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