March 18, 2021
Dear Steven, greetings!
Here I am to deliver on my promise!
I am giving you here my discussion of the four N. T. references.
I begin first with Matthew 25:32 "και συναχθησεται έμπροσθεν αυτου πάντα τα έθνη και αφοριει αυτους απ ' αλλήλων". The use of the word έθνη belongs to the neuter gender, implies people, male and female, and means "nations". Thus it is quite natural, logical and expected for the author, that is Matthew, to use here the constructio ad sensum and refer to them by the masculine plural pronoun αυτούς, because the masculine gender in ancient Greek is used as a generic term for both male and female persons who are in the same group.
In First John 5:8, however, there is no reference to people at all but to three neuter nouns, πνεύμα, (spirit), ύδωρ (water) and αίμα ( blood). Let me, incidentally, say that, even though none of the four different verses, namely Matthew 25 :32, Luke 19:37, Acts 5:16, and Romans 2:14, that Barry Hofstetter has used in his futile attempt to prove that 1John 5:8 can stand alone and that, therefore, the preceding verse, namely the one about the "heavenly witnesses" is spurious, even though, I repeat, none of these instances is suitable for the solution of the grammatical issue involved, nevertheless the very first case, namely Matthew 25 :32, is the least suitable of all four! In this last reference, even though it is a clear case of constructio ad sensum, there is absolutely nothing in it that makes it comparable in structure to 1 John 5:8. Unlike 1 John 5:8, in which the crux of the verse are the masculine numeral and the masculine plural participle " τρεις... οι μαρτυρούντες" with the three neuter nouns, το πνευμα , το ύδωρ and το αιμα as its subjects, or rather as its referents, in Matthew 25:32, there is no masculine numeral and especially no masculine plural participle or even any participle at all for that matter! Where, then, does Barry see any similarity between Matthew 25:32 and 1 John 5 :8? Where does he see in the former anything similar or comparable in structure with reference to the masculine plural numeral and participle "τρεις... οι μαρτυρουντες " in the latter?
There follows immediately discussion of Luke 19 : 37.
Luke19:37 " ηρξατο απαν το πληθος των μαθητών χαιροντες αινειν τον Θεόν".
In this verse, Luke speaks of a crowd of people, which is the crowd of the disciples. There is a specific mention of them in it in the genitive plural, " των μαθητών ", immediately after the word " πληθος". Therefore, quite naturally and imperceptibly Luke switches from neuter singular to the masculine nominative plural participle " χαιροντες". Moreover, the presence of the masculine genitive plural "των μαθητών " immediately after the word "το πληθος " facilitates the transition from the neuter singular to the masculine plural participle "χαιροντες", since the actual (not the grammatical) gender of this sentence is the implied word "οι μαθηται" ( the disciples), which is unobtrusively deduced from the preceding genitive plural " των μαθητών". It goes without saying that the use of this masculine nominative plural participle "χαιροντες" is a typical case of constructio ad sensum. In 1 John 5 :8, however, the case is quite different : there is no reference in it to a crowd of people, there is no collective noun in the singular indicating a group of people ; there is only reference to three non-person entities, or rather " symbols" as Eugenius Bulgaris himself calls them, namely το πνεύμα (the spirit), το ύδωρ ( the water), and το αίμα (the blood). Moreover, there is no similarity in construction between Luke 19 : 37 and 1John 5:8 with reference to the syntactical function of the participles "χαιροντες" in the former and "οι μαρτυρουντες" in the latter. In the former, the participle "χαιροντες" is circumstantial, indicating manner, namely " joyfully" whereas in 1 John 5 : 8 the participle "οι μαρτυρουντες" is attributive , that is, it is equivalent to a relative clause meaning " those who bear witness" or to the corresponding masculine plural noun "οι μάρτυρες". Being an attributive participle, the word "μαρτυρουντες" is preceded by the definite article "οι" that gives it a personified status, which is not the case with the participle "χαιροντες" in Luke 19:37. There follows immediately discussion of the verse Acts 5:16.
Acts 5 :16
συνηρχετο δε και το πληθος των πέριξ πόλεων φέροντες ασθενείς και οχλουμενους υπό πνευμάτων ακαθαρτων ".
A close and comparative study of the verse Acts 5:16 and 1 John 5 : 8 shows that there is no structural similarity between them. Of course, the use of the masculine nominative plural participle "φέροντες" referring to the word " πληθος" as its subject and antecedent, which word obviously is a collective noun indicating a crowd of people, is unquestionably a case of constructio ad sensum. But, this is not the case with the verse about the "earthly witnesses " in 1 John 5 : 8, because (unlike Acts 5:16) here we do not have a collective noun! Moreover, the syntactical (structural) function of the masculine nominative plural "φέροντες " in Acts 5:16 is circumstantial, indicating manner, (namely "a crowd came bringing sick persons"), and for this reason this participle is not preceded by the definite article "οι" whereas in 1 John 5:8 the participle "οι μαρτυρουντες" is an attribute participle preceded by the definite article "οι", which ( as we have already said) gives it a personified status and a completely different function in the sentence : "those that bear witness" or "the witnesses". There follows immediately discussion of Romans 2:14.
Romans 2:14 " όταν γαρ έθνη τα μη νόμον έχοντα φύσει τα του νόμου ποιηι, ουτοι νόμον μη έχοντες εαυτοις εισι νόμος."
In this case too, if we compare closely and carefully Romans 2: 14 with 1 John 5: 8 , we will observe that there is no structural similarity between them concerning the participle "έχοντες" in the former case and "οι μαρτυρουντες" in the latter. Here again we see that the antecedent (or referent) of the masculine plural participle " έχοντες" is a neuter word in the plural, namely "έθνη", which indicates numerous people whereas in 1 John 5:8 this is not the case. In the latter, we have three elements, entities, which are personified, represented as persons, witnesses ; we do not have either the name of a crowd or a collective noun. Moreover, the masculine plural participle "έχοντες" in the phrase "ουτοι μη νόμον έχοντες" is circumstantial, specifically causal in function meaning "because they do not have the law", and therefore it has a completely different structural role in the sentence than the masculine plural participle "οι μαρτυρουντες" in First John 5:8, which is obviously attributive and (unlike Romans 2: 14) is preceded by the definite article " οι". Once more we have a constructio ad sensum , in Romans 2:14 this time, but something that certainly we cannot explain as being such in 1John 5:8 . __
I have finished with the discussion of the four references. However, I have something more important to say about 1 John 5: 8 but it is too late now. Thanks a lot for your kind words but please don't rush! Wait until I write to you what I have to say by way of conclusion! Please wait until tomorrow! Goodbye!
Concluding Remarks!
Having thoroughly studied all four references (Matthew 25:32, Luke19:37, Acts 5 :16, and Romans 2 : 14), I have come to the conclusion that all of them, being unquestionably cases of constructio ad sensum, are unsuitable or rather irrelevant for helping us explain the use of the masculine plural "τρεις... οι μαρτυρουντεs" in connection with the three neuter adjectives το πνευμα, το ύδωρ and το αίμα in 1 John 5 : 8. I have pointed out the differences that exist between those four cases and the latter! Barry Hofstetter was under the erroneous impression that by adducing those four N. T. examples of clear-cut constructio ad sensum and building his argument on them he convincingly and conclusively proved, "beyond a shadow of doubt", to use his own words, that the grammatical issue of the construction of the masculine plural numeral "τρεις" and the masculine plural participle " οι μαρτυρουντεs" in connection with the three neuter singular referents was definitively solved! He explained the problem, away by regarding this structural peculiarity as just an ordinary case of constructio ad sensum! Being quite satisfied with this easy solution, Barry felt no qualms about asserting that consequently 1 John 5 : 8, namely the verse about the " earthly witnesses" και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντεs εν τηι γηι... " can stand alone, on its own feet, by itself, without presupposing or necessitating the existence and genuineness of the preceding verse that is 1John5 :7, namely the verse about the "heavenly witnesses ", which he considers spurious, the result of interpolation! Unfortunately, I share neither Barry's triumphant jubilation at solving this problem nor his slur on Eugenius Bulgaris' competence as a Greek philologist [Barry :" Why didn't Eugenius, whose Greek was supposed to be so good, come up with this?"] . I have already explained, in the discussion of each of the four N. T. examples adduced by Barry, that none of them can lend weight to his assertion that the use of the masculine plural phrase" τρεις ... οι μαρτυρουντεs... " with reference to the "earthly witnesses" is a case of constructio ad sensum, since I have shown that none of them exhibits anything similar in construction to the issue under discussion in 1John5:8. I will indicate here right below another fundamental difference that I have not yet mentioned up to now : In all four N. T. examples used by Barry, the masculine plural pronouns and masculine plural participles follow their antecedent, namely they come after their neuter-gender nouns to which they refer, "αυτούς" (Matthew 25:32), "ουτοι" (Romans 2:14), "χαίροντες" (Luke 19: 37), "φέροντες (Acts 5 : 16,) and " έχοντες " (Romans 2: 14) whereas in 1Jonn5:8 the masculine plural phrase " τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντεs... " comes before its referents, namely before the neuter nouns το πνευμα ( the spirit), το ύδωρ (the water), and το αίμα (the blood). I believe that this is an extremely important difference, the most important of all that I have mentioned up to now in connection with Barry's four N. T. examples and 1John 5 :8. Incidentally,let me say that Barry did not notice any of these differences or a least did not considered them important enough to comment on them! All these differences are serious enough , first to render the examples on which Barry has built his argument not only unsuitable but also utterly irrelevant for helping us to solve the problem at hand, and second to exclude the possibility that the peculiarity of construction in 1 John 5 : 8 is nothing else but an ordinary case of constructio ad sensum! Dear Steven, there is about one more page of comments that I have prepared to send you but for technical reasons I could not send them together with this one but I will send them to you immediately after this.
The significance of these differences is obvious. The fact that the masculine plural numeral τρεις and the masculine plural participle with its definite article "οι μαρτυρουντες" in 1John5: 8 are emphatically and functionally placed before their neuter gender referents, namely το πνευμα, το ύδωρ and το αίμα, in contradistinction to what is the case in the four N. T. examples adduced by Barry, in which the masculine plural pronouns and the masculine plural participles come after the nouns to which they refer, far from being satisfactorily explainable as an instance of constructio ad sensum, is certainly something quite different! The author of the Letter First John, instead of using the masculine plural "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τηι γηι..." in 5 : 8, could have easily written here in the neuter plural : "τρία εισι ( or εστί) τα μαρτυρουντα εν τηι γηι... " but he did not! Evidently, he made a conscious and deliberate choice in using the masculine plural. The only plausible reason why in 1John5 : 8 three entities or elements, το πνευμα, (the spirit), το ύδωρ (the water) and το αιμα (the blood) are here personified and spoken of as persons who bear witness, is John's intent and attempt (quite successful I would say!) to give them a grand, dignified, and "hallowed" status, equivalent and parallel to that of the three holy persons, namely the "heavenly witnesses" [ ο Πατήρ, ο Λόγος and το Άγιον Πνεύμα], who have already been mentioned in the immediately preceding verse, that is 1John 5 :7, [which Barry and his allies want to eliminate as spurious! ] Thus, the effect that is created by the juxtaposition of two verses, one referring to the "heavenly witnesses", and the other to the " earthly witnesses" is one that combines not only structural and rhetorical parallelism but also parallelism in meaning. In conclusion, one might quite naturally and logically feel that the two verses, verse 7 talking about the "heavenly witnesses" and verse 8 talking about the "earthly witnesses" are closely and neatly tied and held together and are structurally and semantically characterised by parallelism, correspondence and counterbalance. Thus, contrary to what Barry has obstinately contended, verse 8 cannot stand alone on its feet without its "mate", namely verse 7, with which they form a harmonious pair! Steven, this is what I had to say about this matter. I only hope you find it useful to some extent. You are the judge of it! Best wishes! Good luck!