Heavenly Witnesses(Barry Hofstetter flubs the grammar by giving two false analogies - Matthew 23:23 & 1 John 2:16
Small posts have been made on Facebook:
Textus Receptus Academy
King James Bible Debate
earlier discussion with Barry, Azim and Ilias on:
Byzantine Text Theory: New Testament Textual Criticism
(more can be added)
This information can be placed in:
the comments of the James Snapp blog post
Later - on Academia.edu. where James has the Five Essays and a new blog post
And in the Facebook discussion with Barry Hofstetter on the
New Testament Greek Club
One earlier source to be checked:
[W-V] Syntactic parallels with John 5:8 - Hofstetter analogy attempt =
Yahoogroups, WhichVersion May, 2016
Also, some updating to the three posts is done here.
Barry Hofstetter False Analogy for short earthly witnesses corruption text
#1 Matthew 23:23
#2 1 John 2:16
The self-defeating contra Heavenly Witnesses paper of Barry Hofstetter (for James Snapp) - trying to cover for the solecism with just the earthly witnesses
Facebook - PureBible .
Ironically, James Snapp refuted the analogy in 2013, three years before he partnered to accept and publish and push the Barry Hofstetter analogy error.
2nd postBarry Hofstetter False Analogy - Matthew 23:23
In the grammar paper from Barry Hofstetter,
Eugenius Response, Part 3 - 2016
The Comma Johanneum: Five Essays - James Snapp and Barry Hofstetter, 2016
Barry Hofstetter really tries to show two verses as analogous to the earthly witnesses (solecism) grammar.
Looking at the first one, we see a tendency for simply missing the basics.
Matthew 23:23 (AV)
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin,
and have omitted the weightier matters of the law,
judgment, mercy, and faith:
these ought ye to have done,
and not to leave the other undone.
"the weightier matters of the law (neuter plural) , judgment (m), mercy (f), and faith (f):"
τα βαρυτερα του νομου την κρισιν και τον ελεον και την πιστιν –
“the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.”
Byzantine Text Theory
"Ilias was making his argument that Greek grammar is quite strict, and in case with Mt 23.23 everything is fine with grammar. It's not that there is 'no need for it to agree with anything in the sentence', but that actually the sentence is within Greek grammar. That's my understanding."
Ilias Theodosis notes that the grammar of Matthew 23:23 is "correct".
(There is no need to start theorizing a special grammatical form, with a substantive participle acting as a noun.)
Ilias and Azim are right.
And nobody has ever challenged the grammar in Matthew 23:23 as incorrect.
At most, It has been noted that a few mss. have masculine grammar, but not that this is superior, or any type of correction.
All this has NOTHING to do with the problem shown by Eugenius Bulgaris. Which has to do ONLY with neuter substantives with masculine (conceivably feminine as well) grammar.
Neuter grammar is very common, when combined with mixed nouns, conceptual antecedents and more. The Matthew 23:23 verse simply has NOTHING to do with the grammar problem in the earthly witnesses, without the heavenly, which is based on neuter substantives being stuck with false masculine grammar (if the heavenly witnesses are missing.)
It is amazing that Barry Hofstetter would try to offer this as an analogy. However, he is not fluent in Greek, (as is Ilias and others I have discussed this with) so he could trip up in such a way.
3rd PostBarry Hofstetter Second False Analogy 1 John 2:16
1 John 2:16 (AV)
For all that is in the world,
the lust of the flesh,
and the lust of the eyes,
and the pride of life,
is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1 John 2:16
οτι παν το εν τω κοσμω η επιθυμια της σαρκος και η επιθυμια των οφθαλμων και η αλαζονεια του βιου…
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life…
“All that is in the world” is a neuter substantive phrase that is then particularized by three nouns in the feminine, lust (twice) and pride.
Same problem as above.
The problem highlighted by the learned Eugenius Bulgaris ONLY applied to neuter substantives.
"masculine and feminine nouns may be construed with nouns, adjectives and pronouns in the neuter"
Which is what occurs in the two verses above.
This is TOTALLY clear in the Hofstetter translation of Eugenius.
Eugenius Bulgaris (links in post above.)
"It is very well known, since all have experience with it, and it is clearly a peculiar genius of our language, that masculine and feminine nouns may be construed with nouns, adjectives and pronouns in the neuter, with regard to the actual sense (τὰ πράγματα). On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns."
So, the scholarship attempt of Barry Hofstetter is grossly incompetent. And to make it even worse, Barry tries to leverage his own incompetence as an integrity attack against the learned world-class scholar Eugenius Bulgaris.
"Why didn’t Eugenius, whose Greek was supposed to be so good, come up with this? I believe that he was so strongly theologically motivated to keep the “received text” here that he either did not see any other grammatical options, or that he deliberately ignored them. This then set the tone for the 19th-century apologists who similarly desired to protect the text."
What a disaster!
And Hofstetter is a modern USA NT Greek teacher!
These are so bad, that the question comes up, did Barry Hofstetter make these blunders on his own?
Back in the 1990s a poor paper by Gary Hudson (answered by Jeffrey Nachimson) had these two verses.so I conjecture that Barry got the idea from Hudson, directly or indirectly. There was 'Jim' who tried to use the Gary Hudson examples, with terrible writing on blogs and forums, which lasts on Wikipedia in the grammar section to this day, last I checked.
Here, ironically, you can see James Snapp refuting the very same argument:
The Confession of the African Bishops in Carthage
No matter how the dice get tossed, they still end up loaded, and the whole argument continues to rest upon a KJVO mentality that simply is not sharedwww.tapatalk.com
And this was also documented here on PBF
Gregory Nazianzen - and James Snapp on the grammatical discordance on BVDB
James Snapp - cogent 2013 writing on the grammar
This post is a good start: Pure Bible Forum - 2014 Heavenly Witnesses and the Grammatical Gender https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/618897391535487/?comment_id=627378940687332&offset=0&total_comments=2 =========================================== GREGORY NAZIANZEN Next there...purebibleforum.com
Mt. 23:23 is not an exact parallel; there, in the TR and Byz, a feminine and two masculines are followed by a neuter (which,
btw, it seems to me, has as its antecedent BARUTERA, which is neuter).
And First John 2:16
is not an exact parallel, partly because there is no verb (such as EISIN), and partly because a neuter, rather than a masculine, precedes three feminines.
Now James Snapp hosts the same arguments he refuted years back!