Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook - PureBible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1906435479448332/
Untranslatable variants are not insignificant variants
=================================
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1906435479448332/
Daniel Wallace makes constructio ad sensum theory out of CT corruptions, often ultra-minorityPure Bible Forum - sister threads
Daniel Wallace makes constructio ad sensum theory out of CT corruptions, often ultra-minority
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.71
support for the basic Daniel Wallace argument that Spirit is not grammatically personalized in the New Testament
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.308
constructio ad sensum
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.70/post-181
Acts 13:2 - do personal attributes make the Holy Spirit a "person"
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.1007/post-2236
Untranslatable variants are not insignificant variants
=================================
=================================Acts 21:36
For the multitude of the people followed after, crying,
Away with him.
TR/Byz - ἠκολούθει γὰρ τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ κρᾶζον Αἶρε αὐτόν
CT - ἠκολούθει γὰρ τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ κράζοντες αἶρε αὐτόν
Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit (2003)
Daniel Wallace
https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2003a_05_Wallace_HolySpirit.pdf
Wallace blunder to false grammar based on CT text:
"In Acts 21:36 we read of "the multitude of the people crying out" ( τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ κράζοντες): not only is there a gender shift but a number shift too. 4
4. The neuter singular noun πλῆθος followed by the masculine plural participle κράζοντες. It will not do to say that the participle agrees with λαοῦ since that is in the genitive singular. This is constructio ad sensum, pure and simple."
Nope, this is corruptio constructio, pure and simple. Not usually mentioned in grammar literature, since it is nothing but an ultra-minority corruption in the modern versions.
LaParola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=51&rif2=21:36
κράζοντες] WH
κράζον] Byz ς
=================================Mark 9:25-26
When Jesus saw that the people came running together,
he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him,
Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee,
come out of him, and enter no more into him.
And the spirit cried, and rent him sore,
and came out of him: and he was as one dead;
insomuch that many said, He is dead.
v. 25
TR-Byz - ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ λέγων αὐτῷ, Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν ἐγὼ σοι ἐπιτάσσω ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν
Alex - ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ λέγων αὐτῷ τὸ ἄλαλον καὶ κωφὸν πνεῦμα ἐγὼ ἐπιτάσσω σοι ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν
v.26
TR-Byz - Καὶ κράξαν, καὶ πολλὰ σπαράξαν αὐτόν, ἐξῆλθεν· καὶ ἐγένετο ὡσεὶ νεκρός, ὥστε πολλοὺς λέγειν ὅτι ἀπέθανεν.
Alex - καὶ κράξας καὶ πολλὰ σπαράξας ἐξῆλθεν· καὶ ἐγένετο ὡσεὶ νεκρὸς ὥστε τοὺς πολλοὺς λέγειν ὅτι ἀπέθανεν.
Wallace blunder to false grammar based on CT text:
... in Mark 9:26 the masculine participles κράξας and σπαράξας refer back to the πνεῦμα of v. 25.
LaParola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=48&rif2=9:26
cried .. rent
κράξας] WH
κράξαν] Byz ς
σπαράξας] WH
σπαράξαν αυτον] Byz ς
Nope, this is corruptio constructio (ad absurdum), The ultra-minority corruption is, as usual, accepted by Wallace, in the hortian fog.
The irony, it could be used to destroy his whole argument. After all, if a foul spirit is personalized to masculine, how much more should it be possible .. somewhere .. for the Holy Spirit? However, the root of the whole problem, as often, is simply a rinky-dink corruption. When it comes to the modern version GNT:
One good solecism deserves another.
CARM
Wallace and the foul spirit masc grammar pneuma in CT of Mark 9:25-26
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?228338-1-John-5-7&p=7014867&viewfull=1#post7014867
From the perspective of Daniel Wallace, this quandary has 4 solutions.
1) Point out that Mark has an unusual personalized, masculine grammar pneuma, for a foul spirit, out of the blue. Inconsistent with other NT uses. And thus John could be similarly inconsistent, and personalize the fair, not foul, usage of 1 John 5:7-8. Negating the paper. As this ad hoc personalization by John becomes at least as likely as the Wallace alternate attempt of a metaphor of witnessing, which is rather an unsupported, special pleading explanation of the unusual grammar.
2) Follow the idea of Jim expressed above that the masculine does not refer to pneuma. Contextually, grammatically parsing speaking, this is very difficult.
3) Acknowledge that the GNT followed by the NETBible is simply following an ultra-minority corruption. While this is clearly the logical and proper answer, it is one that a "rabid" (quotes are words used by Wallace) CT proponent like Wallace would be loath to use, as it means that the Alexandrian ultra-minority corruption "infects" his text.
4) Duck the question. Hand-wave. Mum.
Considering the thoroughness of the paper, it is pretty much inconceivable that Wallace missed this dissonance. Give him the benefit of the tiny doubt? Anyway, a good question to ask him now.
If Stanley E. Porter reviewed this paper he almost surely would have caught this one.
NT Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/934216323332035
Last edited: