Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma

[Maestroh]

Here is the summary of conclusions on page 24:
The purpose of this chapter was to investigate and refute the grammatical argument in favor of the Comma Johanneum proposed by Frederick Nolan. The study included interaction with the published data as presented by Nolan and Dabney, the results of an investigation into similar occurrences of grammatical discord, alternative explanations that support the omission of the Comma, and a refutation of the legitimacy of the grammatical argument. The interaction with Nolan’s argument showed: 1) his grammatical argument was a recent development that is ahistorical and improbable; 2) his supporting evidence was deficient and invoked to support a specific theological view rather than address grammar; 3) a grammatical problem still exists in 1 John 5:8 even without the Comma; 4) the Comma is foreign to the near and far contexts of 1 John; and 5) the passage violates Johannine syntax by inconsistent association of terms (e.g. πατήρ with λόγος). The investigation into similar occurrences of grammatical construct yielded the following results: 1) the grammatical solecism is found in 1 John 5 whether the Comma is included or not; 2) many other examples occur in the NT and LXX. The alternative explanations were documented and investigated with special attention given to objections made by Westcott, Horne, and Marshall. The conclusion was that the most likely explanation for the discordant genders is that they are to be read as instances of personification.

===================


Now herein lies the problem:
Steven Avery Spencer has simply been listening to the wrong people, people who had no idea what they were talking about.
I don't care who Bulgaris was, he was still an idiot if he did, in fact, think grammar vindicates this passage.

Now there are two choices here, and we know which one will be followed:
1) a public apology for misrepresenting me for the last two weeks (well, 15 years, but whatever), a retraction of the grammatical nonsense, a prominently displayed on his board admission that he doesn't read Greek,
2) getting even more angry and strident at me.

I did not become your enemy when I told you the truth.

 

[Maestroh]

17 pages of 53 pages of actual text are spent on the grammatical argument.
That's nearly 1/3 of the entire thesis INCLUDING the intro.


Summary of Thesis Contents:

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Thesis and Structure

Method, Scope, and Limitations

A Brief History of the Comma Johanneum

An Overview of Three Pro-Comma Arguments

2. THE GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A Brief History of the Grammatical Argument

Nolan’s Grammatical Argument

Dabney’s Use of Nolan’s Argument

A Critique of the Grammatical Argument

Alternative Answers to the Grammatical Argument

3. AN EXAMINATION OF EARLY PATRISTIC CITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 26

Did Tertullian Quote the Comma Johanneum?

Did Cyprian Quote the Comma Johanneum?

The Significance of the Cyprian Quotation

The Problems of Evaluating Patristic Evidence

4. EXCISIONAL THEORIES OF THE COMMA JOHANNEUM . . . . . . . . . 42

The Conjecture of Heretical Tampering

A Critique of the Heretical Tampering Theory

The Conjecture of Homoioteleuton

A Critique of Removal by Homoioteleuton

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52



BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

[...] Furthermore, because books and articles advocating the grammatical argument are nearly always written on a popular level, the distribution of misinformation is more widespread than the distribution of rebuttal (page 3). [...] He even grabs the Maynard nonsense of “but Gregory,” but guess what? I even covered that on page 16. At this point there is literally NOTHING of his objections that I didn’t cover. Nothing having to do with GREEK.

Gregory's argument only makes sense if the Comma is missing.

 

[Maestroh]

Gregory's argument only makes sense if the Comma is missing.

EXACTLY!!!!

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

It is my personal observation that the preceding arguments reveal a flawed method: authenticity is assumed before analysis.[8]

[8] This is the logical fallacy petitio principii or “begging the question.”

So true.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

These are not arguments developed in light of the evidence but rather arguments developed to explain the lack of evidence.

Thus his invisible manuscripts theory, vs the visible manuscripts evidence.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

[2] [...] The reason for not addressing each argument is because these arguments deal primarily with nonexistent evidence.

Anecdotal vs empirical.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Avery Spencer, of course, will say "but Gregory!" And yet I dealt with that ALSO on page 16 and onto 17:

Gregory is not debating grammar, but he is responding to the charge of polytheism against the doctrine of the Trinity. He notes that this use of neuter with the masculine is not contrary to grammar but rather to “the laws” of grammar that anti-Trinitarians are presupposing. He never suggests that the grammar is incorrect. Thus, Gregory did not invoke the grammatical argument, meaning that the grammatical argument has no historical antecedent in the ancient church but is a recent development. [1]

PAGE 18
A third problem concerns how this alleged grammatical anomaly could have been introduced. Nolan provides a speculative answer: opponents of the Trinity must have removed the Comma.[1] While a full refutation of this proposal is found in chapter four, the most basic objection is rhetorical: how is it possible that heretics were intelligent enough to remove the reading but not intelligent enough to also alter the grammar? In this case, the same clever conspirators that removed the reading also foolishly exposed their fraud by forgetting to alter the grammar.

PAGE 19
The fifth problem is that a grammatical problem occurs regardless of the inclusion of the Comma:

I John 5: 7-8 Critical Text:
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
(M) (M) (M) (N) (N) (N)

This objection was issued immediately towards Nolan’s position as he acknowledged in his 1830 update.[1] Nolan’s ingenious response was to say that the masculine participle refers backwards to the masculines included in the Comma. If this is true, however, then what substantive is the first μαρτυροῦντες modifying? Whatever Nolan’s reasoning, the “solecism” still occurs.

The masculine τρεῖς appears outside the Comma and is still attracted to three neuter nouns (πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ, αἷμα) in v. eight.

Nolan’s ingenious response was to say that the masculine participle refers backwards to the masculines included in the Comma. If this is true, however, then what substantive is the first μαρτυροῦντες modifying?

Good points.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Two interesting points brought up by Bill's thesis.

1. The Greek Comma-inclusive manuscripts still include the "solecism" (as Avery calls it).
2. They didn't modify, change, "fix", correct the grammatical gender. They didn't change the Greek gender of the word τρεῖς (for example) to the neuter plural τρία (cf. Eugenius Bulgaris) in the so-called "solecism" clause, they just pushed it along by interpolating the Comma (the spurious parenthetical text).

Eugenius says: "But, I ask, wouldn’t the natural and appropriate syntax here rather be: και τρια εισιν τα μαρτυρουντα εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και τα τρια εις το εν εισιν."
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/eugenius-bulgaris-on-the-solecism.65/#post-678
http://the1780letterofeugenius.blogspot.com/

Thus the solecism isn't removed, it's still there WITH the Comma.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Here's another interesting point in Eugenius.

"...Quae igitur alia ratio occurrentis istius ακαταλληλιας afferri potest nisi sola praecedentis versus septimi expressio quae per hunc immediate sequentum versum octavum symbolice explicatur et plane replicatur allusione facta ad id quod praecesserat? Tres igitur qui in caelo testimonium perhibent, primo positi sunt versu septimo, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν. Deinceps vero immediate adducti, iidem ipsi testes, quatenus in terra etiam testimonium idem confirment per tria haec symbola versu octavo..."
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/eugenius-bulgaris-on-the-solecism.65/#post-164

"...But the former is written, not the latter. What reason can therefore be given for this failure to comply with the rule? It can only be the expression of the preceding 7th verse, which through the immediately following 8th verse is set forth symbolically and obviously restated, an allusion made to that which precedes, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν. Then immediately the very same three witnesses are brought in, to confirm on earth the same witness, through these three symbols, in vs. 8..."
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/eugenius-bulgaris-on-the-solecism.65/#post-678

Eugenius say's that verse 8 is symbolic!

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Here's the same point in Eugenius a little further on, but with more eisegesis.

"Concerning what was said in the text [perhaps = manuscript] above, clearly the Father, the Word and the Spirit. 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. But alas! I have made a cup, not a jug.(2)..."

(2) Urceum institui, non amphoram. Cf. Jerome Letter 107.3, "Paene lapsus sum ad aliam materiam et currente rota, dum urceum facere cogito, amphoram finxit manus."
This refers to shifting subject matter, so that the contrast is between the type of pottery, and not the size.

https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/eugenius-bulgaris-on-the-solecism.65/#post-678

Eugenius say's that verse 8 is symbolic!

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Eugenius' symbolic eisegesis is identical to Augustine's sacramental/symbolic eisegesis at Contra Maximinum, Book 2, Chapter 22, Section 3.

Eugenius

• spirit = Father
• blood = Son
• water = Holy Spirit

Augustine

• spirit = Father
• blood = Son
• water = Holy Spirit

 

[Maestroh]

Bulgaris serves one purpose in this nonsense and only one: his works are in foreign languages and difficult to find, enabling the taunting bullying fake study nonsense that underlies the fraud of KJVO….a view even it’s adherents KNOW depends upon lying and deception. Easier to promote the lie when the materials are largely inaccessible to the people you despise.

Every single KJVO on the planet is a phony who knows he or she is a phony. There is not an ounce of sincerity in these people. “But Bulgaris was great and he said” is the argument of the unlearned, uneducated and willfully deceitful.

But get ready. Narcissists are genetically incapable of admitting they’ve been publicly vivisected so get ready for the online version of the Big Bad Wolf huffing and puffing and mostly blowing hot air. No admission of error or deceit will be forthcoming.

How would you like to be in the twilight of your life and have to admit you’d been wrong all of it?

 

[Maestroh]

I’m sure right now the emails are flying to Greeks begging “help me please! What can I say?”

The first thing you can say is the one you’ll never say - “I was wrong.” Get ready for a convoluted excuse as to why this impossible Greek is suddenly okay but only now since the poster just learned two weeks ago about this problem and instead of simply admitting the truth waited for me to bring it up.

I really don’t care what your modern Greek friends have to say about a different language. Neither Babblingitos nor Izak Yankem is a Koine scholar so who really cares?

And again - you’re the one who asserted YOU PERSONALLY understand this better than the rest of us, we have you on video saying it. So quit wasting time awaiting emails from others to make your arguments for you and simply admit you tried to hide the truth.

 

[Unbound68]

Funny how my post (originally #443) pointing out Avery's unqualified attacks on yourself and TNC got deleted. No explanation to me. No editing a word or two that they thought broke some rule while leaving the rest of what I wrote intact. Just gone. All of it.

And this isn't the first time. The post I made earlier in this thread about Avery being deliberately obtuse, despite the fact that my post had been replied to in full by Maestroh when he first entered this thread, was covertly removed more than a week or two after I posted it.

Again, completely gone. No explanation. No editing select parts of it by a moderator. Just wiped.

 

[Unbound68]

And my posts asking TNC about Avery's alteration of Conti's footnote regarding Potamius have been wiped from this thread as well.

Did all these posts get thrown into the "memory hole" or what? (You youngsters can look up that reference).

 

[Maestroh]

In that sense it is analogous to finding the blunders of Bill Brown in his attacks on the grammatical argument using verses with masculine and/or feminine nouns.

I hate to break it to you, but there's masculine nouns involved even in the CJ.

If you don't know that, it isn't my fault.

Just parse the adjective treis and article oi and participle marturountes and see what the parsing shows.

Participles are parsed as BOTH nouns AND verbs.

Bill knew the gender of the words, but he got lost in space on what were the fundamental issues.

I'm not sure what it is that keeps you telling these tall tales, but I implore you to stop it.

We'll cover this more below.

And with his bluster posting

Uh, I'm not the one posting on another board and in another thread here but carefully avoiding this thread because I got caught hiding information, pal.

and absolute refusal to acknowledge the error

No error was made.

Even in the Bulgaris limitation of "Made up Greek rules that we can change on a whim", verse 8 demolishes your claim.

I notice you don't even bother to come back and address it. I’m guessing your desperate emails to fluent Greeks haven’t returned yet.

Are you simply waiting for the convoluted musings of Babblingitos?

Are you that incapable of arguing Greek without the crutch of someone else whose only asset is he knows it better than you (low bar I know).

You hid the information that you had.
You didn't address it.
And now you're desperately wanting one of your friends to bail you out.

Let's be very clear: I don't care WHO says "this cannot happen," it happens in verse eight. Now...do you want to tell the rest of us to drop v 8 in the KJV?

It obviously DOES happen, and it WAS addressed by Horne over 200 years ago.

he has poisoned the fascinating discussions on the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

What he means is, "He has made it impossible for me to go to other internet boards and try to trip people up!"

And not one contra has been willing to tell Bill Brown that he is wrong.

Let's re-word this:
"Not one person who ACTUALLY HAS STUDIED GREEK AND WRITTEN A TEXTBOOK ON IT thinks Maestroh was wrong".
Because I wasn't.

And besides - the so-called contras tell YOU that YOU ARE WRONG all the time, but you don't seem capable of listening.

That miss is key to understanding skewed and biased argumentation from those opposed to heavenly witnesses authenticity. And that includes you, TNC.

Except I didn't miss anything...

Of course, if you have an answer that you think vindicates Bill's usage of irrelevant verses, you could share.

Who is it engaging in blustery posting now, Mr. Spencer?

However, the issues are extremely simple,

They certainly are. The solecism still occurs in verse eight - EXACTLY AS I SAID IT DID.

You just can't read Greek and thus didn't know that. It's going to be interesting, though to see what convoluted gymnastics you and Babblingitos and Izak Yankem come up with to say this still can't happen. Fine - if it can't happen, yank 1 John 5:8 out of the KJV then.

and everyone can see from Eugenius Bulgaris that the verses used were not valid.

No, what everyone sees is that Bulgaris didn't know what he was saying.

And that's why nobody in Koine has been fooled on this issue for two centuries now.

In fact, that truth of only neuter noun verses being relevant is actually in the Bill Brown thesis paper!

Except that's not what we have, not in either case. And that’s not in my thesis so why do you keep making these demonstrably false claims?

οτι τρεις (M) εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες (M) εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ (M) ο λογος (M) και το αγιον πνευμα (NEUTER) και ουτοι οι τρεις (M) εν εισιν

και τρεις (M) εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες (M) εν τη γη το πνευμα (N) και το υδωρ (N) και το αιμα (N) και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

YOUR WORD: "only neuter noun verses being relevant"

Verse 7 has all masculines save for pneuma hagion (neuter) in the basic sentence structure (no neuters) and verse 8 has BOTH masculines AND neuters.

Hence, you're not even discussing it correctly - and then you're blaming me for something Bulgaris didn't even say.

And all that is why I made this thread, that has all the basics in the first four posts.

Good. Now you can answer there, too.

 

[Conan]

And my posts asking TNC about Avery's alteration of Conti's footnote regarding Potamius have been wiped from this thread as well.

Did all these posts get thrown into the "memory hole" or what? (You youngsters can look up that reference).

Avery misrepresented a scholars footnote? Pray tell?

 

[Unbound68]

Avery misrepresented a scholars footnote? Pray tell?

Post #96 in this thread makes reference to it. The altered footnote in question was in the "book" Avery and his "team" were writing called The Witness of God is Greater, in which he provides excerpts from some of Conti's work called The Life of Potamius.

Avery justified his reason for the alteration by basically saying Conti was wrong to have put 1 jn 5:8 in his footnote, so Avery or someone else on his "team" changed the note in the excerpt from Conti to read verse 7 instead of verse 8.....because everyone knows Potamius was referencing verse 7 and not some "invisible allegory" (as Avery is fond of saying) of verse 8.

At some point Avery was forced to put a note on his "pure bible" forum explaining himself.

I told him that whole chain of events seems quite similar to how the Comma was created in the first place! Creeping from a footnote into the text!

I believe there's more about this incident in the top Avery thread at BVDB.

 

[Unbound68]

Cyprian would look like a total fool if he wrote that the Bible had an important phrase that it actually did not have.
Especially as he was known for accurate Bible quoting.

Sure. So much so that he used Filio (SON) instead of verbum (WORD) when supposedly quoting verse 7.

Maestroh covered this as well in his thesis. So either Cyprian didn't accurately quote the Bible when supposedly quoting the Comma, or he was looking at verse 8 as symbolic of the trinity.