The Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7

[Conan]

I thought it was the elders of Geneva that condemned the man to death? I had thought Calvin pleaded for a non lethal sentence but was overuled?

 

[rlvaughn]

I think it is according to whether the person telling the story is trying to throw Calvin under the bus or trying to get him out from under the bus. One of the stories I've read is that he asked the council to behead Servetus rather than burn him at the stake. Certainly not non-lethal, but a little more humane. Here is a translation of something Calvin himself wrote, indicating it was Calvin who sought his arrest:

He [Servetus, rlv] at length, in an evil hour, came to this place, when, at my instigation, one of the Syndics ordered him to be conducted to prison. For I do not disguise it, that I considered it my duty to put a check, so far as I could, upon this most obstinate and ungovernable man, that his contagion might not spread farther. Schaff

 

[John of Japan]

I was asked to look in on the Greek grammar of this thread, and said I would do that on this past Monday. Sorry about that! Been very busy this week, the final week of class. But I see it has (somehow!) turned into a Cal/Arm thread.

At any rate, from when I've looked into the grammar in the past, I believe I came to the conclusion that the issue can't be decided from the grammar. I see correctness on both sides. Besides, who are we to pontificate on the grammar of a 2000 year old language? I tend to think that it is virtually impossible to know what "good grammar" was in the 1st century when we know so little about the dialects (North vs. south? East and west? Antioch and Alexandria?), etc. So when "scholars" say that Peter had bad grammar, I always get a laugh out of that. What would a scholar 2000 years from now say about Southern dialect?

So as regards the textual criticism of the Johannine Comma, I go with the Byzantine textform which does not have it, but am open to more discoveries. I said that to a visiting preacher at our seminary, and he said there was a 2nd century Latin text that has it, but didn't tall me what that was, and I've not been able to discover it on my own.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I was asked to look in on the Greek grammar of this thread, and said I would do that on this past Monday. Sorry about that! Been very busy this week, the final week of class. But I see it has (somehow!) turned into a Cal/Arm thread.

At any rate, from when I've looked into the grammar in the past, I believe I came to the conclusion that the issue can't be decided from the grammar. I see correctness on both sides. Besides, who are we to pontificate on the grammar of a 2000 year old language? I tend to think that it is virtually impossible to know what "good grammar" was in the 1st century when we know so little about the dialects (North vs. south? East and west? Antioch and Alexandria?), etc. So when "scholars" say that Peter had bad grammar, I always get a laugh out of that. What would a scholar 2000 years from now say about Southern dialect?

So as regards the textual criticism of the Johannine Comma, I go with the Byzantine textform which does not have it, but am open to more discoveries. I said that to a visiting preacher at our seminary, and he said there was a 2nd century Latin text that has it, but didn't tall me what that was, and I've not been able to discover it on my own.

Thanks for sharing. Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit allowed bad grammar to be used in the Bible? Can you show from the verses I mentioned in the OP for verses 7, 8 and 9, how can verse 7 be removed and the passage grammatically correct? Even Bishop Middleton who rejects verse 7 was honest enough to admit the problem with the article used in verse 8. Both Westcott and A T Robertson admit that the removal of the relative in verse 9 for the conjunction is difficult.

 

[rlvaughn]

Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit allowed bad grammar to be used in the Bible?

Not answering for John, but climbing up on my soapbox about bad grammar. Whatever the Holy Spirit used is correct. Grammar as we speak of it in the 21st century (and as long as people have spoken of it, I suppose) is a human construct based on human ideas that change. God is unchanging. So it matters not what we moderns think about grammar, spelling, zoological nomenclature (e.g., whether a whale is a mammal or a fish). It matters what God wrote, and we most often are working at it backwards.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not answering for John, but climbing up on my soapbox about bad grammar. Whatever the Holy Spirit used is correct. Grammar as we speak of it in the 21st century (and as long as people have spoken of it, I suppose) is a human construct based on human ideas that change. God is unchanging. So it matters not what we moderns think about grammar, spelling, zoological nomenclature (e.g., whether a whale is a mammal or a fish). It matters what God wrote, and we most often are working at it backwards.

I think part of the issue might be in that when I would say Peter wrote "bad grammar". would be in comparison to that used by Luke, so would be like comparing say Shakespeare to a modern day writer, both used English, but one much more elaborate!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Not answering for John, but climbing up on my soapbox about bad grammar. Whatever the Holy Spirit used is correct. Grammar as we speak of it in the 21st century (and as long as people have spoken of it, I suppose) is a human construct based on human ideas that change. God is unchanging. So it matters not what we moderns think about grammar, spelling, zoological nomenclature (e.g., whether a whale is a mammal or a fish). It matters what God wrote, and we most often are working at it backwards.

Please show where in the OP my understanding of the grammar is wrong

 

[SavedByGrace]

I think part of the issue might be in that when I would say Peter wrote "bad grammar". would be in comparison to that used by Luke, so would be like comparing say Shakespeare to a modern day writer, both used English, but one much more elaborate!

You and others have failed to understand what I have said in the OP on the grammatical problems that the removal of verse 7 causes. This cannot be from the Holy Spirit as the Author of the First Epistle of John

 

[rlvaughn]

Please show where in the OP my understanding of the grammar is wrong

I was not claiming your understanding of the grammar re 1 John 5:7 is right or wrong. I was simply making an observation about the general topic of bad grammar and the Bible. No, I do not think the Holy Spirit wrote in bad grammar -- but, the thing is, I am not sure that people who talk about bad grammar in the Bible even begin at the right starting point, which is what God wrote, not our human rules of grammar that we have come up with.

 

[rlvaughn]

... Been very busy this week, the final week of class. But I see it has (somehow!) turned into a Cal/Arm thread...

I think I caused that, while actually trying to steer away from ad hominem argument -- but it appears that backfired. As they say, the best laid plans of mice and men...

 

[SavedByGrace]

I am not claiming your understanding of the grammar re 1 John 5:7 is right or wrong. I was simply answering the general topic about bad grammar in the Bible. No, I do not think the Holy Spirit wrote in bad grammar -- but, the thing is, I am not sure that people who talk about bad grammar in the Bible even begin at the right starting point, which is what God wrote, not our human rules of grammar that we have come up with.

These rules of the Greek grammar predate the New Testament and not Christian in any way.

 

[rlvaughn]

I am not arguing against your view of 1 John 5:7. I think it should stay in the Bible. Nevertheless, the rules of Greek grammar, even if they predate the NT and are not Christian, are still a human construct. However God wrote the Bible is correct, not how people say he should have written it.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I am not arguing against your view of 1 John 5:7. I think it should stay in the Bible. Nevertheless, the rules of Greek grammar, even if they predate the NT and are not Christian, are still a human construct. However God wrote the Bible is correct, not how people say he should have written it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

 

[37818]

Techically the removal of the following bracked words do not change the grammar issue.

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

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

The grammar issue really still exists with the bracketed words.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Techically the removal of the following bracked words do not change the grammar issue.

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

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

The grammar issue really still exists with the bracketed words.

Shows that you don't understand Greek grammar at all!

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for sharing. Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit allowed bad grammar to be used in the Bible? Can you show from the verses I mentioned in the OP for verses 7, 8 and 9, how can verse 7 be removed and the passage grammatically correct? Even Bishop Middleton who rejects verse 7 was honest enough to admit the problem with the article used in verse 8. Both Westcott and A T Robertson admit that the removal of the relative in verse 9 for the conjunction is difficult.

You missed my point entirely. No, I am absolutely saying that the Holy Spirit did NOT allow bad grammar to be used in the Bible. My point was that we in the 21st century are not equipped in skill to say what in 1st century koine is bad grammar and what is not. Anyone who studies koine is studying it as a second language, and not even a spoken language. So my position is that either way you take 1 John 5:7, it is proper grammar. If the Holy Spirit included it Scripture, or did not, the passage is proper grammar.

By way of illustration, I just finished teaching a two week block in our seminary on Eschatology. In the class were three foreign students (unless you count the Canadian ): two German ladies and an Iranian. All three are brilliant in languages; all three are in our MA in Bible Translation program, so I have taught all three previously in Greek or Bible translation. All three are very fluent in English, but all three make subtle errors in their verbal interactions and their written submissions. (Miss S. is the best, but even she is not perfect.)

Yet we 21st century English speakers think we know 1st century koine Greek well enough to correct its grammar. That is truly hubris!

 

[37818]

Shows that you don't understand Greek grammar at all!

This is not merely my opinion. The Greek grammar is repeated in the bolden.

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

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

 

[SavedByGrace]

You missed my point entirely. No, I am absolutely saying that the Holy Spirit did NOT allow bad grammar to be used in the Bible. My point was that we in the 21st century are not equipped in skill to say what in 1st century koine is bad grammar and what is not. Anyone who studies koine is studying it as a second language, and not even a spoken language. So my position is that either way you take 1 John 5:7, it is proper grammar. If the Holy Spirit included it Scripture, or did not, the passage is proper grammar.

By way of illustration, I just finished teaching a two week block in our seminary on Eschatology. In the class were three foreign students (unless you count the Canadian ): two German ladies and an Iranian. All three are brilliant in languages; all three are in our MA in Bible Translation program, so I have taught all three previously in Greek or Bible translation. All three are very fluent in English, but all three make subtle errors in their verbal interactions and their written submissions. (Miss S. is the best, but even she is not perfect.)

Yet we 21st century English speakers think we know 1st century koine Greek well enough to correct its grammar. That is truly hubris!

Is the grammar in verses 8 and 9 good grammar? As not in the KJV?

 

[37818]

@John of Japan,

On the premise, οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι, is bad Greek grammar.

How does adding, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισι και, before it make what was bad grammar good?

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

@SavedByGrace argues that the adding of ο πατηρ ο λογος fixes the bad grammar of τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες [εν τη γη] το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι following.

In verse 7 with "ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα" (the Father the Word and the Holy Spirit), we have 2 of the nouns, "ο πατηρ ο λογος", in the masculine gender, and "το αγιον πνευμα", is in the neuter. In this case, because the 2 nouns are in the masculine, "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες...οἱ τρεῖς", which is in the masculine, "governs" all three of the nouns, as it would be impossible to write "τρια εισι τα μαρτυρουντα", in the netuer. The Three are Personal.

 

[SavedByGrace]

@John of Japan,

On the premise, οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι, is bad Greek grammar.

How does adding, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισι και, before it make what was bad grammar good?

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

@SavedByGrace argues that the adding of ο πατηρ ο λογος fixes the bad grammar of τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες [εν τη γη] το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι following.

I don't think that you understand what I said in the OP on the Greek grammar for the 3 verses 7, 8 and 9. Especially the definite article in verse 8 and relative pronoun in verse 9