Bill Brown “internal arguments” thesis - corrections

Steven Avery

Horne error

Bill Brown, you try to use Horne as an additional early reference that is contra-Nolan and the grammatical argument, however you erred.

Bill Brown thesis - p. 23
The scholar who best interacted with Nolan’s argument is Home. Though not mentioning Nolan by name, Home writes:

The grammatical structure of the original Greek requires the insertion of the seventh verse, and consequently that it should be received as genuine.

Otherwise the latter part of the eighth verse, the authenticity of which was never questioned, (as indeed it cannot be, being found in every known manuscript that is extant,) must likewise be rejected.59

Home is reiterating the earlier objection: anyone who rejects v. 7 on the basis of grammar must likewise reject v. 8 if the Comma is included.

55 T. H. Home, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures 12th ed., vol. IV (London: Longman, Greens, 1869), 381. Pappas, Authenticity, 70-83, suggests this same argument in 2011.
Click to expand...


When this was first written, in the early 1820s, Horne supported authenticity and thus he was saying that the heavenly witnesses is necessary for the grammar. You read this opposite of the reality. Ironically, you seem to understand your difficulty by equating his argument with that of Pappas.

Here you can see that when this section is used, after the Horne flip, and later editions, it is placed within the pro-authenticity arguments.

1856 Tregelles and Davidson edition

This was not a "solecism anyway", with heavenly and earthly witnesses, argument.

Steven Avery


I missed the part where you did really anything but quote a guy.
You got any actual scholarship to contribute?

In this case the scholarship is simple.
Showing how your CARM post and DTS thesis are grossly defective.

The quotes I give are from the two main gentlemen who defended the grammatical argument, Eugenius Bulgaris and Frederick Nolan, both referenced in your thesis. So you should have known that verses with masculine or feminine nouns are simply not relevant.

Let's look at three of your quotes, it will help us understand how you erred.

Concerning the grammatical problem, a brief history will be given showing that Frederick Nolan first proposed the details of the grammatical problem in 1815. The grammatical issue concerns whether a masculine adjective or participle may modify neuter substantives. Examples such as 1 Cor 13:13, 2 John 1 and others will validate that no legitimate grammatical issue exists. p. iii

Here you properly express the argument. Then, amazingly, you immediately reference two verses that do not apply because they have masculine and/or feminine substantives.

Despite these strong arguments suggesting that Nolan’s claim is erroneous, the strongest refutation is finding similar occurrences of grammatical gender disagreement. ... Finding just one instance of gender disagreement refutes Nolan’s argument. p. 20

Here you are moving away from the truth above, and just looking for "gender disagreement." You forgot that the disagreement must be neuter substantives with masculine (or feminine) grammar. Oops.

To simplify Nolan’s argument: adjectives and substantives must be the same gender (concord) p. 13

This shows clearly how you erred. You "simplified" the argument into any gender discord. Which you yourself showed above is NOT the grammatical argument, which only applies to neuter nouns and masculine (or feminine) grammar. This was pointed out clearly and excellently by Eugenius Bulgaris.


Here is a simple question for Bill Brown:
Do you assert that verses with masculine or feminine nouns refute the heavenly witnesses grammatical argument, as given by Eugenius Bulgaris and Frederick Nolan?


1) You know there’s more than that to it. You read the examples.

2) Aren’t you the exact same person who doesn’t like all the qualifiers on Granville Sharp’s construct but now you’re suddenly okay with a bunch of qualifiers?

3) Aren’t you also the same person whom on April 29, 2022 on Pure Bible Forum suddenly admitted the existence of an actual example but decided it’s constructio ad sensum?

It is amusing to watch the precise same individual rant about qualifiers from a Greek scholar when it goes against his favorite English bible but who suddenly is all in favor of it when it’s to his vindication.
Click to expand...

Hi Bill Brown,
1) If you have any examples with only neuter nouns, you can share the verses or examples. Other than the circular attempt with 1 John 5:8 (which is simply the "solecism anyway" argument). It would be an interesting study.

However, even interesting claims,, which advance the discussion, would not fix the blunder of claiming 16 verses to overthrow the grammatical argument that are obviously irrelevant. You really should come clean and acknowledge that error.

2) Only one qualifier on the Eugenius Bulgaris explanation. Constructio ad sensum, which is with groups of people or individual people like a child. If you think there are other qualifiers, please share.

The Granville Sharp "Rule" has definitions that simply do not work, absurd distinctions between the various ways to say the Lord Jesus Christ and other words, and, if you think it is worth any energy at all, I've seen about 10 qualifications. The best discussion was on the old CARM, but I recently saw a fairly good article that made the qualifications a major part of the discussion. .

3) Since the discussion was finally taking place in a cohesive discussion board, due to wanting to look at your blunder OVERTHROW post, I wanted to make sure the constructio ad sensum issue was not missed.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

Concerning the grammatical problem, a brief history will be given showing that
Frederick Nolan first proposed the details of the grammatical problem in 1815. p. iii

Nope. That is Eugenius Bulgaris.