The Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7

[37818]

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

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.

. . . The only Witnesses that God the Father has given, concerning Jesus Christ, is the Witness that we have in the words of verse 7. In verse 6 we have the Witness of the Holy Spirit, concerning Jesus Coming in the flesh, which is again confirmed in verses 7 and 8. Verses 9 and 10 speak of the Witness of the Father, both of which take us back to verse 7, where alone “The Father” is mentioned. . . .

1 John 5:9, "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. . . ."

The New Testament writings are the witness of man regarding the witness of God. Now how is the witness of God greater?

Now the witness of God is what we as believers receive from God, the Holy Spirit, v10, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: . . ." Romans 8:16.

The claim given in 1 John 5:7 as, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Is only in that text. From heaven we get what? v8, we have the water at Christ's baptism the writing of man telling us, John 1:32, "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him." And the writing of man regarding the blood, John 19:34, "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." And then the Spirit of truth in us according to the writing, John 14:17, "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." And this according to 1 John 5:8-9, "And there are three that bear witness . . . , the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: . . ." And back to v6, ". . . And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." And v10, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: . . ." Romans 8:16.

So how is that witness from heaven, v7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," greater?

 

[SavedByGrace]

1 John 5:9, "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. . . ."

The New Testament writings are the witness of man regarding the witness of God. Now how is the witness of God greater?

Now the witness of God is what we as believers receive from God, the Holy Spirit, v10, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: . . ." Romans 8:16.

The claim given in 1 John 5:7 as, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Is only in that text. From heaven we get what? v8, we have the water at Christ's baptism the writing of man telling us, John 1:32, "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him." And the writing of man regarding the blood, John 19:34, "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." And then the Spirit of truth in us according to the writing, John 14:17, "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." And this according to 1 John 5:8-9, "And there are three that bear witness . . . , the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: . . ." And back to v6, ". . . And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." And v10, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: . . ." Romans 8:16.

So how is that witness from heaven, v7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," greater?

You still don't get it

 

[John of Japan]

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

Um, define "good grammar." I personally don't believe in "good" and "bad" grammar.

 

[John of Japan]

@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.

As I told him, I don't believe in "bad" and "good" grammar. There is just grammar. So I don's see what you have posted as "bad Greek grammar." If it exists in a language it is simply grammar. Now, as to SBG's argument, I don't see the need to "fix" any grammar, either with or without the "Comma." So I don't agree with SBG. The question then, would be to me, is the grammar normative or common, or is it an exception? All languages have grammatical exceptions, and sometimes different usages according to regions. (Check out the usages of εὐθυς/εὐθεος in the different textual traditions, for example. I think there is a difference in usage between Alexandria and Antioch.)

At any rate, were you able to read Conan's post #44? I think he links to a good article about the issues: The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

 

[SavedByGrace]

Um, define "good grammar." I personally don't believe in "good" and "bad" grammar.

can you account for the definite article in verse 8, "εις το εν εισιν", without verse 7, "τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν"? The only possible explanation is that it is used for renewed mention, but without 7, it is pointless. With the reading "ἥν" in verse 9 (as it is in verse 10), which has been corrupted to the impossible "ὅτι", as a reference for "αὕτη", which refers back to the Witnesses in verse 7, where the Father is a Witness concerning the Son. The corrupt "ὅτι", cannot here be used as epexegetic of αὕτη, nor as the meaning of the first ὅτι, which would show that the Testimony of God already mentioned, was not good enough the first time round! I cannot see any way of explaining either verse 8 or 9, without "ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα", if you can, then please feel free to do.

 

[SavedByGrace]

As I told him, I don't believe in "bad" and "good" grammar. There is just grammar. So I don's see what you have posted as "bad Greek grammar." If it exists in a language it is simply grammar. Now, as to SBG's argument, I don't see the need to "fix" any grammar, either with or without the "Comma." So I don't agree with SBG. The question then, would be to me, is the grammar normative or common, or is it an exception? All languages have grammatical exceptions, and sometimes different usages according to regions. (Check out the usages of εὐθυς/εὐθεος in the different textual traditions, for example. I think there is a difference in usage between Alexandria and Antioch.)

At any rate, were you able to read Conan's post #44? I think he links to a good article about the issues: The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

Dr. Barry Hofstetter's arguments are quite useless, as he has failed to take into account the use of the definite article in verse 8, and the relative pronoun in verse 9, and 10. Simply arguing against the masculine in verse 7/8, is pointless, as this is only a part of the wider problem. You say that you disagree with me, that is fine, but at least then show how I am wrong on the points that I make for verses 8 and 9 as in the TR/KJV.

 

[John of Japan]

can you account for the definite article in verse 8, "εις το εν εισιν", without verse 7, "τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν"? The only possible explanation is that it is used for renewed mention, but without 7, it is pointless. With the reading "ἥν" in verse 9 (as it is in verse 10), which has been corrupted to the impossible "ὅτι", as a reference for "αὕτη", which refers back to the Witnesses in verse 7, where the Father is a Witness concerning the Son. The corrupt "ὅτι", cannot here be used as epexegetic of αὕτη, nor as the meaning of the first ὅτι, which would show that the Testimony of God already mentioned, was not good enough the first time round! I cannot see any way of explaining either verse 8 or 9, without "ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα", if you can, then please feel free to do.

You didn't define "good grammar" for me. I hesitate to say anything is a "possible explanation" or "impossible" in grammar.

As to the article standing alone with an adjective, that is discussed in A. T. Robertson's massive grammar on pp. 762 to 764. Do you have that grammar? If you do, you don't need me. Check it out for yourself. But he says on p. 764, "The article with numbers is more common in Greek than in English and is a classic idiom."

 

[John of Japan]

Dr. Barry Hofstetter's arguments are quite useless, as he has failed to take into account the use of the definite article in verse 8, and the relative pronoun in verse 9, and 10. Simply arguing against the masculine in verse 7/8, is pointless, as this is only a part of the wider problem. You say that you disagree with me, that is fine, but at least then show how I am wrong on the points that I make for verses 8 and 9 as in the TR/KJV.

I don't see any of that as a grammatical problem, so I see no need to address your viewpoint.

I will say this. If the "comma" is genuine, and the rewrite is the mythical "bad grammar," then those guys who copied mss in their own language in the early centuries had (alas) lousy grammar in their own language. Or worse, whoever revised the passage in his own language had "bad grammar." Yep, those poor guys didn't know their own language as well as we 21st century experts do.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You didn't define "good grammar" for me. I hesitate to say anything is a "possible explanation" or "impossible" in grammar.

As to the article standing alone with an adjective, that is discussed in A. T. Robertson's massive grammar on pp. 762 to 764. Do you have that grammar? If you do, you don't need me. Check it out for yourself. But he says on p. 764, "The article with numbers is more common in Greek than in English and is a classic idiom."

The use of the article anywhere is for a purpose, however, in verse 8, where it is used for renewed mention, without 7, is pointless. As I have already said in the OP, one of the best works on the Definite Article, by Bishop Middletion, who did not believe that verse 7 was genuine, admits that the article in verse 8, cannot be accounted for without 7. Dr Plummers arguments in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, is moot, as he fails to show why he is right!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I don't see any of that as a grammatical problem, so I see no need to address your viewpoint.

I will say this. If the "comma" is genuine, and the rewrite is the mythical "bad grammar," then those guys who copied mss in their own language in the early centuries had (alas) lousy grammar in their own language. Or worse, whoever revised the passage in his own language had "bad grammar." Yep, those poor guys didn't know their own language as well as we 21st century experts do.

and of course you are arguing against this, because your "Byzantine" text does not have this verse! Had this been part of this, then I am sure that you would agree with what I have said.

 

[John of Japan]

The use of the article anywhere is for a purpose, however, in verse 8, where it is used for renewed mention, without 7, is pointless. As I have already said in the OP, one of the best works on the Definite Article, by Bishop Middletion, who did not believe that verse 7 was genuine, admits that the article in verse 8, cannot be accounted for without 7. Dr Plummers arguments in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, is moot, as he fails to show why he is right!

I go with old A. T. Robertson myself. He was a Bible believing Baptist. He found no grammatical problems in the passage. Here is what he wrote in Word Pictures in the NT:

v. 8: "The Spirit and the water and the blood (to pneuma kai to hudôr kai to haima). The same three witnesses of verses 1Jo 5:6,7 repeated with the Spirit first. The three (hoi treis). The resumptive article. Agree in one (eis to hen eisin). "Are for the one thing," to bring us to faith in Jesus as the Incarnate Son of God, the very purpose for which John wrote his Gospel (Jos 20:9)."

v. 9: "If we receive (ei lambanomen). Condition of first class with ei and the present active indicative, assumed as true. The conditions for a legally valid witness are laid down in De 19:15 (cf. Mt 18:16; Joh 8:17; 10:25; 2Co 13:1). Greater (meizôn). Comparative of megas, because God is always true. For (hoti). So it applies to this case. That (hoti). Thus taken in the declarative sense (the fact that) as in Joh 3:19, though it can be causal (because) or indefinite relative with memarturêken (what he hath testified, perfect active indicative of martureô, as in Joh 1:32; 4:44, etc.), a harsh construction here because of marturia, though some MSS. do read hen to agree with it (cf. verse 1Jo 5:10). See hoti ean in 1Jo 3:20 for that idiom. Westcott notes the Trinity in verses 1Jo 5:6-9: the Son comes, the Spirit witnesses, the Father has witnessed."

You see, he has no such grammatical problems as you do.

 

[John of Japan]

and of course you are arguing against this, because your "Byzantine" text does not have this verse! Had this been part of this, then I am sure that you would agree with what I have said.

I am what I am.

 

[SavedByGrace]

A. T. Robertson

was very much anti TR/KJV! what does one expect? Middleton was 100 times a better Greek scholar that ATR!

 

[SavedByGrace]

B F Westcott on verse 9, and the Greek grammar:

9. Εἰ τὴν μ. τ. ἀνθρ. λαμβ.] Si … accipimus V., If we receive … This is assumed as unquestioned: c. 3:13. The threefold witness of which St John has spoken, simply as being threefold, satisfies the conditions of human testimony. Much more then, he argues, does a threefold divine witness meet all claims; and such a witness, it is implied, we have in the witness of the Spirit, the water and the blood. This witness therefore is ‘greater’ than the witness of men in regard to its authority: John 5:36. Comp. c. 3:20; 4:4.
For μαρτ. λαμβ. see John 3:11, 32 f.; 5:34.
The form of the argument is irregular. Instead of completing the sentence on the same type as he began, ‘much more shall we receive the witness of God,’ St John states that which is the ground of this conclusion, ‘the witness of God is greater.’
ὅτι αὕτη ἐ ... ὅτι ...] quoniam hoc est .. quia … V., because this is … that … The words look backward and forward. This triple witness which has been described, and which is now defined further to be a witness of God concerning His Son: this is the final form of the witness of God.
The witness was open and visible to the world in the general effect of Christ’s death and the pouring out of the Spirit: so much was unquestionable.
The first conjunction (because) does not give the ground of the superior authority of the divine witness, that is taken for granted, but the ground for appealing to it. Such a witness has been given, and therefore we appeal to it.
The second ὅτι is ambiguous. It may be (1) parallel with the former one: ‘because this is the witness of God, because, I say, He hath borne witness …’; or, it may be (2) explanatory of the μαρτυρίαν: ‘because this is the witness of God, even that He hath borne witness …’; or again (3) the word may be the relative (ὅ τι): ‘because this is the witness of God, even that which He hath witnessed. …’
No one of the explanations is without difficulty. Against (2) it may be urged that it is strange to insist on the idea that the witness of God lies in the fact that He hath witnessed concerning His Son.
The usage of St John and of the Apostolic writers generally is against (3); though perhaps reference may be made to 3:20; John 8:25. [In Matt. 18:28 εἴ τι.]
The usage of St John (c. 1:5; 5:11, 5:14) is equally against (1).
On the whole it is best to take the clause as explanatory of αὕτη: ‘because this is the witness of God, even the fact that He hath borne witness concerning His Son.’ God has spoken; and His message is the witness to the Incarnation. Comp. v. 11.

with ἥν there is NO problem with the Greek grammar!

 

[37818]

All languages have grammatical exceptions, and sometimes different usages according to regions. (Check out the usages of εὐθυς/εὐθεος in the different textual traditions, for example. I think there is a difference in usage between Alexandria and Antioch.)

Interesting. It seems that where Alxandria type text uses ευθυς more often than the Antioch type text uses ευθεως. It appears the more common usage of ευθυς by the Alxandria type text it seems is just being lazy. Just looking at this for the first time. I am assuming Antiocia is the same as Byzantine. Alxandria ευθυς ~58x, ευθεως ~36x, Byzantine ευθυς ~16x, ευθεως ~79x.

 

[John of Japan]

Interesting. It seems that where Alxandria type text uses ευθυς more often than the Antioch type text uses ευθεως. It appears the more common usage of ευθυς by the Alxandria type text it seems is just being lazy. Just looking at this for the first time. I am assuming Antiocia is the same as Byzantine. Alxandria ευθυς ~58x, ευθεως ~36x, Byzantine ευθυς ~16x, ευθεως ~79x.

Nice work!

 

[John of Japan]

Many cases of so-called "bad grammar" are just idioms, not grammar per se. Here is an illustration of that. Someone in the US North might say, "A person can't get any rest around here," whereas a Southerner might say, "A body cain't get any rest around here." This is a regional difference of idiom. The Southerner would be insulted if you said he had bad grammar! And of course, that's what an ignorant New Yorker visiting South Georgia would say to a Southerner.

To apply this to the Greek NT, IMO we simply don't have a large enough corpus of koine literature to trace all of the idioms, especially the regional ones. The grammar of either side in the Comma is probably just idiomatic. Very little has been written on this to my knowledge. I found out the hard way when I ordered it that Moule's An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek was not a book of idioms, but an intermediate grammar. (My son warned me. )

 

[SavedByGrace]

I found out the hard way when I ordered it that Moule's An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek was not a book of idioms, but an intermediate grammar