1 John 5:7

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:

Several things need to be considered.

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 ]

 

My question though is that even with the comma included, it seems you still have this problem because those three masculine words in their second use still refer to three neuter nouns in v. 8. In other words, even with the comma you still have the problem. BTW, I am looking at Scrivener's 1894 text which I presume you agree gives the correct TR reading.

Scrivener's has,
v. 7 -- masculine plurals referring to the Father (masc), Son (Masc), Spirit (neut);
v. 8 -- repeats the masculine plurals (identical phrase as above) referring to three neuters. Both clauses read treis eisin oi marturountes. I cannot see where the "grammatical problem" is solved by the inclusion.

Additionally, the other verses I give, give clear uses of the construction that you say is incorrect. Are they also incorrect?

I wonder if the grammatical argument is not addressed by most because it is a non-issue. There are clear precedents of similar constructions elsewhere and the inclusion doesn't do away with it.

 

I understand what you are saying this far. But let me quote the relevant part from Scrivener's TR:

v. 7 -- oti treis eisin oi marturountes (masc plur nom part) en to ourano, ho pater (masc sing nom), ho logos (masc sing nom), kai to agion pneuma (nuet sing nom); kai outoi hoi treis (masc plur nom) eisi. -- In this verse, you are arguing that the masc plural participle is masc plural because of the two masc nouns (father and logos). So far so good.

v. 8 -- kai treis eisin hoi maturountes (masc plural nom part ... just like above) en te ge, to pneuma (neut sing nom), kai to udor (neut sing nom), kai to aima (neut sing nom), kai hoi treis (masc plur nom) eis to en eisin. -- My point is that in this verse in the TR, you still have the "grammatical impossibility" that you have in the eclectic text (and most Greek mansucripts); you simply have injected a phrase in between it. You still have a masculine plural participle with the neuter nouns.

My question is, If this masc plur nom part with neuter nouns is a grammatical impossibility, why is it still in the TR? It doesn't seem like you have done away with the problem.

Perhaps you are missing my point or I am missing yours. Hopefully we will make contact soon.

Also what about the verses listed above where the "grammatical impossibility" is clearly testified to?

[ May 21, 2002, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I appreciate the time you are taking here. I am continuing this because I am trying to figure out exactly what you are arguing the grammatical problem is.

In v. 8, where are the masc nouns between the neuter nouns and the masculine article? Pater and logos are in v. 7 and they have their own masculine nominative there (hoi treis en eisi).

I have just compared v. 8 in the TR with vv. 7-8 in the UBS4 and they are identical with the exception of the first word (kai vs. hoti) and the inserted phrase (en te ge). If it is a grammatical impossibility in the UBS4, why isn’t it a grammatical impossibility in the TR? In v. 8 in the TR, there are no masculine nominatives to attract the masculine article yet it still has the masculine article.

Perhaps I can illustrate it in a chart that would make clear the problem I am seeing here (If the chart transfers to the post).

v. 7 mp art – mp part – ms nom – ms nom – ns nom – mp nom
v. 8 mp art – mp part – ns nom – ns nom – ns nom – mp nom

Yet I understand you to say that the construction of v. 8 is a grammatical impossibility because three neut nouns cannot be governed by a masc article (hoi treis). However, if v. 8 is a possibility, then the grammatical need for the Comma disappears and we can let the text stand as the Greek evidence indicates.

Any clearer as to my question?

[ May 22, 2002, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Let me ask you this: At the end of v. 8, it says, hoi treis (these three).... What do you think "hoi treis" (masculine) refers to? In the verse, it refers to the three neuters (udor, haima, pneuma). The two masculines, pater and logos, have their own masculine article in v. 7.

I do not understand how you are arguing that two masculines in the first set of three drives a masculine reference to the second set of three neuters when there is so much interventing material between. Furthermore, I do not understand how the hoi marturountes (masc plural) in v. 8 (TR) governs three neuter nominatives. It seems clear that if you are right, that participle should be a neuter participle.

In other words, I think you are missing my point Thomas. There are two masculine articles: One in v. 7 summing up the pater, logos, hagios pneuma and one in v. 8 summing up the udor, haima, pneuma. I agree with you that that first masculine article (hoi treis in v. 7)is driven by the two masculines. However, it seems a stretch to say that the second hoi treis which clearly refers to three neuters is driven by the masculine nominatives. They are two far removed and there is a clear intervening antecedent.

Perhaps others are clearly understanding you. I certainly am not.

 

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The grammatical problem is there no matter which you choose. If you choose the TR, you have three neuter nouns governed by a masc participle and a masc nominative. The masc nouns to which Thomas is referring are a part of the previous clause with its own masc particple and masc nominative.

In verse 7, you have the following: masc plur particple, masc sing nom, masc sing nom, neuter sing nom, masc plural articular nominative. Thomas is saying that the masc plural articular nominative is masc because there are two masculine nominatives. So far so good.

In v. 8, you have the following: masc plural participle, neut sing nom, neut sing nom, neut sing nom, masc plural articular nominative. Here Thomas appears to be saying that the masc plural articular nominative at the end is masculine by virtue the two masc sing nominatives in v. 7, which have their own masc plural articular nominiative.

The masc plural nominative in vv. 7 and 8 clearly refers to the previous list of three things. In v. 8, that list is neuther and is referred to by the masc plural articular participle.

The grammer of v. 8 in the TR is the same as the grammar of vv. 7-8 in the UBS. I cannot see how two masc nominatives already governing a masc plural nominative, then govern another masc plural nominative with which the masc nominatives have nothing to do.

Any clearer?

Thomas is right in that no one in the commentaries addresses this issue. I wonder if it is not because it is a "non-issue."

 

Thanks for that link Tom. That is what I thought but I was trying to ascertain more about exactly what Thomas was saying because I wasn't (am still am not) fully understanding how he is getting his point.