The Virgin Conception in The Gospel of John

[SavedByGrace]

No.

The words, “τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες”, are masculine. The following verse reads, “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one”. Here the “Three Witnesses” that are the same “Three” in verse 7, “Spirit, water, blood”, and all neuter in the Greek. Why would John have used the “masculine” to describe “neuters”? Some argue, that because John here uses “Spirit”, as in the Holy Spirit, that he used the masculine. Really? In verse 6 John writes, “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth”. Note the same “Three” neuters. Also note, that “beareth witness”, is the Greek, “μαρτυροῦν”, which is not masculine, but neuter, because grammatically it “agrees” with the gender of “Spirit” (πνεῦμά), and yet the same Person, the Holy Spirit, Who is The Truth, is referred to, Who is in verse 8! There is only ONE reason that John could have used the masculine “τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες”, in verse 7, and that is because “ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος” (The Father, The Word), are masculine nouns, and with “τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα” (the Holy Spirit), would require the masculine words, “τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες”. One further important point. In verse 8 John writes, “and these three are one” (και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν). Notice John here uses the Greek definite article, “το”. What is the purpose of this at this place? In Greek grammar, the use of the article here, is for the purpose of “renewed mention”, where it refers back to a pervious use or a word or phrase. At the end of verse 7, as found in the KJV and other Versions, the Apostle John wrote, “οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν” (The Three are one). Here we have the previous use of “ἕν”, which the Greek article “το”, in verse 8 was referring back to. Remove the words from verse 7, and we have yet another problem with the Greek grammar of verse 8! Even the great New Testament Greek scholar, Dr Thomas Fanshawe Middleton, in his work, “The Doctrine of the Greek Article: Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament”, admits that the use of the Greek definite article in verse 8, without verse 7, was a grammatical problem in the Greek text. Dr Middleton did not accept the words in verse 7 as genuine. Yet his own testimony to the Greek grammar, is very important.

 

[Ziggy]

Who are the known expert textual critics that hold to SbG's "who was" interpretation in Jn 1:13 ?

Feel free to list them....

 

[SavedByGrace]

Who are the known expert textual critics that hold to SbG's "who was" interpretation in Jn 1:13 ?

Feel free to list them....

check the OP, that is expert testimony!

 

[Van]

Who are the known expert textual critics that hold to SbG's "who was" interpretation in Jn 1:13 ?

Feel free to list them....

Dr. Zip
Mr. Nada, PhD
Professor None

 

[SavedByGrace]

Dr. Zip
Mr. Nada, PhD
Professor None

Van, that is because you don't know the first thing about textual studies or Greek grammar!

 

[Van]

Van, that is because you don't know the first thing about textual studies or Greek grammar!

And, I fear, you are still working on the fundamentals of being an ambassador of Christ, such as avoiding logical fallacies.

 

[Ziggy]

check the OP, that is expert testimony!

I guess I have to spell it out more precisely:

Who are the CURRENT known expert textual CRITICS OR EVEN FROM THE PAST FIVE CENTURIES that hold to SbG's "who was" interpretation in Jn 1:13 ?

Even one name will do....

 

[SavedByGrace]

I guess I have to spell it out more precisely:

Who are the CURRENT known expert textual CRITICS OR EVEN FROM THE PAST FIVE CENTURIES that hold to SbG's "who was" interpretation in Jn 1:13 ?

Even one name will do....

another person who knows ZILCH about textual studies! The church fathers evidence of first hand see this reading in their Greek and Latin New Testaments, is more than sufficient, than ANY so called textual "expert"! You simply are ignorant on how this works!

 

[SavedByGrace]

To respond to the baseless charge made here by "Ziggy", on the textual "experts" who support the singular reading. In the OP I have given the name of Origen, who knew of the reading "Who was". It is very obvious, that this person, "Ziggy", who likes to make rather foolish comments on textual matters, does not reconigse the name of Origen! Even though Origen was a heretic in his theology, especially on the Holy Trinity, Deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, on textual matters he is one of the greatest names for scholarship!

In his book, "Studies on the Text of the New Testament", Dr A T Robertson, who was one of the best Greek scholars of his time, who also was a textual expert, says this for the singular reading, which he himself did not accept:

"It is at least remarkable that such liberals as Harnack and Loisy should argue for the singular in John I.13, and the undoubted reference to the virgin birth of Jesus which, or course, they do not themselves believe. But they hold that the author of the Fourth Gospel did, unless the verse with the singular was added and then changed to the plural. Frederick Blass argued for the singular in John I.13, as does Zahn quite at length in his Introduction to the New Testament (Vol.III, pp.226, 288,310). A. E. Brooks, in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, also argues for the singular: 'The singular leads up well to 14, and the connexion with what precedes is good, the sonship of Christians rests on His sonship. In particular the very emphatic threefold negative statement of 13 seems to be directed against some who affirmed the contrary, and such a denial was far more likely to be of Christ’s supernatural conception than of the Divine begetting of Christians in the spiritual sense.'" (pages, 175-176)

The names mentioned in this passage from Dr Robertson, and all textual experts!

Dr Robertson then goes on to say of the singular reading:

"Once the singular appears in John I.13 one must admit that it suits the context admirably and leads right up to the statement of the Incranation in verse 14. There is something, then, to be said for the use of the plural αιματων (bloods) instead of the singular, for according to the Virgin Birth idea Jesus had no human father and there was no union of male and female blood" (Studies on the Text of the New Testament, pp.176-177)

Like many so called "experts", who are in the eyes of some, to be solely relied upon, Dr Robertson did not accrept the singular reading because of the manuscript "evidence". However, what he does say of the reading, "Who was", is very important. Another fact is, that liberals like Origen, Harnack and Loisy, all who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ, actually said that the original reading in John 1:13, is the singular! This is like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who also deny that Jesus Christ is "God", actually says of Jesus in Isaiah, that He is called, "Mighty God". Not, "a god", as they argue for in John 1:1, but, "Mighty God"!

I was asked to provide textual "experts" for the reading "Who was" in John 1:13, and I have done so. But those who are opposed to textual truth, because they are so hung up on Bible versions, will still reject this singular reading!

 

[37818]

and yet the Greek grammar of the passage, proves beyond any doubt that, it has to be part of the text, otherwise there are grammatical errors in the Infallible, Inspired Word of God, which is impossible! On this Daniel Wallace is so very wrong

Walk through that proof.

 

[37818]

The will of God would be referring to the group described right before this phrase!

There is no phrase "will of God" in the text. John 1:13. The "Which were born, . . ." that is "Who were born, . . ." you mean refers back to those spoken of in John 1:12. "born . . . but of God." John 1:13.

 

[Ziggy]

None of the names cited from the past five centuries were people known as textual critics except Robertson, and he rejected the reading. Still waiting.

In the meantime, name which Greek New Testament edition over the past 500 years since the invention of printing has accepted the "who was" singular reading. Should be a simple task.

 

[37818]

check your grammar, it is used mainly to "connect" words, clauses and sentences.

So you believe Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, and baptism washes away sin in Acts of the Apostles 22:16?

 

[37818]

The words, “τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυροῦντες”, are masculine. The following verse reads, “And there are three that bear witness . . .

The very same words which are masculine are used twice for both the "in heaven" and for the "in earth." So that argument makes no difference.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The very same words which are masculine are used twice for both the "in heaven" and for the "in earth." So that argument makes no difference.

your reply shows your ignorance of Greek grammar! verse seven as it reads in most versions, is based on the Greek text that reads, "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες", "Three Who bear Witness", as I have shown already, in the masculine gender. Kindly explain how this is grammatically, as the words, "το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα", are all in the neuter gender? Some try to get around this by saying, that this is because "The masculine points to the personality of the Spirit". This however is not the case. In verse 6 we have, "και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια", where the neuter gender is used "το μαρτυρουν", in grammatical agreement with "το πνευμα", which is also neuter. No problem here. And it is very clear that the Person of the Holy Spirit is meant in verse 6, even with the netuer gender, no need for the masculine, which would have been used, if, as suggested, this would mean that the Person of the Holy Spirit is meant! Further, we also have "οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν", in verse 8 of the reading in most versions, where we have "τρεῖς" again in the masculine, even though "το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα", is neuter. Why is this? The ONLY possible explanation for this is, that the words in verse 7, "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες", are in the masculine gender, is because the words "ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος", are masculine, and even though "τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα", are neuter, the masculine "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες", is used to govern the use of "ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα", as in the same sentence. Then, because of this, the witnesses in verse 8, "το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα", though in the neuter, are referred to by the masculine "τρεῖς", which has already been used in the previous verse, which includes "ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος". There is NO other way that the use of the masculine in verse 7, in modern versions, can be accounted for! If you can find one, then lets hear it. Also, in verse 8 John writes, "το εν", where he uses the Greek article "το", with "εν". For what purpose is this? As the passage reads in modern versions, there is no grammatical reason in the Greek, for John to have used the article here. This is even admitted to by the Greek scholar, Dr T F Middleton, in his great work on the use of the Greek article. Again, with the words in verse 7, "μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν", this problem in the Greek is removed, because here John says, "ἕν εἰσιν", which the "το ἕν", would be referring to, in renewed mention, as per the common rules of Greek grammar. Lets see how you can respond to this!

 

[SavedByGrace]

So you believe Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, and baptism washes away sin in Acts of the Apostles 22:16?

wow, you should stop posting on things that you really have not a clue about! Again, your clear ignorance of Greek grammar is all too apparent! I really don't have the time to respond to your rather foolish remarks!

 

[SavedByGrace]

None of the names cited from the past five centuries were people known as textual critics except Robertson

thats how much you know not! do some research and you will probably learn! Origen, in your view is not a "textual critics", nor is Theodor Zahn, as you say. Nor the Libearl Adolf von Harnack? Like the person 37818, you simply show your great ignorance on matters that you have no understanding on! Can't waste time on this complete rubbish!

 

[37818]

your reply shows your ignorance of Greek grammar! verse seven as it reads in most versions, is based on the Greek text that reads, "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες", "Three Who bear Witness", as I have shown already, in the masculine gender. Kindly explain how this is grammatically, as the words, "το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα", are all in the neuter gender? Some try to get around this by saying, that this is because "The masculine points to the personality of the Spirit". This however is not the case. In verse 6 we have, "και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια", where the neuter gender is used "το μαρτυρουν", in grammatical agreement with "το πνευμα", which is also neuter. No problem here. And it is very clear that the Person of the Holy Spirit is meant in verse 6, even with the netuer gender, no need for the masculine, which would have been used, if, as suggested, this would mean that the Person of the Holy Spirit is meant! Further, we also have "οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν", in verse 8 of the reading in most versions, where we have "τρεῖς" again in the masculine, even though "το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα", is neuter. Why is this? The ONLY possible explanation for this is, that the words in verse 7, "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες", are in the masculine gender, is because the words "ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος", are masculine, and even though "τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα", are neuter, the masculine "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες", is used to govern the use of "ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα", as in the same sentence. Then, because of this, the witnesses in verse 8, "το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα", though in the neuter, are referred to by the masculine "τρεῖς", which has already been used in the previous verse, which includes "ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος". There is NO other way that the use of the masculine in verse 7, in modern versions, can be accounted for! If you can find one, then lets hear it. Also, in verse 8 John writes, "το εν", where he uses the Greek article "το", with "εν". For what purpose is this? As the passage reads in modern versions, there is no grammatical reason in the Greek, for John to have used the article here. This is even admitted to by the Greek scholar, Dr T F Middleton, in his great work on the use of the Greek article. Again, with the words in verse 7, "μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν", this problem in the Greek is removed, because here John says, "ἕν εἰσιν", which the "το ἕν", would be referring to, in renewed mention, as per the common rules of Greek grammar. Lets see how you can respond to this!

. . . οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισι και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι. . . .

Versus

. . . οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι. . . .

 

[37818]

check your grammar, it is used mainly to "connect" words, clauses and sentences.

The Greek καί, and, is typically a new thought.

. . . But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh,

and dwelt among us,

(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace

and truth.

 

[37818]

So you believe Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, and baptism washes away sin in Acts of the Apostles 22:16?

Matthew 16:18, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Acts of the Apostles 22:16, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."