Who refers to three masculine persons?
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
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.
No problem. I can rephrase that.
What masculine persons...
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?Nowhere is it shown that Nolan talked of three masculine witnesses.
There is no footnote, and my search has not found any such spot.
Wow. I guess the giants of the faith over the last 2000 years really missed out.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
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).
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.
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.
False assertion again.Why did you run to Facebook for help?
Are you sure you've properly read and understood what Maestroh has written in his thesis?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.
============================
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.)Are you sure you've properly read and understood what Maestroh has written in his thesis?
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
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.
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?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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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 grammatical issue concerns whether a masculine adjective or participle may modify neuter substantives - p. iii
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
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”)