Chris H. Pappas on the grammar of the heavenly witnesses

Steven Avery

Since C. H. Pappas is a native Greek speaker, we especially want to look at this grammar section.

After discussing the Johannine style of the verse, he continues:

Secondly, the Comma must be accepted because of grammatical linguistic rules and the sentence structure of the language. When the grammatical rules of basic Greek grammar are considered, there is, by necessity, the inclusion of the Comma. If we are to make any sense of the eighth verse, which the School of Higher Textual Critics retains without suspicion, then the seventh verse, by necessity, must also be retained. However, if the seventh verse is omitted, then the eighth verse, by necessity, must also be omitted. In essence, these two passages stand and fall together. So with that said, let us consider the grammatical witness.

In the Greek language, as in any foreign language, the articles, adjectives, participles, and nouns must all be in agreement as they relate to each other in any particular sentence. They must not only agree in gender but also in number. This is a fundamental grammatical rule. A student who has studied a foreign language is familiar with this grammatical principle.

So then, if a noun is masculine in a sentence, then the articles, adjectives, and participles in relationship to that noun or nouns must also be masculine. The same is true if the nouns are either feminine or neuter. There cannot be the mixture of the gender of nouns, adjectives, and participles in any given sentence. To mix them would be a gross violation of the basic grammatical rules of the language. Furthermore, to mix genders of nouns, participles and adjective would only produce confusion. If such a mixture is found, then there must be an explanation for it.

(to be continued)
Last edited:

Steven Avery

In many textual and historical areas Pappas is over his head, as I pointed out in 2018

Facebook - Heavenly Witnesses - 2018

Jeff Riddle correctly criticizes:
"There are a number of historical amplifications, overstatements, unsubstantiated claims, and out right errors. For example. Pappas several times asserts that the CJ had not been at all challenged in the modern era until Westcott and Hort in 1881 (e.g, “Interestingly enough, it was not until 1881 that the Comma was ever questioned" (17]) In fact, the CJ was challenged by intellectuals as diverse as Isaac Newton and Edward Gibbon in the eighteenth century, not to mention by biblical scholars of that era. The first published Greek NT to challenge the Textus Receptus (including the CJ) was not Westcott and Hort's in 1881, but Karl Lachmans in 1831."
(The footnotes give the Travis and Gibbon references.)
Riddle was actually quite kind -
**** an error like that shows that Pappas did not do even the most rudimentary historical research. *****
As for Lachman as the first contra GNT, per Riddle .. since the context is especially the heavenly witneseses you probably go back at least to Griesbach.
And conceivably to Daniel Mace, you also have editions in the Reformation era, Erasmus 1&2, Luther, and others.

Book Review: C. H. Pappas, "In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7"
Jeffrey Riddle - Aug, 2015
"The author is primarily dependent on a limited number of secondary sources. His arguments are often repetitive. There are a number of historical simplifications, overstatements, unsubstantiated claims, and outright errors."

Sermon Audio

And I should post on this blog comments - somewhere I did thank Jeffrey, perhaps

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy - March 2021

BVDB - 2021


Other Resources involving Pappas

Amazon - look inside


Robert Dibble has Pappas material
Last edited: