I know that we have had topics about this before but I want to bring it up again since I have recently studied it (this passage (5:5-12) was the paragraph for my Sunday morning message last week). In addition, Thomas referenced this passage in another thread so it prompted me even further to bring it up.
Let me say at the outset that I will not engage in discussion about whether or not the MVs deny the trinity by excluding this verse. I will neither engage in discussions about whether or not this verse compromises inspiration or the like. This is purely about the comma's contribution to the argument of the passage and whether or not the grammatical argument is a strong argument in favor of its inclusion. I ask the moderator's to delete anything that does not deal with one of these two issues. (Start your own thread if you want to discuss something else
)
Thomas recently said:
1. The argument of the passage. John is arguing that three things testify that Jesus is the Son of God: the water (baptism), the blood (crucifixion/atoning work), and the Spirit (illuminator). The Johannine Comma does not contribute in any way to this argument. John is not teaching that the Father, Son, and Spirit bear witness to the Son but rather that the Father bears witness through the Spirit to the Son. So in the argument of the passage, the Comma has no bearing. John is not arguing for "heavenly proof" but rather for the earthly proof... the water and the blood and the Spirit's convincing ministry. In the next verse, John does talk about the Father's witness but does not there include the Spirit and the Son.
2. The grammar seems to lay out this way. There are three witnesses (masc plural participle): the Spirit (neut sing), the water (neut sing), and the blood (neut sing); these three (masc plural) are in agreement. It seems that the masc plurals (witnesses and three) are the summation of the three individual witnesses. John is thus saying: There are three witnesses (masc plural participle) ... these three (masc plural nom) are in agreement. The three neuters are a parenthetical statement. If Thomas is right, he would have to explain why "three" is masc plural describing the three neuters. In other words, you have the same problem with "three" that you do with "witnesses"--they are both masculine plural forms referring to neut singular objects.
Other examples of this "grammatical error" (as Thomas would call it) are
1. Acts 8:10 -- "this" is neuter clearly referring to a man;
2. Rom 2:14 -- "These" is a neuter with a masc participle and a masc relexive pronoun;
3. 1 Cor 6:10-11 -- "these things" is a neuter pronoun referring to the previous list of sins which are all in masculine form.
Clearly, the constructio ad sensum is permissable in Greek and accounts for this very thing.
In addition, Thomas's argument does not seem to help for according to Scrivener's text (1894), the masculine participle is present before "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit" (masc, masc, neut) and again before the "Spirit, the water, and the blood" (neut, neut, neut). In other words, Thomas's solution that the Johannine Comma is necessary gramatically does not appear to have dealt with the problem. It still exists--the three neuters are still preceded by a masc plural participle.
3. Additionally, in first century culture, masculine witnesses were necessary to substantiate a point. Therefore, for John the masculine participle may be "subtly indicating ... that the Spirit, water, and blood are all valid witnesses" (Wallace, Grammar, 332).
The mass of evidence against its inclusion is still massive and the grammatical argument is easily accounted for. The statement is contrary to the point of the passage and seems very out of place.
Thomas, when you get a chance, tell me what I have missed here from your perspective.
[ May 21, 2002, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
Let me say at the outset that I will not engage in discussion about whether or not the MVs deny the trinity by excluding this verse. I will neither engage in discussions about whether or not this verse compromises inspiration or the like. This is purely about the comma's contribution to the argument of the passage and whether or not the grammatical argument is a strong argument in favor of its inclusion. I ask the moderator's to delete anything that does not deal with one of these two issues. (Start your own thread if you want to discuss something else
Thomas recently said:
Several things need to be considered.If you ignore the argument from grammar in Psalm 12, you must also ignore the argument from grammer in 1John 5:7-8, which is the strongest historical argument in favor of including the Johnnine comma.
1. The argument of the passage. John is arguing that three things testify that Jesus is the Son of God: the water (baptism), the blood (crucifixion/atoning work), and the Spirit (illuminator). The Johannine Comma does not contribute in any way to this argument. John is not teaching that the Father, Son, and Spirit bear witness to the Son but rather that the Father bears witness through the Spirit to the Son. So in the argument of the passage, the Comma has no bearing. John is not arguing for "heavenly proof" but rather for the earthly proof... the water and the blood and the Spirit's convincing ministry. In the next verse, John does talk about the Father's witness but does not there include the Spirit and the Son.
2. The grammar seems to lay out this way. There are three witnesses (masc plural participle): the Spirit (neut sing), the water (neut sing), and the blood (neut sing); these three (masc plural) are in agreement. It seems that the masc plurals (witnesses and three) are the summation of the three individual witnesses. John is thus saying: There are three witnesses (masc plural participle) ... these three (masc plural nom) are in agreement. The three neuters are a parenthetical statement. If Thomas is right, he would have to explain why "three" is masc plural describing the three neuters. In other words, you have the same problem with "three" that you do with "witnesses"--they are both masculine plural forms referring to neut singular objects.
Other examples of this "grammatical error" (as Thomas would call it) are
1. Acts 8:10 -- "this" is neuter clearly referring to a man;
2. Rom 2:14 -- "These" is a neuter with a masc participle and a masc relexive pronoun;
3. 1 Cor 6:10-11 -- "these things" is a neuter pronoun referring to the previous list of sins which are all in masculine form.
Clearly, the constructio ad sensum is permissable in Greek and accounts for this very thing.
In addition, Thomas's argument does not seem to help for according to Scrivener's text (1894), the masculine participle is present before "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit" (masc, masc, neut) and again before the "Spirit, the water, and the blood" (neut, neut, neut). In other words, Thomas's solution that the Johannine Comma is necessary gramatically does not appear to have dealt with the problem. It still exists--the three neuters are still preceded by a masc plural participle.
3. Additionally, in first century culture, masculine witnesses were necessary to substantiate a point. Therefore, for John the masculine participle may be "subtly indicating ... that the Spirit, water, and blood are all valid witnesses" (Wallace, Grammar, 332).
The mass of evidence against its inclusion is still massive and the grammatical argument is easily accounted for. The statement is contrary to the point of the passage and seems very out of place.
Thomas, when you get a chance, tell me what I have missed here from your perspective.
[ May 21, 2002, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]