1 John 5:7-8 Johannine Comma - Greek Grammar

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
This thread is specifically for questions surrounding the grammar of 1 John 5:7-8.

Don't go off topic please. Keep the theme of the thread tidy please. ;)

Post away.
 
Ok. So my contention is that there is no solecism or discordance at all in the non-comma version of 1 John 5:7/8, because the participle-substantive clause τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (masculine) obeys the gender rules for participle-substantive clauses, which are m/f for concrete things, and neuter for abstract things. As the witnesses (spirit, water, blood) are concrete things, and as witnesses by their very nature are concrete things (also deduced by there being three of them), then the gender is properly masculine, and the gender of the nouns in apposition in 1 John 5:8, i.e. τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, are irrelevant.
 
Ok. So my contention is that there is no solecism or discordance at all in the non-comma version of 1 John 5:7/8, because the participle-substantive clause τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (masculine) obeys the gender rules for participle-substantive clauses, which are m/f for concrete things, and neuter for abstract things. As the witnesses (spirit, water, blood) are concrete things, and as witnesses by their very nature are concrete things (also deduced by there being three of them), then the gender is properly masculine, and the gender of the nouns in apposition in 1 John 5:8, i.e. τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, are irrelevant.

He's run away again.
 
i re-pubblic! For me the examples of Hofstetter not are good for grammar of 1 John 5, 7-8!And not are never vs grammar of Bulgaris, pls read letter of Bulgaris: Neutre(modificator genre) to Masc or Fem(sostantives) is grammar greek correct for Bulgaris; masculine(modificator genre) to Neutre(sostantives) is grammar strange for opinion of Bulgaris!

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
 
i re-pubblic! For me the examples of Hofstetter not are good for grammar of 1 John 5, 7-8!And not are never vs grammar of Bulgaris, pls read letter of Bulgaris: Neutre(modificator genre) to Masc or Fem(sostantives) is grammar greek correct for Bulgaris; masculine(modificator genre) to Neutre(sostantives) is grammar strange for opinion of Bulgaris!

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
Here again is the Hofstetter article.
________________

"Recently I took another look at First John 5:7-8 to consider the grammatical issues regarding that text, and particularly whether or not the text could stand as it does in the critical text, without the Johannine Comma. I have concluded that it certainly can, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and with more than one grammatical explanation.

"First, let’s consider the claim of Eugenius Bulgaris regarding the agreement of nouns, adjectives and participles:
“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, ta pragmata). On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns.”

"This claim is so extraordinary that I once again checked the Latin to ensure that I had read it right. I’m particularly focusing on the second sentence, and there is no easy way to say it – it’s just simply wrong. In fact it’s a regular feature of the language that “neuter noun substantives” may be modified by adjectives or participles reflecting the “natural” gender of the word (i.e., the actual gender of the referent, that to which the noun actually refers). I will also note here that Eugenius does not specifically mention participles, but appears to group them under “adjectives,” since he is specifically in context talking about a participial construction. Here is Smyth:

1013. Construction according to the Sense (926 a). — The real, not the grammatical, gender often determines the agreement: ὦ φίλτατ᾽, ὦ περισσὰ τιμηθεὶς τέκνον O dearest, O greatly honoured child E. Tro. 735 (this use of the attributive adjective is poetical), ““τὰ μειράκια πρὸς ἀλλήλουςδιαλεγόμενοι” the youths conversing with one another” P. Lach. 180e, ““ταῦτ᾽ ἔλεγεν ἡ ἀναιδὴς αὕτη κεφαλή, ἐξεληλυθώς” this shameless fellow spoke thus when he came out” D. 21.117. (A Greek Grammar for Colleges, 1920).

Smyth is a standard reference, and I cite him in particular in order to show that masculine modifiers with neuter substantives are a regular feature of the language."

________________

τέκνον (neuter) - child : this is frequently a candidate for constructio ad sensum.

But in 1 John 5:7.8 it is my argument that the real substantive is οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (M). There are three witnesses. That is the what the statement is about. The nouns in apposition are used attributively, to elucidate the nature of the witnesses.

It is not that οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (M) is modifying the neuter nouns in apposition. It is that the nouns in apposition are acting as attributive nouns.

"English often uses nouns as adjectives - to modify other nouns. For example, a car that people drive in races is a race car. A car with extra power or speed is a sports car. Nouns that modify other nouns are called adjectival nouns or noun modifiers. For our purposes, they are called attributive nouns" [source]

Whatever the claims of Eugenius Bulgaris, the central issue is that he is misreading the grammar.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top