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

[Unbound68]

I would bet that not until Steven Avery came on the scene some 72 years ago were the phrases "solecism anyway" and "invisible allegory " needed or used.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Who refers to three masculine persons?

See simplified argument posted after. ?

 

[Steven Avery]

Therefore, the masculine gender words 1 John 5:8 (Clause-A, note verse 8) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες

To what antecedent do the masculine gender words 1 John 5:7 (Clause-A, note verse 7) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες

You do know that there are four masculine gender words (not counting any substantives) in both verses, since τρεῖς is there twice.

Since the masculine grammar is on both sides of the substantives in the earthly witnesses, our friend Ilias Theodosis on Facebook referred to it as a "hole", and thus especially notable.

 

[Steven Avery]

I would bet that not until Steven Avery came on the scene some 72 years ago were the phrases "solecism anyway" and "invisible allegory " needed or used.

And I was also complimented today by a native Greek-speaking friend for the phrase "dual addressing". That one I coined for the usage in many verses writing of God and Jesus (with various phrase permutations) as distinct entities . The gentleman asked me if I wrote a paper on the topic, using the phrase. He originally was contra the heavenly witnesses as authentic, but changed his position largely because of the grammatical argument.

 

[Steven Avery]

No problem. I can rephrase that.

What masculine persons...

Why are they "persons"?

 

[logos1560]

Nowhere is it shown that Nolan talked of three masculine witnesses.
There is no footnote, and my search has not found any such spot.

Did you read the entire book Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate by Frederick Nolan? Do you assume that you could not overlook something in his book?

I have not read the entire book, but I found this quotation:
Frederick Nolan wrote: "In 1 John 5:7 three masculine adjectives .... are forced into union with three neuter substantives" (p. 257).

Frederick Nolan also wrote: "he [referring to the apostle] inculcates a just notion of the Trinity; distinguishing the Persons from the substance" (p. 276) and it is clear from Nolan's book that he is referring to the three heavenly witnesses as "the Persons" [plural].

 

[Unbound68]

And I was also complimented today by a native Greek-speaking friend for the phrase "dual addressing". That one I coined for the usage in many verses writing of God and Jesus (with various phrase permutations) as distinct entities

Wow. I guess the giants of the faith over the last 2000 years really missed out.

 

[Steven Avery]

Did you read the entire book Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate by Frederick Nolan? Do you assume that you could not overlook something in his book? I have not read the entire book, but I found this quotation:
Frederick Nolan wrote: "In 1 John 5:7 three masculine adjectives .... are forced into union with three neuter substantives" (p. 257).

That quotes says specifically that it is referring to the masculine elements that you omitted:
τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες
(actually τρεῖς is in twice, so there are four words)

An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek vulgate, or received text of the New Testament (1815)
Frederick Nolan
https://books.google.com/books?id=FF4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA257

This might explain the apparent error by Bill Brown in his thesis thinking that Nolan had written of three witnesses/nouns.

Nolan insists that the masculine participle and adjective demand masculine substantives. His solution is to insert the Comma because he claims it has three masculine witnesses.24 p. 13

24 In reality, the Comma has two masculines and a neuter, a fact that would seem to refute his argument. Nolan acknowledges this but as we will see shortly, he presents an ingenious answer to that objection.

Bill Brown might have read of the three masculine adjectives and then mentally shifted them to nouns, since that would better fit his narrative of an elementary error by Frederick Nolan (rather than an elementary error by Bill Brown.)

Also there is nothing that fits that Nolan "acknowledges", since he never claimed three masculine witnesses.

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

So far, Bill Brown has not accepted any of the corrections as errors, statements that could be improved in his thesis (perhaps in a later edition.)
Not even the 16 Blunder Verses.

Bill always finds ways to throw sand, like he did with the Horne error.
Bill Brown, you will need your sandbox here once again.

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

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You do know that there are four masculine gender words (not counting any substantives) in both verses, since τρεῖς is there twice.

Since the masculine grammar is on both sides of the substantives in the earthly witnesses, our friend Ilias Theodosis on Facebook referred to it as a "hole", and thus especially notable.

Your still avoiding the specific point, and key word denoting the action of the substantives involved in my question, i.e μαρτυροῦντες (in bold).

Why did you run to Facebook for help? If you have all the answers?

 

[Steven Avery]

Why did you run to Facebook for help?

False assertion again.
Where?

 

[Unbound68]

That quotes says specifically that it is referring to the masculine elements that you omitted:
τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες
(actually τρεῖς is in twice, so there are four words)

An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek vulgate, or received text of the New Testament (1815)
Frederick Nolan
https://books.google.com/books?id=FF4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA257

This might explain the apparent error by Bill Brown in his thesis thinking that Nolan had written of three witnesses/nouns.



Bill Brown might have read of the three masculine adjectives and then mentally shifted them to nouns, since that would better fit his narrative of an elementary error by Frederick Nolan (rather than an elementary error by Bill Brown.)

Also there is nothing that fits that Nolan "acknowledges", since he never claimed three masculine witnesses.

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

So far, Bill Brown has not accepted any of the corrections as errors, statements that could be improved in his thesis (perhaps in a later edition.)
Not even the 16 Blunder Verses.

Bill always finds ways to throw sand, like he did with the Horne error.
Bill Brown, you will need your sandbox here once again.

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

Are you sure you've properly read and understood what Maestroh has written in his thesis?

 

[Steven Avery]

Are you sure you've properly read and understood what Maestroh has written in his thesis?

Quite sure, regarding the sections I have discussed here. It has been easy for Bill to respond. In the two cases we he tried to “respond”, the 16 Blunder Verses and his misreading Horne, he only came up with bluster and throwing sand (throwing in a de facto acknowledgment that I was right on Horne.)

Thus my analysis was confirmed.

It is confirmed even more reading his insults and sand throwing on BVDB.

 

[Unbound68]

On pg. 11 of the thesis, Maestroh quotes Nolan:

In 1 John v.7. the manifest rent in the Corrected Text, which appears from the solecism in the language, is filled up in the Received Text; and ὁ πατήρ καὁ ὶ Λόγος, being inserted, the masculine adjectives, τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυρντες [sic] are ascribed suitable substantives; and by the figure attraction, which is so prevalent in Greek, every objection is removed to the structure of the context. (Integrity, 259-60) Bolding mine - U68

Maestroh then explains what Nolan is arguing on page 12 of the thesis:

To simplify Nolan’s argument: adjectives and substantives must be the same gender (concord or “figure attraction”).49 Specifically, τρεῖς is a masculine adjective and μαρτυροῦντες is a masculine participle. If the Comma is left out then the masculine words have three neuters (“Spirit,” “water,” and “blood” [READ: WITNESSES - U68]) performing the action (“bearing witness”) in rough concord with the masculine participle and adjective. Nolan insists that the masculine participle and adjective demand masculine substantives. His solution is to insert the Comma because he claims it has three masculine witnesses [READ: the end result of his figure attraction argument]. Bracketed notes and Bolding mine - U68

49 Nolan, Integrity, 259. The different terms “figure attraction,” “figure of attraction,” and “power of attraction” all refer to the same alleged rule of Greek syntax Nolan invokes.

This is how I understand it. Of course, I'm at a disadvantage.
Read all of pg. 260 in Nolan.

 

[logos1560]

This might explain the apparent error by Bill Brown in his thesis thinking that Nolan had written of three witnesses/nouns.

Bill Brown might have read of the three masculine adjectives and then mentally shifted them to nouns, since that would better fit his narrative of an elementary error by Frederick Nolan (rather than an elementary error by Bill Brown.)

Also there is nothing that fits that Nolan "acknowledges", since he never claimed three masculine witnesses.

Perhaps you jump to a wrong conclusion or accuse the wrong person. Can you list and identify three masculine adjectives in 1 John 5:7?

Perhaps it was Frederick Nolan or a printer who made the error in using the word "adjectives" instead of "nouns", and the poster whom you accused corrected this error.

Do you avoid dealing with how Frederick Nolan indicates that he considers the three witnesses in heaven to be persons?

 

[Steven Avery]

On pg. 11 of the thesis, Maestroh quotes Nolan:
Maestroh then explains what Nolan is arguing on page 12 of the thesis:
This is how I understand it. Of course, I'm at a disadvantage.
Read all of pg. 260 in Nolan.

Thanks. I appreciate your posting the above without rancor.

An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek vulgate, or received text of the New Testament (1815)
Frederick Nolan
https://books.google.com/books?id=FF4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA260
https://archive.org/details/a601052600nolauoft/page/n291/mode/2up

Bill Brown then writes:
adjectives and substantives must be the same gender

However, that is not true, and that is not what Nolan said.
e.g. It is perfectly fine in many cases for the adjectives (this will be the grammar of the phrase, including the participle) to be neuter and the substantives to be various combinations of masculine, feminine and neuter. Eugenius Bulgaris made this totally clear. Bill Brown mentions Bulgaris but never gives any quote.

Bill Brown:
"Nolan insists that the masculine participle and adjective demand masculine substantives."

No, he only refers to the special case of masculine participle and neuter substantives being a solecism.
Otherwise the masculine participle could have various combinations of masculine with feminine or neuter.

Bill Brown
His solution is to insert the Comma because he claims it has three masculine witnesses.

No. Nolan never says the heavenly witnesses has three masculine witnesses. See the post above where Logos1560 quoted Nolan. Apparently Bill Brown misread Nolan when he talked of three masculine adjectives (actually it is four).

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You do know that there are four masculine gender words (not counting any substantives) in both verses, since τρεῖς is there twice.

Since the masculine grammar is on both sides of the substantives in the earthly witnesses, our friend Ilias Theodosis on Facebook referred to it as a "hole", and thus especially notable.

My question was clause specific.

Clause-A in both verses.

 

[Steven Avery]

Perhaps you jump to a wrong conclusion or accuse the wrong person. Can you list and identify three masculine adjectives in 1 John 5:7?

Look at the actual book, where Nolan puts in the three words to which he is referring.

And I placed them in my post above.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Thanks. I appreciate your posting the above without rancor.

An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek vulgate, or received text of the New Testament (1815)
Frederick Nolan
https://books.google.com/books?id=FF4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA260
https://archive.org/details/a601052600nolauoft/page/n291/mode/2up

Bill Brown then writes:
adjectives and substantives must be the same gender

However, that is not true, and that is not what Nolan said.
e.g. It is perfectly fine in many cases for the adjectives (this will be the grammar of the phrase, including the participle) to be neuter and the substantives to be various combinations of masculine, feminine and neuter. Eugenius Bulgaris made this totally clear. Bill Brown mentions Bulgaris but never gives any quote.

Bill Brown:
"Nolan insists that the masculine participle and adjective demand masculine substantives."

No, he only refers to the special case of masculine participle and neuter substantives being a solecism.
Otherwise the masculine participle could have various combinations of masculine with feminine or neuter.

Bill Brown
His solution is to insert the Comma because he claims it has three masculine witnesses.

No. Nolan never says the heavenly witnesses has three masculine witnesses. See the post above where Logos1560 quoted Nolan. Apparently Bill Brown misread Nolan when he talked of three masculine adjectives (actually it is four).

That's why I used clause specific references and bold format for word specific emphasis in the Greek. ?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Do you agree then, Steven, that all the masculine gender words (in all clauses of both verse 7 and 8 as a "whole") concord with the Father and the Logos as the only possible grammatical (i.e. masculine gender) antecedents? Being the nearest and most logical grammatical antecedents?

 

[Steven Avery]

Do you agree then, Steven, that all the masculine gender words (in all clauses of both verse 7 and 8 as a "whole") concord with the Father and the Logos as the only possible grammatical (i.e. masculine gender) antecedents? Being the nearest and most logical grammatical antecedents?

The grammar has its grammatical gender, as does each individual noun. Take the heavenly witnesses verse, where Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) Is neuter. I have never heard it said that Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα is not in concord with the masculine grammar of the verse. That would imply grammatical discord, which is not the case. The nouns are considered as a unit.

Similarly, no one would say there is grammatical discord in 1 Corinthians 13:13 between faith, hope and charity, feminine nouns, and the neuter grammar.

1 Corinthians 13:13 (AV)
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;
but the greatest of these is charity.

In fact, Bill Brown on p. iii of his thesis uses the Corinthians verse to try to imply discord analogous to the earthly witnesses solecism. While he defined the grammatical argument properly:

The grammatical issue concerns whether a masculine adjective or participle may modify neuter substantives - p. iii

Bill then turns around and gives verses that simply are very different, with neuter grammar and masculine or feminine substantives, and have no validity as counters (overthrow, refutation) to the grammatical argument.

Concerning the grammatical problem, a brief history will be given showing that Frederick Nolan first proposed the details of the grammatical problem in 1815. The grammatical issue concerns whether a masculine adjective or participle may modify neuter substantives. Examples such as 1 Cor 13:13, 2 John 1 and others will validate that no legitimate grammatical issue exists. - p. iii

1 Cor 13:13
νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις ἐλπίς ἀγάπη τὰ τρία ταῦτα· μείζων δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη
(fem) (fem) (fem) (neut)

In this instance, τρία the neuter form of τρεῖς. collectively refers to three feminine substantives (πίστις ἐλπίς ἀγάπη), an argument that appears to be more stylistic than anything else. p. 21

As with the 16 Blunder Verses, you should have the integrity to call out this inconsistency and error.

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

Incidentally, the error of using this Corinthians verse to make a false counter against the grammatical argument goes back many years. In addition to Bill Brown, we have Gary Robert Hudson and a fellow named Jim with many blogs and posts. Hudson goes back to 2002, maybe earlier, so he was likely the first.

Gary Hudson in 2002
I JOHN 5:7 “GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT” REFUTED:
An Answer to Dabney, Hills, Strouse, & Cloud by Gary R. Hudson

The irregular agreement of the masculine here with three neuter antecedents Dabney termed “an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty.” Irregular gender agreement, however, is never a “very bald grammatical difficulty” in Greek. It may be seen, for example, in I Cor. 13:13, where the antecedents, “faith, hope, and love” (feminine genders) are followed immediately by “these three” (neuter, “tauta”)