Barry Hofstetter - USA Greek-Latin scholar challenges Eugenius Bulgaris - Greek fluent Bible believer from Athens weighs in

Steven Avery

Administrator
On this current August 2018 Facebook thread:

Facebook - James Snapp
NT Textual Criticism - Aug 2018
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/2107916699295319/
Hofstetter on the Comma Johanneum, Greek Grammar, and Eugenius Bulgaris (6 pages) - A brief refutation of the appeal to Greek grammar as a defense of the Comma Johanneum.

Using this document, prepared by James Snapp - which may or may not be accessible, I have placed it in the next post.

Comma Johanneum Hofstetter Aug 2018.doc · version 1

And the best two posts so far are from Ilias Theodosis from Athens
Post #1 (on post #5 on this page)
Post #2 (on post #6 on this page)

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

Second thread on NT Textual Criticism


Azim Mamanov
I would like to continue discussing grammatical inconsistency of 1 John 5:7-8 without CJ.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...VC3JUTc4ohCIaLrcjPVX_3VZBJonZhQiusH&__tn__=-R
The original source is this CARM thread:

CARM
The Grammatical Argument Presented on Behalf of Eugenius Bulgaris
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...ent-presented-on-behalf-of-eugenius-bulgaris/

Where Barry Hofstetter joins in on p. 4 and goes to p. 6
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...resented-on-behalf-of-eugenius-bulgaris/page4

Hofstetter's arguments are put together here by James Snapp.

James also appeals to Post#10 on page 1 by Bill Brown
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...half-of-eugenius-bulgaris?p=446633#post446633 .
which is discussed directly on post #9 on this page.
Barry did post on his own blog:

Meditationes
Musings on Classics, Theology, and the Bible
https://nebarry.wordpress.com/?s=Eugenius

Additional material is available on the WhichVersion forum in May, 2016 from before 47233 to 47384, this is subject to separate review. Note that this forum did not have all the childish and sick posting of CARM, so in many ways it will be more substantive.

[W-V] syntactic parallels with the three witnesses short text?
[W-V] Eugenius Bulgaris- speaking straight about the heavenly and earthly witnesses grammar
https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/whichversion/conversations/messages/47233
Other conversations were in earlier years, with Eugenius and Hofstetter there were also discussions on:

B-Greek - (Jonathan Robie took an untenable position, so they bumped me rather than make a correction)
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3230

and the TC-Alternate list in 2013, this search gives some idea:
[TC-Alternate-list] Eugenius Bulgaris - heavenly witnesses g.g.--> 1780-1810 (Travis on Erasmus Annotations)
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/search/messages?query=Eugenius BUlgaris

On CARM, in July 2015, we actually had discussed his analogy verses on a thread "1 John 5:7" with a nice Kuhner quote on verses like 1 Corinthians 13:13 & Matthew 23:23. However, it seems that this was purged. Correction - it may be there, CARM updated to vBulletin 5, changing pages, and even had an earlier thread with the same name that was purged.


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

With his decades of American classroom experience, is Barry Hofstetter fluent in Greek?

"As for being able to smoothly communicate if in daily speech if suddenly time warped to the ancient period, that might be more of a challenge. It would probably take some time (a few weeks or months) for someone with reading competency/fluency to be able to start doing so." - Professor Barry Hofstetter

Simplifying - nope, not fluent.

CARM
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...9-5-literal-transaltion?p=5279819#post5279819
Thus Barry has been studying and teaching at American universities for decades, and is still unable to simply speak the language fluently, in conversation!

Along the same line, highly recommended is the Daniel Streett series from 2011 on the strength of our scholar's Greek:

The Man Behind the Curtain—Or, The Dirty Truth About Most New Testament Greek Classes (Basics of Greek Pedagogy, pt. 2)
https://danielstreett.com/2011/09/1...-greek-classes-basics-of-greek-pedagogy-pt-2/

Greek Professors: Do They Know Greek? (Basics of Greek Pedagogy, pt. 3)
https://danielstreett.com/2011/09/1...hey-know-greek-basics-of-greek-pedagogy-pt-3/
The title here was softened from the earlier:
Barry Hofstetter - piddle Greek USA scholar challenges Eugenius Bulgaris - taken to woodshed by Greek fluent Bible believe
r
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
the Snapp summary of the Hofstetter material

The Snapp summary

Barry Hofstetter:
The Comma Johanneum, Greek Grammar,
and Eugenius Bulgaris

The following comments have been excerpted from posts by Barry Hofstetter which originally appeared in a discussion at the CARM website in June of 2016. I have made some adjustments to the text so as to make it resemble a stand-alone essay. – James Snapp Jr., August 2018

●●●●●●●

My name is Barry Hofstetter. I currently teach Latin at the Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy in Bryn Mawr, PA. I have a B.A. in ancient studies, Greek and Latin emphasis from the University of Maryland Baltimore County (1981); an M.A. in Classics from the Ohio State University (1986); a M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989, and the Th.M. in New Testament from Westminster, 1991. I did further graduate work at Westminster Theological Seminary, and have taught the languages (Greek and Latin) at various institutions since 1989.

Recently I took another look at First John 5:7-8 to consider the grammatical issues regarding that text, and particularly whether or not the text could stand as it does in the critical text, without the Johannine Comma. I have concluded that it certainly can, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and with more than one grammatical explanation.

First, let’s consider the claim of Eugenius Bulgaris regarding the agreement of nouns, adjectives and participles:
“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, ta pragmata). On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns.”

This claim is so extraordinary that I once again checked the Latin to ensure that I had read it right. I’m particularly focusing on the second sentence, and there is no easy way to say it – it’s just simply wrong. In fact it’s a regular feature of the language that “neuter noun substantives” may be modified by adjectives or participles reflecting the “natural” gender of the word (i.e., the actual gender of the referent, that to which the noun actually refers). I will also note here that Eugenius does not specifically mention participles, but appears to group them under “adjectives,” since he is specifically in context talking about a participial construction. Here is Smyth:

1013. Construction according to the Sense (926 a). — The real, not the grammatical, gender often determines the agreement: ὦ φίλτατ᾽, ὦ περισσὰ τιμηθεὶς τέκνον O dearest, O greatly honoured child E. Tro. 735 (this use of the attributive adjective is poetical), ““τὰ μειράκια πρὸς ἀλλήλουςδιαλεγόμενοι” the youths conversing with one another” P. Lach. 180e, ““ταῦτ᾽ ἔλεγεν ἡ ἀναιδὴς αὕτη κεφαλή, ἐξεληλυθώς” this shameless fellow spoke thus when he came out” D. 21.117. (A Greek Grammar for Colleges, 1920).

Smyth is a standard reference, and I cite him in particular in order to show that masculine modifiers with neuter substantives are a regular feature of the language.

The first example that Smyth gives shows a neuter noun, τέκνον, teknon, modified by a masculine participle, τιμηθεὶς, timetheis. The second example has a neuter plural substantive, μειράκια, meirakia, modified by a masculine plural participle, διαλεγόμενοι, dialegomenoi, and further referred to by a masculine plural pronoun, ἀλλήλους, allelous. The third example has a feminine noun, κεφαλή, kephale, modified by the masculine participle ἐξεληλυθώς, exeleluthos. This is widespread enough that it is mentioned in the grammar with no need to list more examples, and notice Smyth’s use of the word “often.”?

So the next question is whether or not there are any New Testament examples, and actually, they are fairly numerous.

● Matthew 25:32 (all texts are taken from the TR, all translations from the KJV): και συναχθησεται εμπροσθεν αυτου παντα τα εθνη και αφοριει αυτους απ αλληλων… –
“And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another.”

Here, ἔθνη (ethne, nations) is neuter plural, but the pronoun referring to them, αύτούς (autous, them) is masculine. The neuter substantive is referred to by a masculine pronoun.

● Luke 19:37 …ηρξαντο απαν το πληθος των μαθητων χαιροντες αινειν τον θεον φωνη μεγαλη περι πασων ων ειδον δυναμεων… – “the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen…”

Here πλῆθος (plethos) is neuter singular and is referred to by χαίροντες (chairontes, rejoicing) a masculine plural participle, so once again a neuter substantive is referenced by a masculine (plural) participle. (This is one example which helpfully illustrates the point – one among many that could be given. I didn't mention τῶν μαθητῶν (of the disciples) for the same reason that I didn't mention τὸν θεόν (God): it doesn't affect the grammatical point.)

“Of the disciples” is in the genitive case dependent on “the crowd.” It functions essentially as an adjective here, determining the consistency of the crowd, i.e., that it consists of disciples. For the word to modify disciples, it also would have to be in the genitive case, χαιρόντων. Now, Luke could have so had the participle modify the word disciples, and no one would have batted an eye. It would have been good Greek, and the sense would have been the same. But Luke, writing good idiomatic Greek, instead writes the word in the nominative case, and so shows that he is thinking of the word πλῆθος, crowd. He puts it in the masculine plural because the crowd does indeed consist of disciples, grammatically masculine, and it's also good Greek to indicate mixed groups in the masculine. That’s where the ad sensum comes in. He could just as easily have omitted the genitive, written his nominative masculine plural participle, and it would have been just as good, idiomatic Greek. Of course there are plenty of examples where just such a thing occurs. Here's another example also using the word “crowd” and a qualifying genitive:

Acts 5:16 συνηρχετο δε και το πληθος των περιξ πολεων εις ιερουσαλημ φεροντες ασθενεις... – “There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks.”

Here crowd is modified by the masculine plural participle φέροντες, bringing. The qualifying genitive phrase “out of the cities round about Jerusalem,” is actually feminine, since “cities,” πόλεων, is a grammatically feminine word.

Here’s a slightly different type of example to show that it's not peculiar to having a crowd and a genitive plural:

Rom 2:14 οταν γαρ εθνη τα μη νομον εχοντα φυσει τα του νομου ποιη ουτοι νομον μη εχοντες εαυτοις εισιν νομος – “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.”

In this case “Gentiles” is neuter plural, and the pronoun referring back to them, “these” is masculine plural. There is no qualifying genitive to offer any confusion.

Now let’s consider what Eugenius said: “On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns.” His claim does not appear to be borne out by the facts of the language. More examples may be culled from the New Testament text, but these will suffice.
So now that we have determined that neuter substantives may be modified by masculine modifiers as the sense indicates to the author of the text, we have removed one of the major objections to the text of First John 5:7-8 as it stands in the critical text. If, as many have argued, the writer of First John was thinking of the witnesses as personified, it would be perfectly acceptable for him to use a masculine modifier to refer to the three witnesses, even though technically grammatically neuter.

●●●●●●●

Eugenius is apparently the source of much of the grammatical speculation about First John 7-8 that has circulated. In what follows, I shall suggest that there is a fairly simple alternative. As before, Greek quotations from New Testament texts are taken from the Textus Receptus to forestall the objection that there is some sort of text-critical difficulty that, in the mind of the King-James-Onlyist, will invalidate the argument; likewise English quotations from the New Testament will be taken from the KJV. After that, I will present a more detailed response to Eugenius’ argument.
Have a look at First John 5:8:

και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. – “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

Now, a bit of a grammar lesson, to help folks better understand the argument. “That bear witness” in English is actually a relative clause, but in Greek it’s a participle. A part of what? A participle. Participle comes from the Latin “to have a share in” and what participles do is share in the qualities of both an adjective and a verb – they are verbal adjectives. Another thing that adjectives get to do from time to time is to pretend to be nouns. We do this with proverbial statements in English, “The good die young” or “The poor shall always be with you.” The latter example shows that Greek does it too, since it’s a quotation from the New Testament. In Greek (and Latin) it’s done much more frequently, and not just with proverbial statements.

Greek does this most often by planting a definite article in front of the adjective or participle. That’s the syntax of “there are three that bear witness.” It is a substantive participle, standing in where one might expect a noun instead. Had the author written οἱ μαρτύρες, “witnesses,” it would mean essentially the same thing, the difference being that the participle describes the referent in terms of the action inherent in the verb. Greek does this all the time, such as at John 3:16, “everyone who believes” is actually a substantive phrase parallel to “three who bear witness.”

Now, why is this important? It means that the substantive functions more like a noun than like an adjective. That means it does not modify another noun (or nouns) in the sentence, but gets its number and gender from its understood antecedent, and its case from how it is used in the sentence. There is therefore no need for it to agree with anything in the sentence. Here, the author is clearly thinking of “witnesses, those who give witness.”

Notice also that “the spirit, and the water, and the blood” all have the definite article. This not only suggests that they are discrete elements, but that they are to be associated with the subject and with each other without being the same as each other. They are three different types of witnesses. Instead of the participle modifying them, they stand in apposition with the substantive participle. They are the particular examples of the witnesses. Since the substantive is acting as a noun, there is no need for “grammatical concord” between the substantive participle and the nouns which stand in apposition to it. It does not matter that “those who give witness” is masculine and that the three nouns are neuter.

Are there other examples of this? Actually there are many throughout Greek literature, but two stand out in the New Testament:

● 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.”?
Here, we have an adjectival substantive which is in Greek neuter plural, “the weightier matters,” which is then particularized by three nouns in apposition, law, which is masculine, mercy, which is feminine, and faith, also feminine.

● First 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.
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.

In conclusion: the fact ought to be accepted that masculine adjectives/pronouns/participles can and do modify neuter substantives, in plain contradiction to Eugenius' claim.

●●●●●●●

Post-script

I have demonstrated that neuter substantives can indeed by modified by masculine modifiers, contrary to Eugenius’ claim. I have also suggested that “the three bearing witness” is treated as a substantive, and thus there is no need for it to modify the three neuter nouns, since they stand in apposition. Here I hope to show that Eugenius’ argument is really the claim that the three neuter nouns are personalized through their association with the Trinity, and thus the masculine participle is repeated. This is really the argument that many modern commentators use – the difference being that they see no need for added text. For Eugenius, the added text is what forces the spirit, the water and the blood to be taken as earthly representatives of the heavenly witnesses.

From my translation of the Latin excerpt from Eugenius:

What reason can therefore be given for this failure to comply with the rule? It can only be the expression of the preceding 7th verse, which through the immediately following 8th verse is set forth symbolically and obviously restated, an allusion made to that which precedes. Therefore the three who give witness in heaven are first placed in the 7th verse, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν. Then immediately the very same three witnesses are brought in, to confirm on earth the same witness, through these three symbols, in vs. 8: και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. And so our Evangelist might say “They are the same as those giving witness in heaven.” This is sufficiently indicated through the particle καί, the force of which here is not simply connective but plainly identifying. [At this point, Eugenius shifts to Greek]
Concerning what was said in the text [perhaps = manuscript] above, clearly the Father, the Word and the Spirit. These are the ones giving witness also on the earth, and they are made manifest to us through symbols. These symbols are the spirit, through which the Father is revealed, the blood, through which the Son is revealed, and the water, through which the Holy Spirit is revealed. But these three, who above by way of revelation through the divine names themselves are presented as giving witness in heaven, are the same on earth through remembrance in the divine plan presented repeatedly by way of symbols.

Eugenius refers to the three earthly witnesses as “symbols,” a word which develops quite a technical sense in the centuries following the writing of the NT as “that which represents divine truth in another format” (so the word is used of creeds and confessions). Here, however, Eugenius seems to use it not in that technical sense but much the way we use the word in English, as that which represents something else. Tantalizingly, he does not tell us what he thinks these symbols actually are, although his Greek Orthodox provenance might indicate a Eucharistic interpretation.

The important point here, however, is that Eugenius sees these earthly witnesses as essentially the same as the heavenly witnesses. The question here is whether the heavenly witnesses need to be there in the text. I would suggest not. John simply needs to be thinking of the witnesses as those who actively give witness, οἱ μαρτύρες, “the witnesses.”

Did John in fact intend a Trinitarian allusion? Given the way he expresses himself both in this epistle and in his gospel concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit I personally think it’s quite likely, although impossible to prove definitively. Eugenius in principle then simply uses a variety of the personification argument, that the assumed natural gender of “witnesses” would be masculine. Note, however, that the argument is one which is heavily theological, and not really grammatical.

Now, several 19th-century apologists for the added text have taken Eugenius’ argument to be primarily grammatical, and seen it under the category of grammatical attraction, that the second expression is overwhelmed, as it were, by the previous and so naturally becomes masculine rather than the expected neuter. 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. In this analysis of attraction in grammatical concords, there is nothing at all related to any kind of grammatical attraction between parallel clauses, and rightly so, since there are no such examples in the language. The argument that this is a special, one of kind case is simply special pleading. Languages just don’t work that way.

In addition, consider the following comment from Meyer:

τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες] The masculine is used because the three that are mentioned are regarded as concrete witnesses (Lücke, etc.), but not because they are “types of men representing these three” (Bengel),[313] or symbols of the Trinity (as they are interpreted in the Scholion of Matthaei, p. 138, mentioned in the critical notes). It is uncertain whether John brings out this triplicity of witnesses with reference to the well-known legal rule, Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16, etc., as several commentators suppose. It is not to be deduced from the present that ὕδωρ and αἷμα are things still at present existing, and hence the sacraments, for by means of the witness of the Spirit the whole redemptive life of Christ is permanently present, so that the baptism and death of Jesus – although belonging to the past – prove Him constantly to be the Messiah who makes atonement for the world (so also Braune). The participle οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, instead of the substantive οἱ μάρτυρες, emphasizes more strongly the activity of the witnessing.


●●●●●●●
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Our goal here is to go through four distinct units.

1) The CARM discussion (including points and counterpoints related to Barry)

2) The Hofstetter current arguments (he has changed over the years) - Hofstetter basically throws out two unrelated grammatical attempts, hoping one of them can stick.

3) The NT Textual Criticism discussion

4) the Ilias Theodosis response.
======================

WHY DO WE GET SUCH CONVOLUTED ARGUMENTATION FOR THE ABBREVIATED CORRUPTION TEXT?

Solecisms are a feature of the corrupt Westcott-Hort recension (they are many in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the abuse of lectio difficilior is used to bring the corruption into the text of these editions.) So if a Christian who uses the corruption versions has a pretense of believing in infallibility and inerrancy in the text, they will try to make various excuses for the solecism.

A simple example of grammar excuse apologetics is the hymn theory of 1 Timothy 3:16, which was created simply to provide a cover for the corruption in the Critical Text. Or the CT defenders says that mystery is a type of metaphorical constructio ad sensus. This idea of throwing out various weak, special pleading, ideas, is the Hofstetter attempt on the short text of 1 John 5:8.

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

The main "analogy" argument of Barry Hofstetter had been long refuted. I will give some of that history, however for now lets look at the NT Textual Criticism thread.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The grammatical discussion in the NT Textual Criticism thead:

Azim Mamanov
Here is the thing. We have Hofstetter, and he is a Doctor, who refutes the appeal to Greek grammar as a defense of the Comma Johanneum. And, we have Ilias Theodosis, and I don't know if he is a Doctor, but he is surely a native Greek speaker, who does appeal to the grammar in CJ. Who is right, and who is wrong, especially when one doesn't know Greek language? I trust more Ilias, but it's not enough. The grammar issue is highly important, whether we should ever appeal to grammar or not, not only for CJ.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/2107916699295319/?comment_id=2108163872603935&comment_tracking={"tn":"R#13"}

I think, first we need to figure out if Koine Greek grammar is quite strict, that it's not so loose that nobody can appeal to it. James E Snapp Jr, you have referred to some passages with seemingly broken grammar (again, via Hofstetter), Ilias Theodosis says there's no contradiction in grammar in those passages.
James E Snapp
Azim Mamanov, Since I am improving a resource which will (hopefully) add some clarity to some aspects of the evidence pertaining to the present subject, I commend to you the CARM-discussion to which a link was provided earlier; that may give you some idea of whose claims are maintainable and whose are not.

Note particularly this excerpt, from the writer Maestroh:

**********

Examples That Overthrow The Alleged Grammar Argument

A first (and easy) example comes from the same author who wrote 1 John. It's the opening of 2 John 1:

Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ

In this instance, the antecedent of the masculine pronoun (οὕς) is both a feminine singular (κυρίᾳ) and a neuter plural (τέκνοις).

Boom. There was the sound of the grammatical argument hitting the floor. But you have other examples. Keep in mind some knowledge of Greek is necessary to comprehend this grammatical discord. There are probably close to 100 examples of discord in the OT and NT combined. These include:

These include:

Matt 25:32 [τα εθνη (n )…αυτους (m)];
Mark 3:8 [πλῆθος (n ) …ἀκούσαντες (m)];
Mark 5:41 [τοῦ παιδίου (n ) λέγει αὐτῇ (f)];
Luke 2:13 [πλῆθος (n ) στρατιᾶς (f)…αἰνούντων (m) …λεγοντων (m)];
Acts 13:48 [τὰ ἔθνη (n ) …ὅσοι (m)…τεταγμένοι (m)];
Acts 14:4 [τὸ πλῆθος (n )…καὶ οἱ (m)…οἱ (m)…];
Acts 15:17 [τὰ ἔθνη (n ) ἐφ’ οὓς (m)];
Acts26:17 [τῶν ἐθνῶν (n ) εἰς οὓς (m)];
Rom 2:14 [ἔθνη (n )…οὗτοι (m)];
Rom 9:23-24 [σκεύη (n )...οὓς (m)];
Gal 4:19 [τεκνία (n )…οὓς (m)];
Eph. 2:11 [τὰ ἔθνη (n )…οἱ λεγόμενοι (m)];
Eph 4:17-18 [ἔθνη (n )…ἐσκοτισμένοι (m)… ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι (m)…αὐτοῖς (m)];
Col 2:19 [κεφαλήν (f) ἐξ οὗ (m)];
Phlm 10 [τέκνου (n ) ὃν (m)].

LXX examples include:
Exod 8:15 [δάκτυλος (m)…ἐστιν τοῦτο (n )]
2 Chron 29:32 [ὁ ἀριθμὸς (m) τὴς ὁλοκαυτώσεως (f) ἧς (f)…πάντα (n ) ταῦτα (n )].

There are a multitude of other examples, including: Matt 28.19; Rom 4.12; Col 3.11; Rev 19.15 in the NT. In the LXX, examples include: Exod 23.7; Num 14.15; Deut 12.29; 18.14; 31.3; Ps 43.3; 77.55; Job 17.6; Jer 25.9; Ezek 11.16; Ezek 30.23, 26

I've given 35 separate examples. It only takes ONE to overturn the entire thing.

**********
That's from Post #10 at

The data consistently points one way, Azim, and it is not toward the idea that there is (or at least, was, when John wrote) any kind of Greek grammatical rule of strict gender-concord between nouns and participles.t

The data consistently points one way, Azim, and it is not toward the idea that there is (or at least, was, when John wrote) any kind of Greek grammatical rule of strict gender-concord between nouns and participles.

Note also Maestroh's concluding statement:
"Iin 1 John 5:7-8 you have grammatical discord both WITH or WITHOUT the Comma in the text. Therefore, the argument in FAVOR of it due to grammar vanishes as a colossal untruth and unscholarly presentation."
Azim Mamanov
James E Snapp Jr Now, we have some Maestroh, huh? There's one thing here that bothers me. From Gregory's note we know, that Gregory himself and theologians in 4CE knew about this grammatical anomaly in CJ, but Maestroh, Hofstetter, the modern scholarship at large, and even you don't see anomaly here. Am I correct in my conclusion?
Azim Mamanov
Is there a way to figure this out? Here is what I propose: to consider Koine grammar as a valid criterion in TC, unless someone shows that grammar does not work there for some specific reason, not because the grammar is so loose that it can't be used. What do you think, James James E Snapp Jr?

Azim Mamanov
Let's consider CJ regarding grammar, and take each grammar episode separately, put it under a microscope and research it. In the short reading, there seems to be a collision of genders. N - neutral, M - masculine. As far as I understand, Hofstetter is refuting it. Do I understand it right, James E Snapp Jr?
(PIC)
Bill Brown was so dumb that he thought that the argument was a general one against grammatical discord (see post #9 and #10 below which shows his CARM post). Eugenius made it very clear that this was not the case. The fact that James Snapp actually uses Brown as an authority shows us that he is not understanding anything about the grammar.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Now the elegant response. Keep in mind that the absurdly dumb post from Bill Brown, put in by James Snapp, detracts from the more significant Ilias to Barry discussion.


Ilias Theodosis

Azim Mamanov Well, Azim ... we are two native speaking Greeks, Eugenius Bulgaris and me, against .. the Doctor Hofstetter.
Seems, he tries to convince us that he knows better grammar, than us we as natives knows.
Anyway, I do not want to go into such a debate. I changed my mind.
I will transfer here the previous post with my response in that (easy for me) case, and that's it.

+++++++++++

I put an eye on these posts, although this guy seems to know the grammar, though he does not seem to understand the idiomatic expressions and the internal operation of this grammar as a native can.
Also, he don't know some special cases, as only a native can.
When we use a noun which represented a total (a set, a collection of units), then we can alter the gender, so that it agrees the noun or nouns represented within those totals. (these units)
"το πληθος" (the crowd) , " η πολις" (the city), "ο κοσμος" (the world, the people, the humankind etc.), "το εθνος" (the nation), "τα πράγματα" (the things) is some of them. Represent totals.

(all is from his examples)

Luke 19:37 …ηρξαντο απαν το πληθος των μαθητων χαιροντες αινειν τον θεον φωνη μεγαλη περι πασων ων ειδον δυναμεων…
("το πληθος" changes to "μαθητές") disciples --> "m"
Grammatically correct.!!

Matthew 25:32 ...και συναχθησεται εμπροσθεν αυτου παντα τα εθνη και αφοριει αυτους απ αλληλων…
("το εθνος" changes to "οι ανθρωποι") this men of nations --> "m"
Grammatically correct.!!

Acts 5:16 συνηρχετο δε και το πληθος των περιξ πολεων εις ιερουσαλημ φεροντες ασθενεις...
("το πληθος" changes to "οι ανθρωποι") this men of crowd --> "m"
Grammatically correct.!!

Matt 23:23 … τα βαρυτερα του νομου την κρισιν και τον ελεον και την πιστιν …
("τα πράγματα") this things --> "any"
Grammatically correct.!!

Rom 2:14 οταν γαρ εθνη τα μη νομον εχοντα φυσει τα του νομου ποιη ουτοι νομον μη εχοντες εαυτοις εισιν νομος
("τα εθνη" changes to "αυτοι οι ανθρωποι") this men who represent the Gentiles. --> "m"
Grammatically correct.!!

etc.... all those cases is actually just one case.

The Comma Johanneum its not such case.
"ο μαρτυρων" is not noun and not represent a total.

++++++++

An asking to James E Snapp Jr. Why do not to upload the proposals, propositions of Eugenius Bulgaris as well, James ?
Eric Rowe put in a non-substantive diversion post, which we will skip, although you can see it here.

James E Snapp Jr
Ilias Theodosis,
<< Why do not to upload the proposals, propositions of Eugenius Bulgaris as well, James.? >>

Because they're in Latin. Hofstetter provided an English translation of the most part.
Azim Mamanov
James, could you please comment on what Ilias Theodosis replied to each of the cases presented by Dr. Hofstetter? Ilias is refuting his explanation. Could you please go through each of Ilias' comments and tell us where he made a mistake? Because, if Ilias is right, then that Doctor's competence in Greek grammar is really questionable.

James E Snapp Jr
Azim,
It looks to me like Ilias' objections are pre-answered in the essay by Hofstetter, and that Ilias merely repeats a position but does not really refute a thing.
.


Azim Mamanov James E Snapp Jr, Ilias went through five passages which Hofstetter claimed to have gender anomaly. And Ilias specifically indicated that these and other passages mentioned by the former are correct. Ilias was ending each case with a phrase: "Grammatically correct.!!" //...but does not really refute a thing..// What is this then? Isn't Ilias refuting? And, he added that "The Comma Johanneum its not such case.

"ο μαρτυρων" is not noun and not represent a total." Isn't he refuting the Doctor by this statement?


James E Snapp Jr
Azim,
No; it certainly looks to me like Ilias is just contradicting the evidence. Walk through that CARM-discussion and you can see more evidence that the principle that Ilias has presented as a normative rule is not really followed in the New Testament, the Septuagint, and other ancient Greek writings. (Post 10 for example.
)
Azim Mamanov
James E Snapp Jr //No; it certainly looks to me like Ilias is just contradicting the evidence.//

You see him "contradicting the evidence", but you can't say how specifically he is contradicting in each of the episodes? Instead, you bring other people's points on other passages, and say they are proving Ilias wrong on those specific passages he went through. Again, I would like you to go through Ilias' comments and tell me where he is wrong specifically in his comments.


Again, external evidence is quite strong against CJ, I have to asknowledge that. But the grammar issue seems to leave no chance whatsoever to the shorter reading. That's where we need to dig into. James E Snapp Jr, could you please confirm that I correctly understand the grammar collision in CJ I mentioned earlier?
Skip a bit about the graphic but put it in here!

Azim Mamanov
James E Snapp Jr //Have you carefully read Hofstetter's essay?//

Yes, I did. And I also read Ilias' comments on those cases. This Doctor seems to be wrong in his conclusions.
James E Snapp Jr
Azim Mamanov,
My impression is rather that Ilias is approaching the subject from the perspective of a modern Greek-speaker, rather than that of a student of ancient Greek.

Ilias concluded that " "ο μαρτυρων" is not noun and not represent a total," as if this was some sort of decisive point -- but where is "ο μαρτυρων" even in the text of First John 5:6-8, strictly speaking?
Azim Mamanov
James E Snapp Jr //My impression is rather that Ilias is approaching the subject from the perspective of a modern Greek-speaker,//
He stated several times that koine is very close to modern Greek, and differs much from ancient Greek. It means that he discerns koine, ancient, and modern Greek. But let him respond you on that.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
the grammatical hole would only work if there is correct masculine gender in the section (the heavenly witnesses)

More from Ilias,

Ilias Theodosis
Although I had said that I do not want to continue in this debate, I understand that it is not easy for non-natives to understand precisely this grammatical case, and why makes it unique. Let's go deeper.

Here, we have not simply a change of grammatica
l gender like Hofstetter.'s cases, in which, a noun which represented totals, can do. On those cases, the rest of sentence continues with the changed gender, until the end.

The phrase without CJ begins in masculine gender, continues to neutral, and ends again in masculine gender.
So, we have a grammatical "hole", in which everything inside is in different gender than is out of the rest sentence.
This is simply "unacceptable", in greek grammar, (and i think, in all grammars) and it's unique.
Let's say, we have the sentence::
"My father is a strong man, her name is Mary, and he is a very good footballer."
I don't know if someone can accept this.
The gender difference can be justified only if there is a reference in masculine genders before.
This next makes clear some points that are sometimes a little difficult in the English of Ilias, he uses "totals" where we would speak of a "collective noun" or a group. Notice that Ilias understands all the basics here, and even uses "a collection".

Ilias Theodosis
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...2107566499330339&comment_tracking={"tn":"R2"}

Azim Mamanov what exactly do you want me to respond Azim.? Cause, I put an eye on these posts, although this guy (Barry Hofstetter) seems to know the grammar, though he does not seem to understand the idiomatic expressions and the internal operation of this grammar as a native can.
When we use a noun which represented a total (a set, a collection), then we can alter the gender, so that it agrees the noun or nouns represented within those totals.
"το πληθος" (the crowd) , " η πολις" (the city), "ο κοσμος" (the world, the people, the humankind etc.), "το εθνος" (the nation), "τα πράγματα" (the things) is some of them. Represent totals.

(from his examples)
Acts 5:16 συνηρχετο δε και το πληθος των περιξ πολεων εις ιερουσαλημ φεροντες ασθενεις...
("οι ανθρωποι") this men
Grammatically correct.!!

Matt 23:23 … τα βαρυτερα του νομου την κρισιν και τον ελεον και την πιστιν …
("τα πράγματα") this things
Grammatically correct.!!

Rom 2:14 οταν γαρ εθνη τα μη νομον εχοντα φυσει τα του νομου ποιη ουτοι νομον μη εχοντες εαυτοις εισιν νομος
(αυτοι οι ανθρωποι) this men who represent the Gentiles.
Grammatically correct.!!

etc....

The Comma Johanneum its not such case.
"ο μαρτυρων" is not noun and not represent a total.
Ilias Theodosis
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...08044285949227&comment_tracking={"tn":"R#16"}

I have already respond about these posts by Barry Hofstetter above, but in addition I will say that, we do not have to go to the Classical Greek period to find a case in a poem or a theatrical performance or a tragedy etc. as in Euripides, "The Trojan Women" written in 415 BC.
A case from the New Testament is enough (except Rev.). I also add that, John apparently did not know any tragedy and the Classical Greek language, who had died centuries before, he wrote in Common (Koine), which is closer to modern Greek than is closer to Classical.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
grammatical hole - phrase without CJ begins in masculine gender, continues to neutral, and ends again in masculine gender.

Ilias added a new element that only a person fluent in the language would know. The masculine-neuter-masculine "hole" is grating .. but not to a book-Greekie like Hofstetter, to a person FLUENT in the language.

It is unclear if Barry Hofstetter even knows anybody really fluent in Greek so he could get a better "feel" for what Ilias shared.

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


As for the thread in general.

Bill Brown's 35 examples are almost all totally irrelevant - a waste of time. We are only talking about neuter substantives with masculine or feminine grammar.

For James Snapp to try to use Bill Brown as a reference or authority is a joke.

The first two examples from Barry Hofstetter are relevant, but they are the "totals", the country, the people, the disciples, a true situation where a neuter noun can have masculine grammar, as Ilias pointed out. Totally different than 1 John 5:7. Eugenius Bulgaris probably just took that in course, everyone would know that very limited exception, so why bother mentioning it in his essay?

The second two examples from Barry were just as irrelevant as the ones from Bill Brown. They simply do not relate to the question at hand.

Hofstetter takes the silly route of stretching constructio ad sensum to absurdity. I have asked him for even one example in the Greek literature corpus where the writer metaphorically changes a witness into masculine grammer, or does any sort of metaphoric constructio ad sensum - and he has come up with nothing. Special pleading. Why?

This is what is at play.

a) the Critical Text (short) version is corrupt. (1 Timothy 3:16 has these features as well) To a native, fluent Greek it grates the ear.

b) Hofstetter is a true believer in the Westcott-Hort corruption recension

c) Hofstetter is sort of an inerrantist Christian, so he hesitates to simply say that John mangled the grammar

d) So by necessity, he has to try .. just about anything. And that leads to the silliness of claiming weird and oddball special pleading constructio ad sensum in these verses.
In 1 Timothy 3:16 they do something very similar where they try to make the "mystery" into a metaphoric mystery to allow the grammar discordance. Junk grammar.

Yet they throw out the kitchen sink as well with multiple faux theories, such as hymn theory. The idea is that if you throw out two, three or four junk theories, you may confuse the issue to the listeners. By jumping around from one to another, you can avoid keeping score when all the attempts are shown to be grossly deficient. The modern version way, the critical text way, the Snapp and Hofstetter way.

We often run into this with "explanations" of the Leipzig and British Library amazing colour evidences. By throwing out multiple vague "explanations", and dancing around, the Sinaiticus authenticity defenders can pretend that they really made an argument.

Steven
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hofstetter throws out multiple conflicting explanations hoping soething might stick

Hofstetter works two contradictory attempts:

In the abbreviated text, the idea that the substantives (spirit, water. blood) are really adjectival to the participle of the witnesses (which by special pleading morphs “bear witness” into a noun) fails the moment you look at the trailing masculine grammer - “these three are one”. Since quite obviously “these three” is a direct reference to the neuter three “the spirit, the water and the blood.”

In other words, the grammatical mismatch as a solecism is doubly reinforced by the “hole”.
The other attempt is a metaphoric constructio ad sensum, special pleading, something for which no precedent is shown in any Greek literature. I am placing a separate thread on that absurd idea.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
absurd argumentation by Bill Brown ignorantly embraced by James Snapp

The ignorance and confused approach of Bill Brown and James Snapp can easily be seen by their appeal to a CARM post by Bill Brown. (There is no criticism here of Barry Hofstetter, who has problems but at least generally avoids major blunders.)

Facebook thread
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/2114979088589080/?comment_id=2115827931837529&comment_tracking={"tn":"R0"}

Azim Mamanov,
<< I would like to continue discussing grammatical inconsistency of 1 John 5:7-8 without CJ. >>

James Snapp
The thing is, there isn't one. The same kind of "grammatical inconsistency" occurs in over two dozen other passages in the New Testament, and in the Septuagint, and in secular compositions in ancient Greek.

It is entirely possible that some folks somewhere, at some times, live as members of a large group of people who share the assumption that just such a feature is really a grammatical flaw, but inasmuch as it occurs repeatedly in the New Testament, their experience is exactly that: /their experience,/ not necessarily something relevant that can be validly used as a yardstick of the correctness of the grammar of a New Testament author.

See (as already referenced) Post #10 in the CARM-discussion.

And the already referenced post (James makes this reference about 4 times) from James Snapp was three days earlier:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/2107916699295319/?comment_id=2108177749269214&reply_comment_id=2110278335725822&comment_tracking={"tn":"R#20"}
[

James E Snapp Jr
Azim Mamanov,
Since I am improving a resource which will (hopefully) add some clarity to some aspects of the evidence pertaining to the present subject, I commend to you the CARM-discussion to which a link was provided earlier; that may give you some idea of whose claims are maintainable and whose are not.

Note particularly this excerpt, from the writer Maestroh:

**********

Examples That Overthrow The Alleged Grammar Argument

(text below)

**********
That's from Post #10 at
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...ment-presented-on-behalf-of-eugenius-bulgaris

The data consistently points one way, Azim, and it is not toward the idea that there is (or at least, was, when John wrote) any kind of Greek grammatical rule of strict gender-concord between nouns and participles.t

The data consistently points one way, Azim, and it is not toward the idea that there is (or at least, was, when John wrote) any kind of Greek grammatical rule of strict gender-concord between nouns and participles.

Note also Maestroh's concluding statement:
"In 1 John 5:7-8 you have grammatical discord both WITH or WITHOUT the Comma in the text. Therefore, the argument in FAVOR of it due to grammar vanishes as a colossal untruth and unscholarly presentation."
So clearly James was highly impressed. He must have done a careful review????
Let's look at:


Bill Brown - Post #10 in CARM
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...half-of-eugenius-bulgaris?p=446633#post446633

Examples That Overthrow The Alleged Grammar Argument

A first (and easy) example comes from the same author who wrote 1 John. It's the opening of 2 John 1:

Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ

In this instance, the antecedent of the masculine pronoun (οὕς) is both a feminine singular (κυρίᾳ) and a neuter plural (τέκνοις).

Boom. There was the sound of the grammatical argument hitting the floor. But you have other examples. Keep in mind some knowledge of Greek is necessary to comprehend this grammatical discord. There are probably close to 100 examples of discord in the OT and NT combined. These include:

These include:

Matt 25:32 [τα εθνη (n )…αυτους (m)];
Mark 3:8 [πλῆθος (n )…ἀκούσαντες (m)];
Mark 5:41 [τοῦ παιδίου (n ) λέγει αὐτῇ (f)];
Luke 2:13 [πλῆθος (n ) στρατιᾶς (f)…αἰνούντων (m) …λεγοντων (m)];
Acts 13:48 [τὰ ἔθνη (n )…ὅσοι (m)…τεταγμένοι (m)];
Acts 14:4 [τὸ πλῆθος (n )…καὶ οἱ (m)…οἱ (m)…];
Acts 15:17 [τὰ ἔθνη (n ) ἐφ’ οὓς (m)];
Acts26:17 [τῶν ἐθνῶν (n ) εἰς οὓς (m)];
Rom 2:14 [ἔθνη (n )…οὗτοι (m)];
Rom 9:23-24 [σκεύη (n )...οὓς (m)];
Gal 4:19 [τεκνία (n )…οὓς (m)];
Eph. 2:11 [τὰ ἔθνη (n )…οἱ λεγόμενοι (m)];
Eph 4:17-18 [ἔθνη (n )…ἐσκοτισμένοι (m)… ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι (m)…αὐτοῖς (m)];
Col 2:19 [κεφαλήν (f) ἐξ οὗ (m)];
Phlm 10 [τέκνου (n ) ὃν (m)].


LXX examples include:
Exod 8:15 [δάκτυλος (m)…ἐστιν τοῦτο (n ) ]
2 Chron 29:32 [ὁ ἀριθμὸς (m) τὴς ὁλοκαυτώσεως (f) ἧς (f)…πάντα (n ) ταῦτα (n ) ].

There are a multitude of other examples, including: Matt 28.19; Rom 4.12; Col 3.11; Rev 19.15 in the NT. In the LXX, examples include: Exod 23.7; Num 14.15; Deut 12.29; 18.14; 31.3; Ps 43.3; 77.55; Job 17.6; Jer 25.9; Ezek 11.16; Ezek 30.23, 26

I've given 35 separate examples. It only takes ONE to overturn the entire thing.

Consequently, we now know why nobody knowledgeable of the subject actually tries to use this argument today: because it isn't true. It wasn't true in John's day, it wasn't true in Bulgaris' day, and it still isn't true today. The only people nowadays who even seem hell-bent on making this argument are......wait for it....KJV Onlyists. And their argument is NOT driven by Greek grammar or syntax, it is not driven by internal evidence, it is driven by the simple desire to vindicate the KJV AT ALL COSTS!!!

The simple truth is this: in 1 John 5:7-8 you have grammatical discord both WITH or WITHOUT the Comma in the text. Therefore, the argument in FAVOR of it due to grammar vanishes as a colossal untruth and unscholarly presentation.
Peter Heisey asks James Snapp about why he is using these "apples and oranges" references:

Peter Heisey
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/2107916699295319/?comment_id=2120103691409953&comment_tracking=%7B"tn"%3A"R"%7D

Peter Heisey
James: Why is the Bill Brown reference (regarding the antecedent being a feminine singular and a neuter plural -- not sure if I'm remembering that from another thread) even relevant?

It's like comparing apples and oranges. They are not comparable because a feminine antecedent is involved.

The only verses which actually 'compare apples with apples', i.e. which are actually relevant, are the ones with neuter substantives, not ones that include a feminine (from the Brown quote / verse reference), or even a masculine if that would be included.
SA Added, next day.

No answer at all so far. James Snapp does not seem to want to answer this salient, and quite simple, question. Remember, he pointed to Bill Brown's blunder post as a refutation of Eugenius.

Will James Snapp be a mensch and accept the fact that he the post is junk and that he himself really does not understand the issues and Bill Brown is quite unreliable.

Peter Heisey then placed the post, with a bit of additional content, in the second active heavenly witnesses thread.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/2114979088589080/?comment_id=2121455377941451&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

Remember, in the BVDB forum, a few years back, in a thread on the Council of Carthage where he otherwise posted excellently, James repeatedly referred to the earthly witnesses verse as having three feminine nouns. So one gets the sense that the accuracy and understanding quotient of James Snapp on this issue is quite low.
The Snapp Dance continues here:

PBF - the James Snapp Grammatical Dance
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.775/post-1643
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bill and James go way off the rails

Bill Brown
"the antecedent of the masculine pronoun (οὕς) is both a feminine singular (κυρίᾳ) and a neuter plural (τέκνοις) ... I've given 35 separate examples."
Amazing. The grammatical argument of a grating discordance does NOT apply to any phrase where the nouns, or series of nouns ("the antecedent") include one or more of masculine or feminine gender.

Eugenius makes this totally clear.

Eugenius Bulgaris on the solecism
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.65

This immediately eliminates most all of the Brown examples. (There may be a simple constructio ad sensum or two left standing.)

What a waste of energy, to make an arrogant argument based on an irrelevant list of dozens of verses. This blunder is understandable from Bill Brown, based on our experience. He actually convinced himself that the whole issue was whether gender discordance of any type was normative in New Testament Greek!

For James Snapp to repeatedly appeal to this list shows that he is simply winging it in ignorance. And James really should retract and correct on his forum.

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

Oh, a second Bill Brown blunder, parroted by James Snapp.

Rarely has any grammarian or Greek speaker or scholar claimed that the full unit, with both the heavenly and earthly witnesses, has grammatical discord. Ilias dealt with that well on the second thread, as did Eugenius, as have many others. My memory is that perhaps one writer c. 1825 tentatively took that position, so I plan some checking and even placed a thread here as a reminder.

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

A bit more on this is here:

insult barrage to try to hide a fundamental Bill Brown blunder on Eugenius Bulgaris and heavenly witnesses grammar
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.531/post-1634

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


Steven


 

Steven Avery

Administrator
real gender - not metaphoric gender

Notice that the appeal to Smyth limits the discussion to “real ... gender.” Spirit, water amd blood do not have real gender, nor does the “mystery” of 1 Timothy 3:16.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bill Brown's faux examples manages to confuse Textkit and James Snapp

Amazing. The grammatical argument of a grating discordance does NOT apply to any phrase where the nouns, or series of nouns ("the antecedent") include one or more of masculine or feminine gender.

Eugenius makes this totally clear.

Eugenius Bulgaris on the solecism
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.65

This immediately eliminates most all of the Brown examples. (There may be a simple constructio ad sensum or two left standing.)

What a waste of energy, to make an arrogant argument based on an irrelevant list of dozens of verses. This blunder is understandable from Bill Brown, based on our experience. He actually convinced himself that the whole issue was whether gender discordance of any type was normative in New Testament Greek!

For James Snapp to repeatedly appeal to this list shows that he is simply winging it in ignorance. And James really should retract and correct on his forum.
And then the somewhat crazed and dazed BVDB forum
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...reek-yet-has-an-opinion-t6081-s10.html#p73887

runs to the Textkit forum rants for support:
http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-...3&t=65076&p=182502&hilit=Steven+Avery#p182502

where some posters simply made the same blunder as Bill Brown on CARM (echoed by James Snapp on Facebook.) Thinking that the issue was a general one that there could not be any gender discordance, rather than the very specific grammatical case of the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

Note the anti-Christian rant as well.
Although "poisonous bible forums" may apply quite well to some of the postings on BVDB.

In fact, in a hilarious error begets error scenario, a circularity of confusion, one poster on TextKit, MarkAntony198337, actually based his argument on the Bill Brown blunder post on CARM! The same one that trapped James Snapp in error this year!

 

Steven Avery

Administrator
"discord is discord" - the foolishness of James Snapp trying to defend the corruption text of just the earthly witnesses

We are continuing from earlier in this thread:

absurd argumentation by Bill Brown ignorantly embraced by James Snapp
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.775/post-1632

Peter Heisey asks James Snapp about why he is using these "apples and oranges" references:
This thread now continues here.

Facebook - New Testament Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...2121455377941451&comment_tracking={"tn":"R0"}



Peter Heisey
Why is the Bill Brown reference (regarding the antecedent being a feminine singular and a neuter plural -- not sure if I'm remembering that from another thread) even relevant?

"In this instance, the antecedent of the masculine pronoun (οὕς) is both a
feminine singular (κυρίᾳ) and a neuter plural (τέκνοις). " (Brown)

Also, James Snapp said: "Here is the main content from Maestroh's post in the CARM-discussion, listing examples in which Bulgaris' claim, a.k.a. Ilias' claim, is shown to be incorrect:"

But that's like comparing apples and oranges. They are not comparable because a feminine antecedent is involved. (in a supposed analogy verse)

The only verses which actually 'compare apples with apples', i.e. which are actually relevant, are the ones with neuter substantives, not ones that include a feminine (from the Brown quote / verse reference), or even a masculine if that would be included.


James E Snapp Jr
Peter Heisey,

<< Why is the Bill Brown reference (regarding the antecedent being a feminine singular and a neuter plural -- not sure if I'm remembering that from another thread) even relevant? >>


Because discord is discord. The meat of Bulgaris' claim is that neuter noun substantives are not indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns.

But in the examples in Bill Brown's list, the thing that Bulgaris' notion would make impossible to happen, happens.

2 John 1:2 [the antecedent of the masculine pronoun (οὕς) is both a feminine singular (κυρίᾳ) and a neuter plural (τέκνοις).
...
(SA: same list as before, with masculine and feminine substantives, irrelevant to the grammatical argument)
Peter Heisey
"Because discord is discord."???

So the specifics of the discord don't really matter??? Let's just dismiss the specific distinctives of each situation????


In my opinion, that's just plain sloppy study.

On my computer, I have the Eugenius refutation of your proposal/ answer/ pontification (that "discord is discord").

Here's a portion of it:

"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."
Here I am skipping a bit on the Facebook thread, from Azim and James.

James Snapp
... It's not as if I did not proceed to provide evidence.
Peter Heisey
James E Snapp Jr And your alleged evidence was refuted. The distinctions matter.
"discord is discord" just doesn't cut it.
Go read Eugenius' material again.
James E Snapp Jr
Azim,
It's not refuted at all; it just hasn't been recognized. Plus, you clearly have not taken up what I suggested earlier: to read the Porsons-Travis materials, for example.

Sometimes discussions just go on so long that it becomes an exercise in stubbornness -- particularly when one side may be thinking, "Those guys just do not grasp what they are looking at."

In such cases it may be best to shelve or suspend the discussion until it can be revisited with more data, or upon further reflection.
So we see that the Bill Brown page on CARM was that of a grammatical ignoramus. Claiming that he had refuted the world-class scholar Eugenius Bulgaris with 35 examples, when most all of them are not even remotely relevant.

And when that was exposed, James will not accept the simple truth. Instead he wants to shut the thread down, (which is understandable when you consider how absurd was his position.) He wants Azim to read the Porson-Travis debate, which is one of the weakest writings going. James used to recommend the Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall writings, which are truly superb.

On BVDB a few years back, James Snapp in one thread repeatedly referred to the earthly witnesses as feminine substantives. That was pretty bad, and I corrected him on the back channel (we communicated back them.) We see again and again that James approaches grammar as a politician, not really trying to read, understand and learn.

However, this current disaster from James is much worse.

This is deliberate ignorance and deception combined.
Stubborness and obtuseness.


All to support the "textual criticism" corrupt text and to pretend to his NT Textual Criticism coterie that he is really a very sharp dude who accepts that the "textual criticism" has determined that the heavenly witnesses verse is not scripture.

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

Additional discussion on PureBible, King James Bible Debate and Heavenly Witnesses.

King James Bible Debate


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

Steven Avery
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
To be fair, the absurd and deceptive argumentation of Bill Brown and James Snapp does not negate the writings of Barry Hofstetter on the topic.

And those writings are not limited to the .doc put together by James Snapp from the CARM forum, which is on post #2 here.

This is planned to be addressed separately, in a thread that does not include any of the Brown and Snapp blunders.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Great discussion. I am skipping small posts that do not add much.

Ilias Theodosis

Azim Mamanov let's close this Hofstetter's hypothesis once for ever.
The same scheme with name "σχήμα «κατά το νοούμενο»" was from Greek in which he takes his name.
All nouns in which this scheme occurs, called "collective nouns", and in Greek, "περιληπτικά ουσιαστικά".
All nouns in the Hofstetter's hypothesis as you can see, is such collective nouns. They can alter the number and/or the gender of the object.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesis

Matthew 25:32
And before him shall be gathered all nations:
and he shall separate them one from another,
as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:



Azim Mamanov Ilias Theodosis yes, and how to resolve this case

Azim Mamanov Ilias Theodosis yes, and how to resolve this case?

Matthew 25-32.jpg
Azim Mamanov
Ilias Theodosis I understand that you are saying that this case is constructio ad sensum. Correct? ...
Here is what I can think of. Nations are groups of people. But when talking about "them", it's individuals. Right? Then, even though "nations" are in neuter, "them" as individuals are masculine. Correct?
thread on verses.jpgthread2.jpgthread3.jpg

Thanks, Ilias.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Ilias explains to James Snapp that even the Hofstetter verses are not analagous

Notice that Ilias is not working with the dozens of irrelevant bogus analogy verses from Bill Brown that were referenced again and again by James Snapp, the nothing-burger list.

Ilias is showing how it works with the legitimate question raised by Barry Hofstetter. And showing that his analogy verses simply do not have a valid analogy with the corruption text which only has the earthly witnesses.
 

admin

Administrator
Staff member
More continuation on 8/27/2018
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...=2124761764277479&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

Checking that I have this all in order.


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

Ilias Theodosis
Fiat Lux // 1) As it has been told by many here, CJ has the same grammatical pattern and the "incosistency" remains. //

If you will search in Greek grammar, you will find a scheme in which is allowed. But the first part must be always grammar correct.
The opposite is forbidden.

// 2) This "incosistency" is perfectly explained when we understand that John make a purposful peronification (three witnesses of the Mosaic Law. Scores of examples have been cited in this group. //

Can you give me an example sir, from all Greek grammar and texts, in which a simple alter in gender, on which is refers to, "produces" a "purposeful personification"..?
Fiat Lux
Dear Ilias Theodosis allow me to speak to you in English and not in Greek, for the sake of the conversation with our American friends here. Because I have not fully followed all the discussions here and I am not sure about your point, allow me to ask you to be the first that will make a specific reference to a grammar of Koine Greek (or at least Classical Greek) that support your case.
Ilias Theodosis
Fiat Lux my skills in English is terrible, so, do you have any answer to all that I mentioned above, sir.?

Ilias Theodosis to give the most accurate answer I can, I need to know what exactly you are saying and what is "forbidden", as you have written. "Forbidden" is a very strong word, and allow me to say that is not used in linguistics, at least of our days. And there is a very specific reason for that: it is nearly impossible for a grammarian to describe or to know or to imagine all the different contexts (or intercontexts) in which a speaker would use a specific structure. In our case, we have “the three witnesses” of the Mosaic Law, which is a very specific intercontext or allusion, which could be used only by speakers who are acquainted with the Mosaic Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertextuality
Ilias Theodosis
Fiat Lux intertextuality produced by a gender alter and by bad grammar..? Where saying this..?
I waiting for your examples for "purposeful personification" from my first comment sir....
Fiat Lux
... You said that grammar books support your ideas and the case of John 5:7 is not included. I suppose you refer to a masculine/neuter/masculine construction. Can you please show me where have you read that masculine/neuter/masculine discordance in gender is forbidden? If you are trying to say something different, please explain it to me and show me which grammar book supports your view. I just ask you to do first what you asked from me. This is fair. When we finish our discussion in English, we may speak in Greek via messenger.

Then they got sidetracked, into issues like Fiat Lux being a Jehovah's Witness and the question of anonymity Neither one (both are in Athens) addressed well what was raised by the other.

James E Snapp Jr Ilias Theodosis,


<< If you will search in Greek grammar, you will find a scheme in which is allowed. But the first part must be always grammar correct. The opposite is forbidden. >>


Do you have any citation of such a thing in any textbook of Greek grammar to back up this statement?


<< Can you give me an example sir, from all Greek grammar and texts, in which a simple alter in gender, on which is refers to, "produces" a "purposeful personification"..? >>


Bill Brown gave many examples of grammatical discord, and Hofstetter explained why there is not a problem in the text without the CJ, simply because the rule expressed by Eugenius Bulgaris is not real. He gave examples of usages that show its non-realness from Smyth, and (in the postscript) from Meyer. I suppose it is entirely possible that some feature of modern Greek has a rule that ancient Greek does not have, but it takes more than just a claim for me to be convinced even of this.

Ilias Theodosis// Do you have any citation of such a thing in any textbook of Greek grammar to back up this statement? //
Yes, they exist and relates with "symmetry", if i can say this. At present i have it only in greek.. i will search it and for eng. and present it
some day.
// I suppose it is entirely possible that some feature of modern Greek has a rule that ancient Greek does not have.. //
James.. please .. let's not say the same things all days and all nights again and again.!
I don't know who Hofstetter or Eugenius Bulgaris or Bill Brown or Smyth etc.. is.. and i don't care.!
I challenging anyone here, who thinks he known Greek and who thinks he can find in the entire Greek Secretariat such a case of a grammatical "hole", M/N/M as in the verse 8 in Comma Johanneum.!
How clearer can I say this ..???
As you can see, all partners leave one-by-one without a strong argument against it. But i am tired and disappointment of all this.... (and the Azim Mamanov case also)
So, plz, i don't want to discuss for that theme, any more.. at least here.
James E Snapp Jr
Ilias Theodosis,



<< Yes, they exist and relates with "symmetry", if i can say this. At present i have it only in greek.. i will search it and for eng. and present it some day. >>


What I mean is, do you have the name of a textbook and its page-number where this is stated?
Ilias TheodosisJames E Snapp Jr this scheme is rhetorical and is also used in traditional songs, poems etc.
And is used for not breaks the harmony. I think is clear.
When i find it.. i will send it.
Fiat Lux
In modern Greek translations of the Bible the syntactical pattern is similar, masculine/neuter/masculine. Here we have the Today’s Greek Version, produced by the Greek Bible Society, which has the endorsements of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Patriarchate.

7 Υπάρχουν τρεις μάρτυρες [στον ουρανό: ο Πατέρας, ο Λόγος και το Άγιο Πνεύμα· αυτοί οι τρεις είναι ένα· και υπάρχουν τρεις μάρτυρες στη γη]: 8 Το Πνεύμα, το νερό και το αίμα, κι αυτοί οι τρεις δίνουν ομόφωνη μαρτυρία.
The brackets are used in this edition to display that this part is not supported by the major Greek texts. The text can be fluidly read and understood without considering the text in the brackets. The way the modern Greek translations deal with the syntactical pattern of the original text shows that the phenomenon of discord in gender (and number, of course) is also found in modern Greek, and this is very reasonable because in Modern Greek we still have different suffixes for gender and number in articles, nouns, participles and adjectives, while the general rule is that there is accord as regards gender, number and case. But the needs of the language are still the same. We have situations with one adjective followed by many nouns that may have different grammatical genders, we still have collective nouns meaning many people or people of both genders, we still use neuter to speak about impersonal things and prefer to use masculine or feminine for persons, and so on and so forth. For instance, in Modern Greek the word όργανο (instrument) is often used to describe a police officer, but if we make a big sentence that includes όργανο, we would prefer to switch to masculine gender when this is possible and we may never use a pronoun in neuter, because that would be understood as something impersonal (i.e. “the ‘instrument’ told me to be quite and HE added that I should give HIM my ID card”). All these cases show that what is more important is the idea the speaker has in his mind. For instance, a collective noun may have a singular number and a masculine (λαός), a feminine (πόλις) or a neuter (πλήθος) gender, but what is meant by such words can be a group of men, of women or of both. Similarly, when we have a personification, as it clearly happens with 1 John 5:8, the switch to a masculine gender may be an effective literary device.

Ilias Theodosis
Fiat Lux //Similarly, when we have a personification, as it clearly happens with 1 John 5:8, the switch to a masculine gender may be an effective literary device.//

Ok.. lets do a simple practice now. Make please a personification, in the word όργανο (instrument) as you claim that John already did in v8.

For better similarity put the όργανο in the middle. In your armory you have the entire Greek grammar.
Fiat Lux
I believe that all grammatical issues are explained in this paper:
https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2003a_05_Wallace_HolySpirit.pdf
Oh, no. Now we move from Hofstetter confusions to Wallace confusions.
 
Top