Question about textual difference

Craigbythesea

Impressive list. But it does not prove me wrong, does it? How come you did not even quote from ONE of your sources that you have listed, where they refute what I have said? Lets have it chapter and verse.

Let me give you my list. It is ME. I am saying what I have said, and I stand by what I have said. It is now up to you and others to prove me wrong. You say what I have said is absolute nonesnse. Care to prove this by examining the Greek grammar yourself, and then telling me why the grammar is incorrect with the disputed words missing.

We do not need a list of scholars to prove a point, but we do need the Holy Spirit Who leads us into the Truth.

 

Craig, when I did my study into the Greek grammar of this passage some 10 years ago, I consulted Robertson, Blass, Winer, Green, Moulton, Moule, Dana & Mantey, Davis, etc, but never came across any of them who dealt with the problem with the Greek grammar here in 1 John 5:6-9.

On the side of those defending the passage from the Greek grammar, three of the best I found by scholars of Greek, were Mr F. Nolan, Inquiry, pp.260,304; in the Classical Journal, Vol.II, pp.869-871; and on the use of the Greek article in verse eight (TO hen), Bishop T F Middleton, on the Greek Article, pp.633-653. Dr Middleton, who himself regarded the words as not part of the original based on the manuscript evidence, nevertheless said that the Greek grammar of verse eight, where the article is used with "hen"(one), shows that "one" was used previously in the context. And, according to the grammar, either both verse 7 and 8 stayed, or went.

 

I find it very difficult to conceive how anyone who has carefully read this passage even once could possibly be so confused. In verse 6 there is mention of ONLY ONE witness, and therefore no reference to Deut. 19:15,

Deut. 19:15. "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.” (NASB, 1995)

In verse 1 John 5:7 there is mention of all three witnesses, and a probable reference to Deut. 19:15.

1 John 5:7. For there are three that testify:

Alfred Plummer, in his The Epistles of John (Cambridge Greek Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894) writes on 5:7, “The masculine points to the personality of the Spirit . . . .” Raymond E. Brown (previously cited), however, believes that the personification is of not of the witnesses themselves, but of the witnessing. He believes that this is an important distinction, but I do not see it that way. However, in support of his interpretation, Brown notes that “In Jewish tradition personal testimony can be given by impersonal witnesses, e.g., by a heap of stones (Gen 31:45-48), by heaven and earth (Deut 31:28), by clouds and rain (Enoch 100:11). The Elkasaites (ca.A.D. 100), according to Hippolytus (Refutatio 9, 15; PG 163, 33991C), cited seven witnesses to their cleansing: heaven water, Holy Spirit, angel of prayer, oil, salt, and earth.” He believes that the personification is not of the witnesses themselves, but of the witnessing. Other scholars deal with the matter of personification in other ways.

The very important point here, however, is that the use of a masculine participle in verse 7 in not a violation of any rules and regulations of Greek Grammar because first century Koine Greek was a living language that had no rules (unlike some Greek Primers and first semester Greek textbooks). And I have pointed out several times now that we have the very same gender issue with or without the comma. Inserting the comma has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the gender issue because all the antecedents remain the same. I should probably repeat this, because it absolutely proves that your argument is not only incorrect, but nothing but mumbo-jumbo. INSERTING THE COMMA HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE GENDER ISSUE BECAUSE ALL THE ANTECEDENTS REMAIN THE SAME.

Dear Brother,

I get the distinct impression from all of your posts on this matter that you have never completed so much as one semester of Greek at any accredited university or seminary, and that you are simply mouthing the words that you have read on the internet or some other place written by someone who was simply mouthing the words that he read somewhere else. Most certainly anyone, anyone at all, who is familiar with the literature on 1 John and the Greek grammar relative to this issue knows for a fact that such an argument that you are putting forth is based exclusively and uncontrovertibly upon the grossest of ignorance of both the Epistle and the language in which the Holy Spirit gave it to us through the Apostle John.

 

I had already done that twice, and you ignored the proof. And now I have done it for the third time in my post above.

I have found that the Holy Spirit occasionally uses men to prove a point and help us understand the Scriptures more accurately.

 

You mention “three” scholars of Greek, but I see only two names given. Mr. Nolan I do not know and I have not read. Perhaps you misunderstood what he wrote. Bishop Middleton I am vaguely familiar with. Of course he rejected as spurious of Johannine Comma—every competent scholar has done so for the past 150 years! Please post the entirety of pp. 633-653 so that I can see what Middleton actually wrote. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a scholar of his stature could have been so very badly confused about the Greek grammar found in 1 John. In all my years of academic study, I have NEVER encountered anyone who was fluent in New Testament Greek who saw any problem whatsoever in the Greek text of John 5:7-8.

 

Craig, I will disregard your insults on the knowledge of my Greek, as it is very sad when someone stoops this low.

I notice that you provided me with a list of Greek Grammar's and yet did not show from one of them that what I have shown is incorrect.

In verse six, where the Holy Spirit is said to be the "wintness", why is the neuter "to martoroun" (that bears witness) used? Why did John not use the masculine here as he does in verse seven, where he also speaks of the Holy Spirit? Was not the "Person" of the Holy Spirit mentioned in verse six? Do you see the problem?

You see, having 1000 books is one thing, but to know what you are talking about, is quite another!

 

I am simply being honest with you. I have very carefully read many of your posts, and, in my opinion, they betray a lack of knowledge of the Greek language and its grammar.

There is NO problem to see. This is now the fourth time that I am writing this, and I have posted in detail three times why there is no problem and that YOU are the ONLY one who imagines that there is a grammatical problem here.

I have a WHOLE LOT more than a thousand books, and I know what I am talking about. If I am wrong, virtually every New Testament scholar has been wrong for the past 150 years. If that is your belief, . . . .

 

To use your reasoning would mean that the pseudepigrapha and apocrypha are scripture. Both along with a few others are referred to in scripture.

To say something existed does not mean it is scripture. It may be a good writing and true and still not be scripture. Metzger mentions that the passage is not quoted by any of the Greek Fathers. “Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215. The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic) except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome..” There is no good reason on the basis of its internal evidence to have omitted it. Howver the passage “makes an awkward break in the sense.”

 

To quote from Dr. Daniel Wallace who is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary on page 332 of “Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, copyright 1996, writes, “First John 5:7 is perhaps the most plausible of the passages enlisted. The masculine participle in treis eisin hoi marturountes refers to to pneuma kai to udwr kai to haima, (v 8), all neuter nouns. Some see this as an oblique reference to the Spirit’s personality (so I. H. Marshall, The Epistles of john [NICNT] 237, n. 20) but the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender. This interpretation also has in its behalf the allusion to Deut. 19:15 (the necessity of “two or three witnesses”), for in the OT the testimony only of males was acceptable. Thus the elder may be subtly indicating (via the masculine participle) that the Spirit, water, and blood are all valid witnesses.”

If one would discount 1 John 5:7-8 as being full of grammatical holes then one would have to agree that Jn 1:1 is “shot full of holes” too because it does not agree with the standard rules of grammar. It is a septuagintalism.

 

To quote from Dr. Daniel Wallace who is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary on page 332 of “Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, copyright 1996, writes, “First John 5:7 is perhaps the most plausible of the passages enlisted. The masculine participle in treis eisin hoi marturountes refers to to pneuma kai to udwr kai to haima, (v 8), all neuter nouns. Some see this as an oblique reference to the Spirit’s personality (so I. H. Marshall, The Epistles of john [NICNT] 237, n. 20) but the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender. This interpretation also has in its behalf the allusion to Deut. 19:15 (the necessity of “two or three witnesses”), for in the OT the testimony only of males was acceptable. Thus the elder may be subtly indicating (via the masculine participle) that the Spirit, water, and blood are all valid witnesses.”

If one would discount 1 John 5:7-8 as being full of grammatical holes then one would have to agree that Jn 1:1 is “shot full of holes” too because it does not agree with the standard rules of grammar. It is a septuagintalism. </font>[/QUOTE]Dr Wallace is quite wrong in his assumption that John here is "Personfying" the "Spirit, water and the blood", and therefore uses the masculine gender. In what sense does John do this? Why did he simply not use the actual personal nouns to say what he wanted to? Where else in Scripture do we have this method used? Again I ask, if the Holy Spirit as a "witness" is referred to in the neuter gender, why the need to change to the masculine in verse seven?

You say that John 1:1, "is “shot full of holes” too because it does not agree with the standard rules of grammar.". can you show me how?

 

Dr Wallace is quite wrong in his assumption that John here is "Personfying" the "Spirit, water and the blood", and therefore uses the masculine gender. In what sense does John do this? Why did he simply not use the actual personal nouns to say what he wanted to? Where else in Scripture do we have this method used? Again I ask, if the Holy Spirit as a "witness" is referred to in the neuter gender, why the need to change to the masculine in verse seven?

You say that John 1:1, "is “shot full of holes” too because it does not agree with the standard rules of grammar.". can you show me how?

Maybe you read it differently than I did. But he did write, "Some see this as an oblique reference. . . ."

Regarding Jn 1:1: Just look at the sentence construction beginning with the first two words.

 

no definite article. It is brought over directly from the LXX using the same sentence structure.

 

As I've said many times, this debate has been going on for generations & is no closer to being resolved now than it was then. This proves another KJVO premise wrong about "superior texts" since several well-meaning Christians right here cannot decide nor agree which mss are better.

 

gb93433

Very interesting:

How does using two words together prove that the structure was brought over from the Septuagint?

In Christ,

 

How does using two words together prove that the structure was brought over from the Septuagint?

In Christ, </font>[/QUOTE]By looking at Gen. 1:1

 

I agree and disagree with you. Jesus was in the beginning not a beginning. It is a definite beginning. The sentence structure is very much like Gen. 1:1 in the LXX.

I would not agree with you to think that John thought in Greek, but rather it was a second language. He writes using Hebrew phraseology and sentence structure. Much like we would see from a person who writes English but it is their second language. They would write translating in their mind from their mother tongue to Englsih until they know English well.