, came. in John 5:6. i.e. They all somehow relate to the person of Christ .)
So we can easily posit the use of masculine gender in 1 Jn 5:8. as governed by the masculine witnesses in 1 Jn 5:7 or construction ad sensum, which are effectively equivalent arguments here.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Neuter grammar can easily have masculine and/or feminine nouns, as pointed out by Eugenius Bulgaris.
Can you find any examples from the grammarians that consider neuter grammar as a constructio ad sensum in a specific verse?
Note: I have not looked specifically, but I have not seen any.
The 16 Blunder Verses from Bill Brown are all neuter grammar, but afaik none are considered constructio ad sensum.
Yes I take the point, but I think in the specific context of 1 John 5, this matter is not relevant. Also, more to your point, why would neuter grammar be being used in your examples? There has to be a reason for it.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The various contras often do try to make constructio ad sensum relevant to the 1John short text grammar. That is their right, albeit difficult.
However, the Blunder Verses from Gary Hudson and Bill Brown with neuter grammar are not at all relevant. And have been a source of confusion, trying to crowd out the real grammatical discussion.
As to a study discussing what influences neuter grammar rather than masculine or feminine, maybe we can find more in the grammars or a paper, or from a skilled Greek writer.
Btw, I found a Winer reference to one of the Johannine paraclete verses that you might find interesting. Will plan to share when I am back home on the main puter.
Last edited:
I'm curious why you call them all "blunder verses"
See here: https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...stantives-confuses-james-snapp.1783/post-6868
You say "None of these are remotely relevant to the heavenly witnesses solecism, which specifically involves masculine (or feminine) grammar with neuter nouns. Eugenius Voulgaris made all this exceedingly clear."
- Some of these examples do contain neuters nouns.
However it's not quite accurate to list the issues with the non Comma version in thisway because there isn't a problem if you see "the Spirit, the Water and the Blood" as parenthetical, which they are, being auxilary to the meaning. For we already know the identity of these witnesses from verse 5.6.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: 8 —the Spirit, the water, and the blood— and these three are in agreement.
"For there are three that testify and these three and in agreement" doesn't entail a grammatical solecism of any kind. Here 5.7 is grammatically aligned with 5.8.
The hypothetical solecism is in why "For there are three that testify and these three and in agreement" diverges from the gender of the parenthesis. Yet I have already suggested the reason: the witnesses are to be seen as legal witnesses in a Court of law. Their existence will be used to condemn unbelievers on that dreadful day. Here the point is being rammed home that these are legal witnesses. This requires the subject of the sentence to be masculine. I suggest a true constructio ad sensum or I suggest the nature of them being parenthetical infers their gender is irrelevant (something you have already suggested in John 14 or 15 with the Paraclete governing the masculine gender in all the passages in John which also defer to the Spirit of Truth - neuter - which you asserted was parenthetical). So I suggest an almost identical scenario in 1 John 5:7,8 with respect to the paracelete/"spirit of truth" gender discrepancy In John 14-16.
OK.