Barry Hofstetter flubs the grammar by giving two false analogies - Matthew 23:23 & 1 John 2:16

[Steven Avery]

(Barry Hofstetter flubs the grammar by giving two false analogies - Matthew 23:23 & 1 John 2:16
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...lse-analogies-matthew-23-23-1-john-2-16.1311/

Small posts have been made on Facebook:
PureBible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1852972874794593/?comment_id=2863313717093832
Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/611264523052747/
King James Bible Debate
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10157625800811693/

earlier discussion with Barry, Azim and Ilias on:
Byzantine Text Theory: New Testament Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/109...k/535994106994611/?comment_id=547672362493452
(more can be added)

This information can be placed in:

the comments of the James Snapp blog post
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/08/the-comma-johanneum-and-greek-grammar.html

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
https://www.facebook.com/groups/354690344628879/permalink/953374498093791/)

One earlier source to be checked has to be dug out from email:
[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.

Heavenly Witnesses
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
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1852972874794593/?comment_id=2863313717093832

Ironically, James Snapp refuted the analogy in 2013, three years before he partnered to accept and publish and push the Barry Hofstetter analogy error.

==================

1st Post

Barry Hofstetter False Analogy - Matthew 23:23

In the grammar paper from Barry Hofstetter,

Eugenius Response, Part 3 - 2016
https://nebarry.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/eugenius-response-part-3/
The Comma Johanneum: Five Essays - James Snapp and Barry Hofstetter, 2016
https://www.academia.edu/39738069/The_Comma_Johanneum_Five_Essays

Barry Hofstetter really tries hard 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):"

Matthew 23:23:
τα βαρυτερα του νομου την κρισιν και τον ελεον και την πιστιν –
“the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.”
…
Facebook - Byzantine Text Theory
https://www.facebook.com/groups/109054866355206/permalink/535994106994611/

Azim Mamanov
"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 (or 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.

2nd post

Barry 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.

================

Barry Hofstetter
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!

3rd Post

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
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...can-bishops-in-carthage-t5547-s20.html#p67147

And this was also documented here on PBF

Gregory Nazianzen - and James Snapp on the grammatical discordance on BVDB

Pure Bible Forum
James Snapp - cogent 2013 writing on the grammar
http://purebibleforum.com/index.php...grammatical-discordance-on-bvdb.781/post-1637

James Snapp
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.

Not only is it not an exact parallel, it is not even in the ballpark!

===================

Now James Snapp hosts the same arguments he refuted years back!
Amazing

 

[Steven Avery]

Discussion on
Facebook - New Testament Greek Club
https://www.facebook.com/groups/354690344628879/permalink/953374498093791

Steven Avery - March 29, 2016

In 1782 world-class Greek scholar Eugenius Bulgaris shared some thoughts about Greek grammar, in the context of reviewing a Bible verse.

"That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to τὰ πράγματα, are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns."

"Masculina equidem nomina et faeminina nominibus adjectivis pronominibusque in neutro genere expressis construi respectu habito ad τα πραγματα id sane linguae nostrae peculiare genium esse omnibus eam callentibus notissimum est. Sed quod etiam reciproce neutra nomina substantiva adjectivis vel pronominibus masculinis aut faemininus indecentur nemo dixerit.

The translation was done on b-Latin leaving τα πραγματα, perhaps a bit idiomatic, in Greek.

My understanding is that Eugenius was saying that neuter substantives in masculine (or feminine) grammar would be highly peculiar, grating (in the context he referred to a solecism - cum violentia quadam dictionis ac per soloecismum patentissimum.) Even though the reverse grammatical situation involving e.g. masculine substantives with neuter grammar, could be common. And the situation he was talking about was even more unique, since it had a series of neuter nouns, Although he does not give the multiple aspect special emphasis.

Eugenius was likely going with his natural "feel" and fluency in the language in saying this, a scholar on that level doesn't really need grammar books, their minds and tongues and ears are the resource - es suficiente. His reach was classical and Biblical and modern Greek, he felt Greek should be written with the classical, and he was noted for superb tonal skills as well.

Clearly, it is always possible that he was wrong, or something got mixed up.

And today. Greek studies have at times been mixed up. Some by working with minority Greek text variants as original writings, that could simply be corruptions. Unusual constructions need apologies, such as a missing hymn fragment:. So evaluating pure Greek (Bible text, considered by the Christian reader to be Holy Spirit inspired) may get fudged. And the teaching level of Greek today may not approach the true fluency of a lifelong native and classical scholar (Corfu, Athos, Cherson.)

All that being said, any comments on the Eugenius understanding above about Greek grammar? Does he need to be accepted or corrected?

Thanks!

Steven Avery (posted also on Nerdy)

Mike Aubrey
Without data, I couldn't say one way or the other for this particular point.
With that said, you've put Eugenius Vulgaris on far too high of a pedestal

Steven Avery

Eugenius Bulgaris
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Eugenius-Bulgaris

Do you have any objection to the term world-class?
How do you think he compared to say, Richard Porson, who was the "best in the west" and had books of Eugenius in his library?
And do you know personally any people with similar diverse and intense background that we can contact for their views on his skills?
(I am working with my European Byzantine Greek professor contact to see who we can find. ... your suggestions welcome as well.)
Steven Avery

Mike Aubrey

Well, Porson didn't help set Greece on a path toward Katharevous, for one.

Mike Aubrey

In terms of people that we could contact? I don't know. I know plenty of superb scholar by reputation and name, but only a handful am I am a first name basis with.

Is there a particular text that you're working on with an issue of gender mismatch? Or are you simply following up on a curiosity that you encountered while reading Greek grammatical works from the 18th & 19th centuries (an activity that I can also very much appreciate)?

Steven Avery

And I would be interested in your view of the discussion around accents and the tonal aspects of Greek discussed here on p. 187-188 (Eugenius is mentioned on p. 188). The "generality of grammarians" is contrasted with true fluency and skill.

Exercises on the Syntax of the Greek Language (1834)
William Neilson
https://books.google.com/books?id=OmESAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA187

The translator of Michaelis is Herbert Marsh (1757-1839), whose report was here:

Introduction to the New Testament, tr., and augmented with notes (1793)
https://books.google.com/books?id=-2AUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA892
"In England we have rejected the Greek accents..."

The comment of Eugenius was made in a discussion he gave about the short text of the Greek mss when they are missing the heavenly witnesses of 1 John 5:7 and only have the 3 (earthly) witnesses of 1 John 5:8. Eugenius commented that the Greek was a solecism unless the heavenly witnesses were also included in the grammar, and the two verses were felt as one unit. The comment in the OP was a grammatical part that he shared in explaining the need for the heavenly witnesses.

Now, the modern thinkers have difficulty wrapping around the question because they first start with what they believe are the assured results of modern pseudo-scientific textual criticism. Ironcially, Michaelis and Marsh, along with Griesbach and Richard Porson, led the charge as opponents of heavenly witneses authenticity, afaik none of them mentioned (or refuted or rebutted) the easily available Eugenius writing (text in Matthaei and Knittel), even though Porson, a superb Greek scholar when he was not drinking too heavily, clearly held him in scholarly esteem. (For Michaelis his first editions would be too early.) As for the four scholars mentioned above, they were trumpeted by Channing as closing the issue, and astutely and skillfully rebuffed by William Craig Brownlee and many others. From Brownlee came a comparison of the skill levels of:

"Matthaei, Ernesti, and Archbishop Eugenius- the first of Greek scholars .. Greek was as familiar as his mother tongue to him, who translated the Georgics into classick Greek "
https://books.google.com/books?id=BLgQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA337

So for the purpose of looking at Eugenius and the grammar, we throw those supposed "results" of textual criticism in the circular file. (Although I happily discuss them in forums where it is on topic.) One reason is to avoid the tendency of modern circularity, where grammar theories are themselves impelled by unusual Critical Text grammar (often ultra-minority variants, although not in this case.)

Another issue is the Christian believer's historic perspective that:

"Gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable oversights in the texture of the sense, cannot be ascribed to the inspired writers. If of any two given readings one be exposed to such objections, there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentic." - Frederick Nolan

This perspective will not be shared by many in the textual and grammar scholarly realms. Often they like to proclaim a faux neutrality.

Steven Avery

Barry Hofstetter

- June 15, 2016
How world class a Greek scholar is he who claims that neuter substantives are never modified by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns? I am actually interacting with Eugenius and Avery on Carm, and have shown that Eugenius' claim is, of course, wrong using multiple examples from Greek literature in general and from the NT. I find Eugenius' arguments have less to do with the language per se and more to do with his theological commitment to the Received Text. Avery, on his own mail list entitled "Which Version" has called me a "hortian dupe" (one of several endearments) for my acceptance of the critical text and frequently belittles my Greek skills even though he himself has never studied Greek.

==================

The thread is continued in 2020

==================

Steven Avery

March 29, 2020
"he who claims that neuter substantives are never modified by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns?"

Hopefully you have realized by now the claims of Eugenius were specifically about a verse with masculine grammar with neuter substantives, and one which cannot remotely be considered the standard exception of constructio ad sensum.. An exception not really worth mentioning in the heavenly and earthly witnesses, as I also discuss below.

Barry Hofstetter

- March 30, 2020
I just saw this response thanks to your revival of this necropost. Your response indicates that you have learned nothing about Greek at all. These claims have been well answered, σὺ ἵνα σαυτὸν ἀποκόπῃς.

Steven Avery

- March 29, 2020
Grantley McDonald included a section on Eugenius Bulgaris in his book Biblical Criticsm.

Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe:
Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate (2016)
Grantley McDonald
https://books.google.com/books?id=QgvFDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA114

===========

In 1780, Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806), former archbishop of Cherson, who had studied in Italy and had visited Germany and France, received an enquiry from Christian Friedrich Matthaei, a German who had recently been appointed professor of classics at Moscow. Matthaei asked Bulgaris about the quotation of the comma in the text of Bryennius, which Bulgaris had edited some years before. Bulgaris replied on 10 December 1780, confirming the presence of the comma in the manuscript of Bryennius. Bulgaris also showed considerable knowledge of the critical discussions of the passage in the west, from Erasmus to Mill. He was of the opinion that the Johannine comma was known to Tertullian and Cyprian; the presence of the comma in the African text of the Latin Vulgate was indicated by the fact that it was cited by the bishops who appeared before Hunneric. 159 As further evidence for the genuineness of the comma, Bulgaris noted the lack of grammatical coordination between the masculine τρεις μαρτυρουντες and the three neuter nouns το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα. He remarked that although it is possible in Greek to agree masculine or feminine nouns with neuter adjectives or pronouns, the reverse was unusual; one would more normally expect τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ... καὶ τὰ τρία (SA: neuter grammar). Bulgaris seems then to be the first to have argued for the genuineness of the comma through the argument from grammar, but he advanced these arguments in the light of the critical controversies in the Latin world.160 Matthaei was not won over by Bulgaris’ arguments. He might have been convinced that the passage had dropped out of the Greek text through eye-skip if he had found at least the words ‘in earth’ εν τη γη in one manuscript, but to date he had not found this reading in any manuscript.161 p. 114-115

159 Tertullian, Adversus Praxean xxv.i, CCSL 2:1195 (cf. CSEL 47:267; PL 2:188); Cyprian of Carthage, De catholicae ecclesiae imitate 6, CCSL 3:254 (cf. CSEL 3.1:215; PL 4:503-504), Cyprian, Epist. 73.12, CCSL 30:542—543 (cf. CSEL 3.2:786—787); Victor Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae, CSEL 7:60 (cf. PL 58:227-228).

160 An extract from the letter is reprinted in Matthaei 1782, lvi—lxii. On Bulgaris, see Tennent 1830, 2:292-295.

161 Matthaei 1782, 140.

===========

The Eugenius section is in Matthaei:

SS[ancti] apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae
Supplementa Animadversionum ad 1 Io. V, 7. 8.
Fragmentum Epistolae Eugenii Chersonis et Slabinii Archiepiscopi
https://books.google.com/books?id=AjJOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP62
(1721-1792)

============

An extract with some English is in Franz Anton Knittel (1721-1792):

New criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John v. 7, a lect (1785)
http://archive.org/stream/newcriticismsonc00knitrich....

Originally in German
Franz Anton Knittels
neue Kritiken über den berühmten Spruch: Drey sind, die da zeugen im Himmel, der Vater, das Wort und der heilige Geist; und diese drey sind eins: eine synodische Vorlesung

=============

The section from James Emerson Tennent (1804-1859) is here:

The history of modern Greece, from its conquest by the Romans, B.C. 146 to the present time : Vol 2
https://archive.org/.../historyofmoderng02tennuoft/page/292

===========

Neither Grantley nor Christian Friedrich Matthaei (1744-1811) resorted to the quibble of Barry Hofstetter of constructio ad sensum e.g. regarding men, women, children and groups of people. It can be seen as comical to put forth a pretension that the world-class Biblical and Classics Greek scholar was not aware of the irrelevant exception, which has no application to the spirit water and blood of the earthly witnesses.

And neither one, Matthaei or McDonald, actually gave an answer to the grammatical problem.

Grantley McDonald is a fine gentlemen and put out lots of excellent scholarship referencing material. However he is not a Christian Bible believer, so the idea of solecisms in the original text is not, for him, the least bit objectionable, and does not need any special consideration.

===========

There have been various attempts to 'explain' the solecistic text (from a Bible believers perspective) and the one from Barry Hofstetter is one of many, and essentially a rehash of an attempt from the 1800s (Lücke) with a courtroom twist.

In another post I plan to review the dispute from the 300s (Gregory Nazianzen a key player) to a c. 900 scholium from Matthaei that explains the grammar as the Trinity, to the "torquebit grammaticos" of Erasmus and onwards. Including the 1800s debate and the variety pack of more recent explanations from Ian Howard Marshall, Daniel Wallace, Barry Hofstetter, James White and others.

Lexicon scholars make lexical excuses. We should always seek to check with those who are truly fluent in the Greek language, with Greek their native tongue. Examples can be given as to how they often have more understanding, more a 'feel' for the flow, and give us more insight.

============

Bill Brown - March 30, 2020
A reminder to everyone with the misfortune of reading it that this insulting, Trinity denying, King James Only cowardly putz doesn’t even know the Greek alphabet but is begging for help wherever he thinks his cultivation religion needs help.

I’d hope insincere inquiries (the only kind of which this heretic is capable) from those not knowing Greek at all (and this one tops that list) will be closed.

If he’d spent the last 3 years studying Greek rather than studying how to embalm his prejudice, he’d have abandoned this nonsense.

Barry Hofstetter - March 31, 2020
To paraphrase something I heard a long time ago, if all you do is study Greek, then all you've got is Greek. Wait a minute -- if you've got Greek, you've got everything!

Jay Shorten - April 3, 2020
Even for linguistics and grammar, citing a 1782 grammar is as informative as citing a 1782 medical textbook: good for historians of the field, but absolutely useless, if not altogether misleading, for the general user.

Steven Avery - April 10, 2020
Hi Forum,

Dear Barry, let us continue.

Barry, are you going to try to explain why you attack Eugenius Bulgaris -- by giving analogies of two verses. Verses for which the grammar Eugenius specifically said would be irrelevant?

Remember, Eugenius very clearly said:

"masculine and feminine nouns may be construed with nouns, adjectives and pronouns in the neuter" - Barry Hofstetter translation|

Then you try to give two analogy verses that have masculine and feminine nouns with neuter grammar !!

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.

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.

Exactly what Eugenius had properly put aside.

And then you actually attack the skill and integrity of Eugenius -- for not considering verses that have grammar that he specifically said was irrelevant! Amazing

Here is your tawdry attack.

"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."

=====

Now, you may try to say that these two verses have some special complication for their neuter grammar. One that somehow supplies a springboard to 1 John 5:7-8 in the short corruption text. However, they are simply normative neuter grammar, per historical understanding. Nobody ever claims discordance. So they remain irrelevant.

=====

Please explain, since you actually try to attack the world-class Greek scholar, based on your own faux analogy verses. Oops.

Thanks!

=====

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

 

[Steven Avery]

Finally, Barry Hofstetter is forced out of hiding - Facebook Sept 5, 2020
https://www.facebook.com/groups/354690344628879/permalink/3060527580711795/

George Panayiotou
I fully agree with the view expressed by Prof. Georgios Babiniotis that the stylistic and structural device of "syntactic parallelism" argues convincingly and irrefutably in favor of the authenticity of the Johannine Comma (=1 John 5.7)!

Joseph Philips
You are missing the point,
Marcelo Plioplis
. If the "heavenly witness" were there, there would be no problem with the Greek grammar. The suggestion is that this part dropped out very early due to an accidental omission (thus messing up the grammar). If it was an accidental omission, no one would be "fixing" the grammar.
However, for the other side, see this (I am not sure it is correct, however):
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/08/the-comma-johanneum-and-greek-grammar.html

Marcelo Plioplis
Steven Avery
The article above from
Barry Hofstetter
is answering that, isn't it? Care to weigh in Barry?

Steven Avery
Author
Barry specifically gives totally irrelevant analogy verses.
So his paper really has no value and is answered by the truth laid out by the Greek linguist Georgios Babiniotis.

How so?
See what I wrote about about the precise issues of grammar (masculine or feminine grammar with ONLY neuter substantives).
Then look at the "analogy" verses that Barry poses.
See if you can work out the problem first. Thanks!

Marcelo Plioplis
Steven Avery
So, from my limited understanding of grammar, when a participle is substantival, such as οἱ μαρτυροῦντες it can take neuter nouns in apposition. That's what Barry said, essentially in one of the arguments.
Is this wrong gramatically?



Steven Avery
Author
Marcelo Plioplis
-
Barry supported that theory by giving totally irrelevant analogy verses. So first, those verses have to be removed from his presentation. And those verses were the support for his theory.
Barry even attacked Eugenius, who was a truly world-class scholar, for missing those verses, when they are totally irrelevant. If you see that in his paper, you will understand some of the big problems.
And I believe I have a post on that right on this forum, which was never answered.
Remember, the masculine grammar is on both sides of the substantives. (This was discussed by a Greek gentleman named Ilias Theodosis, he called it a "hole".)
The idea that the actually substantives are totally irrelevant seems to be a unique Barry Hofsetter theory. And the only support he gave had nothing to do with the ONLY neuter noun issue.

Steven Avery
Author
Here I specifically pointed out that the analogy verses were, in fact, no analogy at all, and totally irrelevant.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/354690344628879/?post_id=953374498093791&comment_id=2686969331400957
============
And I discuss Barry's attempt to attack Eugenius Bulgaris, now supported by perhaps the premier Greek linguist today, Georgios Babiniotis.

Barry Hofstetter
Joseph
, please understand that Avery is a fraud. He has never studied Greek. He proves this in his comments above by failing to understand the argument.

Marcelo Plioplis
Steven Avery
John 6:4 uses a neuter noun and a nominative of apposition in the feminine. It took me 2 minutes to open my greek grammar and find it.


Steven Avery
Author
No, Barry, you basically accuse your superiors, Eugenius and Georgios, of being frauds. Tawdry.
And I make available what real Greek scholars share. And those world-class scholars emphasize the discordance in the short text.
While you are stuck as an apologist for the corruption text.
You made an argument with the two verses in the paper. Yet they both are normative grammar, no discordance, so they are totally irrelevant. There is no special participle element of the verses, controlling the grammar, that you want to utilize to defend the short text corruption.
Do you have any verse with a participle (masculine or feminine) linked to neuter substantives, that have the type of discordance you want to defend in the short text? And that was emphasized by Eugenius and affirmed by Georgios.
Same question for Marcello.



Steven Avery
Author
Remember, Eugenius very clearly said:
"masculine and feminine nouns may be construed with nouns, adjectives and pronouns in the neuter" - Barry Hofstetter translation
Then you try to give two analogy verses that have masculine and feminine nouns with neuter grammar !!
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.
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.
Exactly what Eugenius had properly put aside.
And then you actually attack the skill and integrity of Eugenius -- for not considering verses that have grammar that he specifically said was irrelevant! Amazing

Here is your tawdry attack.
"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."
=============
On the James Snapp blog page, I added the following, which may help give context.
"The problem is that these two verses are fully proper with neuter grammar. And afawk not one scholar has ever claimed a gender discordance. And these verses do not need exceptional grammar attempts, claiming a substantive participle acting as a noun. This is special pleading on the part of Barry, to try to give a handle on his attempt to shore up the lonely earthly witnesses."



Steven Avery
Author
And here is one of the spots where the skill and background of Georgios Babiniotis comes against the Barry Hofstetter claim.
Barry H.
"Although there is grammatical attraction in Greek, it usually works with pronouns, and especially in relative clauses. It would be highly unusual to see such an attraction between two parallel clauses."
And Georgios Babiniotis tells us forcefully that this in fact a case of syntactic parallelism. Without any hesitation or doubt.
==================
The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.
«καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,
τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»
is linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”, i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (“parallel”) in structure with that of 5.7.
==================
Does Barry want to try to attack Georgios Babiniotis now as well as Eugenius Bulgaris?

Barry Hofstetter
It would be very interesting for Babiniotis to show other examples of "syntactic parallelism" from the literature. As it is his argument is weak, with all due respect to his status as a linguist.



Steven Avery
Author
Hi Barry,
You could always write Georgios Babiniotis, the author of the Babiniotis Greek Dictionary.
https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Modern-Greek-language-GREEK/dp/9608975166
"The Dictionary of Modern Greek (Greek: Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, ΛΝΕΓ), more commonly known as Babiniotis Dictionary (Λεξικό Μπαμπινιώτη), is a well-known dictionary of Modern Greek published in Greece by Lexicology Centre and supervised by Greek linguist Georgios Babiniotis"
And explain to Georgios Babiniotis why the American seminarian finds his understanding of the heavenly and earthly witnesses grammar "weak".
Note, Barry, that you can not try to spin this into a doctrinal or textual issue, he made it very clear that he was only speaking linguistically, grammatically.
=====================
Wikipeda
Georgios Babiniotis (Greek: Γεώργιος Μπαμπινιώτης; born 6 January 1939) is a Greek linguist and philologist and former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece.[1] He previously served as rector of Athens University. As a linguist, he is best known as the author of a Dictionary of Modern Greek (Λεξικό της νέας ελληνικής γλώσσας), which was published in 1998."
Email is available on this page:
https://www.babiniotis.gr/epikoinonia
Maybe you can learn more excellently.

Barry Hofstetter
Modern Greek, not ancient Greek. I am sure he is a fine linguist, but his argument for the late reading of 1 John 5:7 is not convincing, particularly when other explanations are at hand.



Steven Avery
Author
Yes, you claim his understanding is "weak" and "not convincing" ... so I suggest you write to him personally, since he has Greek background 100x your own.
.. while you have tried over 15 years to find some handle to defend the short text solecism, with a variety pack of attempts. You are forced to this due to your Critical Text position and your animosity to the Received Text.
Your current attempt is based on a totally flawed and irrelevant appeal to two auxiliary verses, that have zero to do with the discussion.
Why don't you specifically say what is the point of those analogy verses.
Start with this:
By normative grammar, would you claim any discordance in either verse that needs a special grammatical explanation?
Matthew 23:23 & 1 John 2:16
==========
Similarly, are you really claiming that the grammatical gender of the three nouns in the earthly witnesses, spirit, water and blood, is totally irrelevant to the rest of the clause? E.g. if all three nouns were feminine, you really claim that the sentence would still be masculine? Since, you claim, the grammar is driven only by the participle.

Greg Burriss
It's a ridiculous argument on it's face to say it's grammatically necessary. People write "ungrammatical" things all the time. The history of the production of the Comma is well known



Steven Avery
Author
Hi Greg,
Many Bible believers have a high view of the text, and do not believe that the inspired scriptures contain bald solecisms.
(Also, linguists like Georgios Babiniotis love their language, and counter solecisms from a language accuracy position.)
Clearly liberals and unbelievers without Greek fluency can hold to the corruption text as the original text with no problem.
Actually, the history of the heavenly witnesses is not well known. How well versed are you on Cyprian, Jerome's Vulgate Prologue and the Council of Carthage of 484, and the grammatical arguments? Today, agit-prop is the norm, rather than presentation of evidences.
"Gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable oversights in the texture of the sense, cannot be ascribed to the inspired writers. If of any two given readings one be exposed to such objections, there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentic." - Frederick Nolan, 1815
https://books.google.com/books?id=GCNhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA254
Steven

==================================



Steven Avery
Author
Barry, your "sense" has been built on using two analogy verses that are clearly flawed and irrelevant to the discussion. This is trivially obvious. Texts in the post above.
Matthew 23:23
1 John 2:16
Since these two verses are totally outside of the actual grammatical structures being considered, since they do not have neuter nouns.
You could try to say there is a similar discordance in those verses, but you know that is not true, so you do not make that argument. Thus, they can not be used for saying that the grammar is driven by the participle.
Thus your theory is reduced to special pleading.
All of this is simple logic.



Barry Hofstetter
The fact that you think these are irrelevant shows how little understanding of the language you actually have. But we knew this already. Have another look at Matt 23:23. No neuter nouns? Really... look at in the Greek -- oh, but I forgot, you don't have Greek. As for John 1 John 2:16, again, look carefully. You don't see the neuter, do you? Then go back and look at what I actually said. No, for you not simple logic, and the special pleading is all on your side.

Steven Avery
Author
It has to be ALL neuter nouns to be relevant, Barry.
Please
This is 100% clear in Eugenius.



Barry Hofstetter
Ipse, sine elocutione, dixit! No it doesn't. Again, you can't see it a) because you don't know the language, and b) you don't want to see anything that violates your gold standard of the KJV.



Steven Avery
Author
Eugenius Bulgaris
"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."
Neuter noun substantives, either singular or, as in the earthly witnesses, a group of three.
Your two verses are immediately irrelevant because they contain masculine and/or feminine nouns.
Try to answer to point.

Barry Hofstetter
I directly answered this in my published analysis. Did you miss it?


Steven Avery
Author
Your published analysis tries to claim that those two verses have some special grammar driven by the participle.
For that to be true, you would have to demonstrate that, by normative grammar, they are discordant.
That, of course, you do not do. Nor do you even make a single reference to one grammarian who considers them discordant .. or the grammar driven by the participle, with the actual nouns irrelevant. (Your claim on the earthly witnesses.)

Barry Hofstetter
I refuse to argue with someone who has never studied the language.

Steven Avery
Author
Barry's claim is all special pleading.
Barry wants to pretend that even if the earthly witnesses were three feminine nouns, it would still be masculine grammar. (Since, he claims, the participle is acting as the real noun.)
I can fully understand Barry abandoning the discussion at this point.
His weakness in logic and consistency makes for the faux analogies, which is his "sense" by which he wants to counter one of the world's elite Greek linguiists.

Barry Hofstetter
Again, anyone can read my actual arguments, compare Avery's responses, and see what's actually going on. Now, time to move on and get something real done.

Steven Avery
Author
Again, they can easily see that:
1) your analogy verses are totally irrelevant because they do not consist of only neuter nouns
2) you actually take the absurd position that the grammar would be masculine even if the three nouns were feminine.
3) you never remotely demonstrate any discordance by normative grammar on your two verses that could make them relevant (even without all the nouns being neuter)
4) your case reduces to special pleading on the earthly witnesses

Barry Hofstetter
Barry
, yes, he creates an initial impression of scholarly competence, but it's all mist and vapors.

Steven Avery
Author
Barry Hofstetter
always has an excuse and reduces to ad hominem with his position vaporizes

Barry Hofstetter
Avery
, one last comment: you totally deserve every ad hominem directed toward you. Your selective use of "evidence" without the knowledge really to utilize that evidence and your many fallacies prove that.

Steven Avery
Author
Overall, Barry is upset because
1) I read carefully his paper
2) And I picked out the major flaw that destroys his position
3) I expressed that flaw competently and clearly
Rather than try to respond to the problem, it is time for Barry to take his marbles and go home.

===============

Earlier

Barry Hofstetter
Barry
, of course, is right, and the text is easily explained syntactically without the late addition, which I have done. Remember that Avery does not know Greek, and is a King James Version onliest. The Greek Orthodox have a parallel theological interest in defending the late reading.

Nick Sayers
Barry Hofstetter
Babiniotis is simply a linguist, one of the worlds leading linguists. His conclusions are not from a “KJVO” position. He, like many others fluent in their own language of Greek, knows the solecism that arises when the comma is removed.

Barry Pendley
Nick Sayers
... where is the MSS evidence? I am very comfortable with Greek and it has never made me stumble as if something is missing.
All kinds of opinions can be made when style is your argument. EVERY writer in Scripture has a style. YET, without MSS evidence, Babiniotis is foisting his own expectations on the style of John. Translate anything from Peter and tell us you don’t find some interesting Koine! Should we add to Peter’s writings to smooth out his style?
Avery uses the comma to defend his theological error that Jesus is not part of a Trinity (“are one”). So, we have that dynamic going on as well.
When you let STYLE overrun the existence of MSS evidence, anyone can say anything.
When your argument is reduced to “style is king,” you just proved you are not interested in MSS priority... in ANY situation/family.


Steven Avery
Author
Barry Pendley
- nobody says "style is king". And it is not style, it is real Greek versus solecism.
We are continually sharing on
Old Latin and Vulgate mss.
Origen
Tertullian,
Cyprian,
Jerome's Vulgate Prologue that explains the verse being dropped.
Athanasius Disputation
Hundreds of bishops at the Council of Carthage 484
And other evidences.
So it is simply totally false to say "style is king" is our position.


Barry Hofstetter
Babiniotis may be a linguist (do you understand what his field actually is), but he doesn't seem to have a grasp of the overall syntax which can make good sense out of 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.

Nick Sayers
Barry Hofstetter
Voulgaris knew the grammatical issues, as does Babiniotis, both are native Greek speakers. Erasmus, Gregory of Nazianzen, and several others also mention this.

Barry Hofstetter
Nick
, not native speakers of ancient Greek, and they do not consider all the possibilities.

Nick Sayers
Barry Hofstetter
When Babiniotis was here in Australia, his public lecture was about Ancient Greek dialects, placing special emphasis on ancient Macedonian. So for you to say he doesn’t know Ancient Greek makes me cringe. He knows it so well that he emphasised on particular dialects of it.
He has written books on everything from the alphabet, Grammar, history, etymology, and dictionaries. You can see his extensive list of books he has authored or coauthored here:
https://babiniotis.gr/ergografia/vivlia

Steven Avery
Author
Wow, thank you Nick for showing how totally wild and false are the attacks by the USA seminarian Barry Hofstetter against one of the most learned Greek linguists in the world, Georgios Babiniotis.
Barry will just make anything up that is convenient.
Very telling!

 

[Steven Avery]

For a bit of humor, and to show how addled is the thinking of Barry Hofstetter on these issues, in May 2016 on the Which Version forum, Barry called the two verses, Matthew 23:23 and 1 John 2:16, syntactic parallels to 1 John 5:8.

Not understanding that the (only) neuter three nouns in the earthly witnesses negates any parallel attempt. That the whole issue of the solecism revolves around neuter nouns in masculine (or feminine) grammar. And there is no special participle-driven grammar in the two other verses, they are simply normative Greek grammar.

The current article continues in the same blunder manner.

 

[Steven Avery]

My summary for Barry (an earlier one had the verses in full)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/354...2IyUJH6MW9IySiE5lKQxUMdxbpilU6Kw0&__tn__=R]-R

Hi Barry,
Georgios Babiniotis, who lives in Athens, is a world-class Greek scholar.
To say that is a simple truth.

You are an American seminarian who does not even claim Greek fluency, as we have discussed over the years.

So this is a very proper appeal to authority. (Even if it upsets some in your clique.)

Earlier, you made a stupid accusation that Babiniotis does not know ancient Greek, and Nick Sayers showed you that you are terribly wrong. (Although some posts seem to have vanished.)

We both have Bible preferences, but in my case it was studying the heavenly witnesses that led to my high position towards the Received Text and King James Bible. You always try a genetic fallacy attack, it is your style.

=============

As for your paper, it is obvious that you did not think it out, and included two bogus analogy verses, Matthew 23:23 & 1 John 2:16, that were the base of your attempt.

You did not realize:

a) if there is a feminine or masculine noun, it is irrelevant to the solecism issue of the earthly witnesses - as very clearly stated by Eugenius Bulgaris (who you even wildly attacked for not seeing those very verses!)

b) there is no unusual grammar in your two verses that acts as a springboard for your theory that the participle acts as a noun, first in those verses and then in the earthly witnesses. An thus, you theorize, the gender of the actual nouns are irrelevant.

By that theory, even if there were three feminine nouns, you say, wrongly, that the grammar would be masculine.
. Is that going to be a new teaching in your seminary students?



And you are upset that I was able to see the major, fundamental flaw in your paper.

=============

You will not respond to this .. because your analogy verses are totally irrelevant. And you have no way to defend their use in your paper. This is all very clear.

You are stuck, because a proper correction, and retraction of the tacky Eugenius Bulgaris accusation, would be too embarrassing.

Your paper that needs correction is here:

The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar - 2018
www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/08/the-comma-johanneum-and-greek-grammar.html
and here:
https://www.academia.edu/39738069/The_Comma_Johanneum_Five_Essays

 

[Steven Avery]

James White references the Barry Hofstetter article.

"with all due respect its a bogus argument, this has been taken apart very well, in fact, interestingly enough, I did a quick google search and there is an excellent article on James Snapp Jr's web site, taking this apart thoroughly, and walking through parallel passages, in 1 John where you have the very same constructions in regard to masculines and neuters, nouns and pronouns that you have allegedly in 1 John 5. As it stands in the Critical Text there is no grammatical error whatsoever. In the text you can find John using the same kind of language elsewhere as you have in the Critical Text, as it stands today there is no need for the Comma Johanneum and this is not how you do textual criticism. 'Wouldn't it be nice if it read this way? Well let's wait for 1400 years to find a manuscript that does that based upon Latin. This is not how you do textual criticism. It is exasperating to encounter this kind of thing.to be perfectly honest with you. ... (talks about James Snapp) ... it was actually a guest-written article that debunks that entire thing, goes very much into depth, the comments that I have seen posted by people by these alleged Greek experts did not go into depth, did not demonstrate a knowledge of what the issues werre at all. They were just authoritative statements rather than actually going into the text and substantiating it, so there is no grammatical error as it stands in John's language. I've taught Greek since over, I've lost track, some time in the 1980s and we almost always read 1 John as part of that first year Greek class and you can read through this and no one is going go be sitting there going 'I can't read this because there is a grammatical error'. No there's not, there's simply not."

Stephen Boyce - an adjective can act like a noun (Boyce talks about whether there is a parallel, he has no sense of the solecism at all)
"There's no need for a parallel. .. you have a proclamation, a defense and a conclusion, that is all you need. Greek scholar's say, were going to have names on both sides. (So who are your fluent world-class Greek scholars??) blah blah

Finally 2:02
You have a masculine adjective (SA: participle is correct) and 3 neuters, that's the argument. Therefore it is grammatically incorrect. Well if that's the case we need to go back a couple of chapters, into chapter 2 verse 16 you have (Greek) which is a neuter substanative (substantive) ... three feminines .. blah blah.. then he tries the idea that there is the same problem with the heavenly witnesses, however the parallelism fixes all that.

Note he mispronounces substantive. He gives the same bogus analogy that I covered in this page.

James White
.... If people just understood neuters in the language of the day., to gather together other things ... bogus argument .. (blah blah)

Boyce
"that happens quite frequently with the noun pneuma, constantly showing up in the neuter all throughout the scriptures"
(Note to SB, pneuma is a neuter noun.)

ENDS 2:05:30

Nick Sayers
(some earlier)
World leading experts in Greek have a bogus argument? Barry Hoffstetter has been disproven>
Nick SayersWhite doesn't know anything about my chat with George, but is answering it like he does...
Nick SayersGeorgios Babiniotis is probably THE world leading Greek expert. White disagrees with him. THAT speaks volumes.

Grammar at 1:57

Has the Textus Receptus been "PERFECTLY PRESERVED?"
James White & Stephen Boyce - Sept 4, 2020

Mangled even more by James White and Stephen Boyce

 

[Steven Avery]

moved to thread about constructio ad sensum analogy verses