TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
You haven't proved your initial premise, i.e. that Tertullian's word's "qui tres unum sunt, non unus" is actually a quote from the Parenthetical Text (Comma Johanneum) in any way whatsoever.
1 John 5:7-8 Johannine Comma - Tertullian Adversus Praxeas 25.1
- Thread starter TwoNoteableCorruptions
- Start date
You haven't proved your initial premise, i.e. that Tertullian's word's "qui tres unum sunt, non unus" is actually a quote from the Parenthetical Text (Comma Johanneum) in any way whatsoever.
I said "identicial construction" not identical genders. The genders do not have to be the same for the same construction to apply. I can see a point of query with respect to a distinction between constructio ad sensum (grammatical or ungrammatical) and phrases using mixed genders.
However the thing to note is that the gender of the particple/adjectival substantives in all three of the BH's examples are undeniably being assigned per the rules for grammatical constructio ad sensum that I listed from the text books: masculine/feminine for concrete things/persons, neuter for concepts. Since this is inarguable, you have no case for controverting it.
No, I was harmonizing BH's constructio ad sensum (proper - ungrammatical) examples in Luke 19:37 & Matthew 25:32 with the other three verses involving participle and adjectival substantives, which I loosely termed constructio ad sensum (grammatical), because they seem to fall into a seperate category in that the participles and adjectives are true substantives in their own right; and (as per aove) their genders follow the the rules for grammatical constructio ad sensum.
So there is a distinction between types of constructio ad sensum, i.e. between participles and adjectives used as adjectives, and participles and adjectives used as substantives. Yet it is still constructio ad sensum in both cases. BH quotes different types of constructio ad sensum alongside each other.
This is obviously confusing you, but it is not "gibberish". Also, mixed genders doesn't disapply the rules of constructio ad sensum, which can still be made out in the case of participles and adjectives used as substantives (neuter for concepts, m/f for concrete things).
Your usual smear techniques in which you are well versed are completely out of place in this field. You are unable to refute the well known rules of grammar in the textbooks, so stop bellyaching.
Last edited:
I read Hofstetter's article a while ago and reread it just to be sure(here what was said by bulgaris pagg 206/207:https://books.google.it/books?id=kKsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA206&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ). I don't know how it works in ancient Greek grammar; but in the koine Greek of the New Testament there are not many parallels presented by Hofstetter that do not fit and here I will make an analysis of the reasons why they do not fit:
1st case: Matthew 25, 32: και συναχθησεται εμπροσθεν αυτου παντα τα εθνη (N) και αφοριει αυτους (M) απ αλληλων…
And before him all the nations (Greek: N) will be gathered : and he will separate them (Greek: M) from each other ...
The case in question is not a parallel because `` them '' (αυτους) does not refer to nations (τα εθνη), but to the people who are part of those nations that is αυτους is a different subject from εθνη if this were not the case for the meaning of the sentence would be that one ethnicity is entirely goat and another ethnicity is sheep. in the economy of discourse this is not the sense for this is not a good parallel of 1 Jn 5, 7-8!
2nd case: Matthew 23:23 τα βαρυτερα (N) του νομου την κρισιν (F) και τον ελεον (F) και την πιστιν (F)
the most important matters (Greek: N) of law, judgment (Greek: F), mercy (Greek: F) and faith (Greek: F).
First '' of the law '' is not in apposition but only the three subsequent terms already an error; according to this example it does not go against the one expressed by Bugaris that is that neutrals (adjectives, pronouns, etc.) act as gender modifiers of the single nouns in apposition (in fact I do not understand this alleged parallel, against what Bulgaris stated, which for me does not goes against Bulgaris' claims at all)!
3rd case 1 Jn 2, 16
οτι παν(N) το εν τω κοσμω η επιθυμια(F) της σαρκος και η επιθυμια(F) των οφθαλμων και η αλαζονεια(F) του βιου
Because all that (Greek: N) is in the world, the lust (Greek: F) of the flesh, and the lust (Greek: F) of the eyes and the pride (Greek: F) of life
another example that clearly does not prove anything as it is in line with what Bulgaris said
Maybe Romans 2, 14 but the fact that one (1 Jn 5, 7-8) talks about things that have nothing in common and the other (Rom 2, 14) talks about people does not make him a good example so ultimately I don't know whether it is really relevant as a parallel for this and other reasons!
PS another thing of Origen taken up one from the commentary on the Gospel of John and the other from the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew on 1 Jn 5, 7-8 I do not know if relevant:
Commentary on the Gospel of John: ...ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ὁ μαθητὴς Ἰωάννης τὸ πνεῦμα(N) καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ(N) καὶ τὸ αἷμα(N) ἀνέγραψεν τὰ τρία(N) εἰς ἓν γινόμενα
Comment by Matthew: Μωσῆς (M) ... Ἠλίας (M) ... Ἰησοῦ (M) ..., ἀλλὰ γεγόνασιν οἱ τρεῖς (M) εἰς τὸ ἔν
when he talks about things he is neutral when instead of masculine people
1st case: Matthew 25, 32: και συναχθησεται εμπροσθεν αυτου παντα τα εθνη (N) και αφοριει αυτους (M) απ αλληλων…
And before him all the nations (Greek: N) will be gathered : and he will separate them (Greek: M) from each other ...
The case in question is not a parallel because `` them '' (αυτους) does not refer to nations (τα εθνη), but to the people who are part of those nations that is αυτους is a different subject from εθνη if this were not the case for the meaning of the sentence would be that one ethnicity is entirely goat and another ethnicity is sheep. in the economy of discourse this is not the sense for this is not a good parallel of 1 Jn 5, 7-8!
2nd case: Matthew 23:23 τα βαρυτερα (N) του νομου την κρισιν (F) και τον ελεον (F) και την πιστιν (F)
the most important matters (Greek: N) of law, judgment (Greek: F), mercy (Greek: F) and faith (Greek: F).
First '' of the law '' is not in apposition but only the three subsequent terms already an error; according to this example it does not go against the one expressed by Bugaris that is that neutrals (adjectives, pronouns, etc.) act as gender modifiers of the single nouns in apposition (in fact I do not understand this alleged parallel, against what Bulgaris stated, which for me does not goes against Bulgaris' claims at all)!
3rd case 1 Jn 2, 16
οτι παν(N) το εν τω κοσμω η επιθυμια(F) της σαρκος και η επιθυμια(F) των οφθαλμων και η αλαζονεια(F) του βιου
Because all that (Greek: N) is in the world, the lust (Greek: F) of the flesh, and the lust (Greek: F) of the eyes and the pride (Greek: F) of life
another example that clearly does not prove anything as it is in line with what Bulgaris said
Maybe Romans 2, 14 but the fact that one (1 Jn 5, 7-8) talks about things that have nothing in common and the other (Rom 2, 14) talks about people does not make him a good example so ultimately I don't know whether it is really relevant as a parallel for this and other reasons!
PS another thing of Origen taken up one from the commentary on the Gospel of John and the other from the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew on 1 Jn 5, 7-8 I do not know if relevant:
Commentary on the Gospel of John: ...ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ὁ μαθητὴς Ἰωάννης τὸ πνεῦμα(N) καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ(N) καὶ τὸ αἷμα(N) ἀνέγραψεν τὰ τρία(N) εἰς ἓν γινόμενα
Comment by Matthew: Μωσῆς (M) ... Ἠλίας (M) ... Ἰησοῦ (M) ..., ἀλλὰ γεγόνασιν οἱ τρεῖς (M) εἰς τὸ ἔν
when he talks about things he is neutral when instead of masculine people
Last edited:
I think Matt 23:32 is an interesting parallel to 1 John 5:7/8, although not grammatically equivalent as in 1 John 5:7/8 the primary issue is the gender of a participle substantive and in Matt 23:32 it is that of a personal possessive pronoun.
In Matt 23:32 a constructio ad sensum gender seems to be engaged, to denote that it is people who are the referent of "nations". But an alternative is to see an ellipsis construction, in that the "nations" lacks the word "people" (Gk: λαός (M)). That is, the translation should supply "nations [of the peoples]".
In 1 John 5:7/8 the masculine is used because the referent is not the exernal quality of the things that compromise the witnesses (spirit, water, blood), but (this is the real issue) to whom the witnesses relate and denote, which is the Holy Spirit. Father, & Son .
Excellent observation.
And might I add - the tactics are cover for the fact he doesn't know anything at all about the language.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Showing balanced evidence Steven.
Showing clearly for the audience (which you habitually hide) that the words "tres unum sunt" are in Clause-D in BOTH verse's, BOTH verse 7 and verse 8 in the Latin versions.
1 John 5:7 Vulgate
[Clause-A] Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in cælo : [Clause-C] Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt.
1 John 5:8 Vulgate
[Clause-A] Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt.
Codex Fuldensis (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Folio 929, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/fullscreen/PPN325289808/929/
Codex Amiatinus (circa. 7th century A.D./C.E.)
Carta [Folio] 1014r, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcwdl.wdl_20150/?sp=2026&r=-0.035,0.337,1.216,0.499,0
Lectionary of Luxeuil (circa. 7th century A.D./C.E.)
Folio 177, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84516388/f363.item.zoom
[Clause-A] Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in cælo : [Clause-C] Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt.
1 John 5:8 Vulgate
[Clause-A] Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt.
Codex Fuldensis (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Folio 929, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/fullscreen/PPN325289808/929/
Codex Amiatinus (circa. 7th century A.D./C.E.)
Carta [Folio] 1014r, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcwdl.wdl_20150/?sp=2026&r=-0.035,0.337,1.216,0.499,0
Lectionary of Luxeuil (circa. 7th century A.D./C.E.)
Folio 177, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84516388/f363.item.zoom
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Very proper to do so. Also remember to point out that verse 7 connects with the text about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while the spirit, water and blood of verse 8 connects with nothing in the Tertullian writing.
This applies to all three references, Tertullian and two from Cyprian..
At least you are back to Tertullian being an invisible allegory.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
And again, you haven't, in any way whatsoever, proved your initial premise, that Tertullian's word's "qui tres unum sunt, non unus" was actually some sort of quote from the interpolated parenthetical text (the Comma Johanneum).
Tertullian's surrounding context in Chapter 25 (Adversus Praxeam) weighs far more against a quote from John's First Epistle, than for it.
Verse 7 of chapter 5 of John's First Epistle doesn't connect with any mention of "the Paraclete" that's in the sentence leading into "qui tres unum sunt, non unus..." etc.
John's Gospel and Tertullian's Montanism does though. ?
The sense of Tertullian's sentence "qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, 'Ego et Pater unum sumus'” makes perfect sense in the context of the grammatical gender/number argument which he simply reiterates from a previous chapter, without the need of any preconceived and/or retrospective premise that "tres unum sunt" has to be interpolated into verse 7.
Tertullian's argument simply doesn't need later interpolations to make sense. ?
Tertullian's surrounding context in Chapter 25 (Adversus Praxeam) weighs far more against a quote from John's First Epistle, than for it.
Verse 7 of chapter 5 of John's First Epistle doesn't connect with any mention of "the Paraclete" that's in the sentence leading into "qui tres unum sunt, non unus..." etc.
John's Gospel and Tertullian's Montanism does though. ?
The sense of Tertullian's sentence "qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, 'Ego et Pater unum sumus'” makes perfect sense in the context of the grammatical gender/number argument which he simply reiterates from a previous chapter, without the need of any preconceived and/or retrospective premise that "tres unum sunt" has to be interpolated into verse 7.
Tertullian's argument simply doesn't need later interpolations to make sense. ?
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Tertullian's word's connect perfectly with the preceding sentence based on the Gospel and connects perfectly with John 10:30 as Tertullian said.
Tertullian's EIS-EGESIS didn't (+ doesn't) need any connection with later interpolated texts to make perfect sense in the context of his Montanist treatise about Montanist revelations of re-newed sacraments and understanding God "as one in a new way" which Tertullian said wasn't understood or made known "through" or in the time of Jesus and/or the Apostles (i.e. by the genuine "Paraclete" Spirit being poured out at Pentecost 33 A.D./C.E.).
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
No smear.
You made up this wacky idea of grammatical and non-grammatical constructio ad sensum.
Waste of time.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Here you are surprisingly close to the syntactic parallelism explained by Georgios Babiniotis.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Circular argumentation.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Puxanto, little correction here, it looks like mercy is masculine.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/23/1/t_conc_952023
It does not change the basic explanation, following Bulgaris.
The heavenly witnesses verse is completely redundant if my assessment of the ultimate referents is correct.
No I did not make up the distinction between constructio ad sensum proper, where a pronoun or adjective/participle of the incorrect gender is used, and the case where the gender of an adjectival/participle substantive appears discordant with nouns in apposition to it.
I just put labels on them to distinguish. If you can't see the grammatical difference, then you have no business to be lecturing anyone on Greek.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Underwhelming.
Tertullian makes no connection whatsoever with John's First Epistle in this passage.
It clearer than clear in situ where he draws his EIS-EGESIS from.
Tertullian of Carthage
Adversus Praxeam
Translated By Peter Holmes
Chapter 25
"What follows Philip's question [John 14:8], and the Lord's whole treatment of it [i.e. Phillips question], to the end of John's Gospel, continues to furnish us with statements of the same kind, distinguishing the Father and the Son, with the properties of each. Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father [John 14:16], and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called "another Comforter,"[John 14:16] indeed; but in what way He is another we have already shown, [i.e. in Adv. Prax. Chapter 13] "He shall receive of mine," [John 16:14] says Christ, just as Christ Himself received of the Father's.
Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete [John 14:11, 20], produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," [John 10:30] in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. Run through the whole Gospel, and you will find..."
Adversus Praxeam
Translated By Peter Holmes
Chapter 25
"What follows Philip's question [John 14:8], and the Lord's whole treatment of it [i.e. Phillips question], to the end of John's Gospel, continues to furnish us with statements of the same kind, distinguishing the Father and the Son, with the properties of each. Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father [John 14:16], and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called "another Comforter,"[John 14:16] indeed; but in what way He is another we have already shown, [i.e. in Adv. Prax. Chapter 13] "He shall receive of mine," [John 16:14] says Christ, just as Christ Himself received of the Father's.
Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete [John 14:11, 20], produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," [John 10:30] in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. Run through the whole Gospel, and you will find..."
Though you desire it, assert it vehemently, repeat it etc, you're mistaking Tertullian's words (his own EIS-EGESIS) for an interpolation that didn't exist in Scripture yet (a kind amphibological fallacy).
The grammatical nature of Tertullian's argument requires that his words "tres unum sunt, non unus" etc, are translated more explicitly into English than what is required in either 1 John 5:7 and 8 Clause's D.
"In this manner the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete is accomplished, three masculine [identities] that are connected together, each one originating from out of the other. But how these three are [Var. "sint" = "But how these three might be"] one [neuter thing], not a single masculine [identity], is simply as [Or: "is just as"] it says "I and the Father, we are one," [John 10:30] by the uniting of the substance(s) [Latin = plural], not by any singularity of number(s)"
Tertullian is returning to grammatical points he made even more explicit in a previous chapter.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Where could "tres unum sunt" come from?
It could be taken from 1 John 5:8 Clause-D in Latin.
It could be taken from 1 John 5:8 Clause-D in Latin.
1 John 5:8 Vulgate
[Clause-A] Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt.
Codex Fuldensis (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Folio 929, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/fullscreen/PPN325289808/929/
Codex Amiatinus (circa. 7th century A.D./C.E.)
Carta [Folio] 1014r, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcwdl.wdl_20150/?sp=2026&r=-0.035,0.337,1.216,0.499,0
Lectionary of Luxeuil (circa. 7th century A.D./C.E.)
Folio 177, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84516388/f363.item.zoom
[Clause-A] Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt.
Codex Fuldensis (circa. 6th century A.D./C.E.)
Folio 929, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/fullscreen/PPN325289808/929/
Codex Amiatinus (circa. 7th century A.D./C.E.)
Carta [Folio] 1014r, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcwdl.wdl_20150/?sp=2026&r=-0.035,0.337,1.216,0.499,0
Lectionary of Luxeuil (circa. 7th century A.D./C.E.)
Folio 177, Verse 8, Clause-D
“tres unum sunt”
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84516388/f363.item.zoom
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Steven Avery
Well-known member
When you add to the Holmes book your personal commentary (and not just a verse number, you should add your initials. Or are you using an italics standard for your commentary? If so, you can say at the top, TNC comments in italics.
No, because in Matthew 23:23 τὰ βαρύτερα is an adjectival substantive that follows a grammatical rule that stipulates concepts are neuter, with nouns of various genders in apposition.