heavenly witnesses grammar - Brian Winter refutation of Gary Robert Hudson article

Steven Avery

Here is your key section, replying to Gary Robert Hudson. I am adding bold at key spots. btw, there was also a response put out in 2005 by Jeffrey D. Nachimson.

Bible Version Discussion Board
The Trinity

I was hoping to have some time to write it out a second time--so the following information is from a copyrighted (2001) work of mine--so I'm kind of nervous about having it lifted:

Nevertheless, Gary Hudson, in a very long, repetitious, smug, and abrasive work entitled 1 John 5:7 Grammatical Argument Refuted: An Answer to Dabney, Hills, Strous, & Cloud, claims that, Any known rule of syntax about the masculines among the group that control the gender over a neuter connected with them is completely irrelevant here. John in his Gospel narrative uses the masculine ekeinos (he) to refer to the neuter, Spirit in John 16:13. On this reasoning, he attempts to dismiss the mismatched gender completely apparently failing to note that the beloved Apostle John is specifically employing the masculine demonstrative pronoun ekeinos here to agree with the masculine parakletos, Comforter, in John 16:7. While ekeinos is often placed in apposition to the noun it is intended to modify, it can also be used as a substantive which ought to be clear in this place where the genders would otherwise be mismatched.

Even in the preceding verses (such as auton in v. 7 and ekeinos, as a substantive, in v.
, the noun referred to by each pronoun is clearly and unambiguously the masculine parakletos, Comforter, and so it should be understood contextually in vv. 13 and 14. To pneuma tes aletheias (the Spirit of truth), ought then to be understood parenthetically. Hence, its placement in apposition to the Spirit here is contrary to Hudsons argument proving the rule rather than refuting it. Accordingly, the rest of his long, repetitious argument now begins to fall apart.

Additionally, in that same work, he notes that, It may be seen, for example, in I Cor. 13:13, where the antecedents, faith, hope, and love (feminine genders) are followed immediately by these three (neuter, tauta). Matt. 23:23 proves the point further, that judgment (feminine), mercy (masculine), and faith (feminine) are the implied antecedents of the demonstrative pronoun these (neuter) ought ye to have done. In this argument, hes trying to prove that the constructions f + f + f = n and f + m = n disprove this argument which has absolutely nothing to do with the grammatical syntax at hand (m + m + m + n + n + n = m[pl]). It would be superfluous for me to address these issues. The argument hes attempting to refute deals with masculines controlling the neuters of a group, not neuters in connection with the feminine gender, or masculine controlling the feminine gender, or feminine controlling the neuter gender, or any other construction one could conceive of (real or imagined).

He proceeds, further into the argument, to ask, Why did the Greek scribes who transmitted and copied multiple hundreds of Greek manuscripts of I John allow such a grammatical difficulty to remain in the text if it was so insuperable and very bald? Greek-speaking copyists down through the centuries likewise had this opportunity [to correct the text] but left both the omission and the genders stand in virtually every Greek manuscript of the passage, and their reason for doing so was obvious: the grammatical difficulty did not exist. Again, Hudson's argument is hasty. Greek scribes weren't so hasty to correct their texts. Additionally, the Greek writer Gregory of Nazianzius, in the fourth century, obviously noted the grammatical difficulty when he remarked to his opponent, concerning v. 8, for after using three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. (5th Oration: On the Holy Spirit). By Gregory's comments, its hard to tell whether he knew of v. 7 (he seems to remark upon the structure), or whether he knew nothing at all of it (which is surely the safer assumption) but I don't believe there's any question as to how grammatically correct he found the passage to be as it stands in our more modern texts. So the grammatical difficulty not only existed, but was obviously known.

Regarding Strouse's explanation of the article placement of en in v. 8, Hudson remarks, To is a neuter definite article, and simply means the-something neuter. This neuter article directly modifies the neuter numeral hen, meaning one. To in v. 8 neither that nor does it take any antecedent. Rather, it directly modifies the numeral one it immediately precedes (the one). The four words in Greek, eis to hen eisin (into the one are), necessarily form an idiomatic phrase which together mean, are in agreement. However, according to the rules of syntax regarding the Greek definite article in this context, as laid down by Middleton in his essay on the Greek definite article, Strouse is absolutely correct. In cases such as these, the Greek article, to, before hen (one) could be only used for one of two purposes either for hypothesis, or for reference. Hudson even seems to refute himself on this point by later providing the literal translation as, and these three into the One are. And thus, his conclusion, as found in his final paragraph, seems rather to be upon his own head.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Hudson's article can be seen here:

An Answer to Dabney, Hills, Strouse, & Cloud
by Gary R. Hudson


Jeffrey D. Nachimson
The Greek Grammatical Desperado

Nachomson fails on the core point, that the only analogy verses involve neuter grammar. Instead he takes a wild ride around constructio ad sensual town. Some of his other material looks good, but failing on the critical issue is not a good look.


Afaik, the correct refutation of Hudson, Brown, Snapp and prof Hofstetter has only been given by Brian Winter and yours truly.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

The super-irony is that Brian attacks me for making the exact same points against Barry Hofstetter! (Also James Snapp and Bill Brown.)

Rather than helping defend the pure Bible text, Brian is far more interested in attacking me for making sound, accurate defense arguments. His "sources" include the BVDB contras, who follow Bill Brown, who makes the SAME ERRORS!

Steven Avery

Gary Hudson
I Cor. 13:13, where the antecedents, faith, hope, and love (feminine genders) are followed immediately by these three (neuter, tauta).

Matt. 23:23
proves the point further, that judgment (feminine), mercy (masculine), and faith (feminine) are the implied antecedents of the demonstrative pronoun these (neuter) ought ye to have done

Barry Hofstetter uses the same faux analogy from Matthew.

● 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.

Hofstetter is a bit more sophisticated, but essentially pulls the same trick.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Back in 2013 you can see Jim making the same analogy blunders here, here is one of the verses:

The Grammatical Argument

In 1 Corinthians 13:13, a neuter substantive articular adjective (the three things) in the phrase “these three things” and a neuter demonstrative pronoun (these things) refer to the three things (natural gender agreement) that are represented in the text by three grammatically feminine nouns (faith, hope, love).


Here you can see the counselors of Brian from BVDB (counseling Brian on what are legitimate Greek positions) making the same blunder.

brandpluckt - 2013
At least three of these examples (1 Cor 13:13, Matt 23:23, and 1 John 5:8) were in an article by Gary Hudson (1990s) refuting the grammatical argument.


Even back in 2007 and 2008, Bill Brown was making this analogy blunder

Bill Brown was still making the same blunder in 2016, the quote from CARM was his post.
And I give more detail here:


None of this band of contras has ever acknowledged the truth, that the discordance relates to masculine (or feminine) grammar with neuter nouns. None.

And Brian claims they knew Greek, so they should not be contradicted. What a disaster.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

In summary, the false analogy verse claims in modern times are given by:

Gary Hudson
Jim - many blogs
Bill Brown
brandpluckt - BVDB board
James Snapp
Barry Hofstetter

Euthymius makes the same blunder around the Johannine verses that Brian disassembled from Gary Hudson.


James Snapp once tried to understand back here in 2013

Let’s revisit those other New Testament passages that you mentioned: I Cor. 13:13, Mt. 23:23, and First John 2:16. I think that if we are going to have any chance at persuading a CJ-supporter that the gender-disagreement in First John 5:7-8 is not anomalous, bad grammar, then we need to show precisely the same feature in use elsewhere: not just disagreements of gender between nouns and their antecedent, but disagreements between a masculine antecedent and feminine (SA: he meant neuter, this was all new to him, I actually sent him correction directly) nouns.


However, in more recent years he forgot all that, and wrote "discord is discord" and has repeated the CARM blunders of Bill Brown and the blunders of Hofstetter.


Bill Brown has a 2013 paper in TRENS

An Evaluation Of The Internal Support For The Comma Johanneum

Likely has the same blunder.

Based on his own errors, on our page above, Bill calls world-class scholar Eugenius Bulgaria a “clueless goof.”

Last edited:


The super-irony is that Brian attacks me for making the exact same points against Barry Hofstetter! (Also James Snapp and Bill Brown.)

Rather than helping defend the pure Bible text, Brian is far more interested in attacking me for making sound, accurate defense arguments. His "sources" include the BVDB contras, who follow Bill Brown, who makes the SAME ERRORS!

What on earth are you carrying on about? Sources for what? I didn't even address this verse here, nor did I attack you for making "points." I couldn't even open up the link you sent, so I had nothing to respond to. I responded to you insulting my Greek when you have no Greek background whatsoever. I can respect if you have an authority to set against me, but not when you--without any real knowledge to impart--tell me the Greek says this or that, or this function of Greek grammar or that is false.​

Cut the nonsense, stop putting words in my mouth.​

Last edited:

Steven Avery

Stop the historionics. Tacky.

Remember you mentioned how the BVDB people told you that my Greek positions would be unsound. You sided with the BVDB crew in their attack on my discussing Greek in terms of New Testament variants. You hid the actual name(s),

The refutation of Hofstetter et al is the main case. They whine like grease pigs. Nobody actually defends the Hofstetter errors.

Do you still support your BVDB counselors, and Barry Hofstetter, because, supposedly, they know Greek?

Do you still criticize me for pointing out the truth about the solecism, especially that the issue is only neuter nouns and masculine (or potentially feminine) grammar.

Try to focus. Come up to speed.

What is hilarious about this is that I am using the exact same refutation that you used 20 years ago to refute Gary Hudson. And you are attacking me for speaking on the Greek grammar, defending the AV!

Do I really have to find your criticisms? I did not bookmark it at the time. Two or three times you said that I should not be correcting people who "know Greek".

You try to claim that I should not correct those like Barry Hofstetter, a Greek prof. You are wrong, again. And now we have Georgios Babiniotis in support.

If you were not so busy attacking AV verses, you could be helpful in this pure Bible battleground.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Here is one of your attacks.

On 1 John 5:7? I still would but it's not fresh in my mind right now, the Greek speakers would be interested if you can message to me. Regarding the passage as genuine, the most likely date such a passage would have stopped being read in churches would be during the Sabellian heresies. There's too many Latin forms for it to be of Latin origin. It's what we find in independent translations.
I don't feel you are in the position to criticize the Greek of others, even those you oppose, because you have no sure foundation for it. It is a very careless and harmful thing to do. A lot of problems are caused by people who can get on a Greek parser and think they can read it like English, when it can't be. And when corrected, they double down hard and form arguments even worse than they had before. Don't betray trust people may put on you.

There is another one where you get back-channel false counsel from the contras.

You would have done much better joining me and Nick Sayers in the heavenly witness defense.