proposed analogy verses that are simply the contstructio ad sensum special case

Steven Avery


March 2020 - more faux analogy verses from James Snapp


Barry Hofstetter actually shows they are not applicable.

They are simply constructio ad sensum.

And this was affirmed by Ilias Theodosis, who gave some value-added explanation


Groups of people can be subject to construction ad sensum because they are seen as the many masculine singular individuals .

There is no there there.

(Can you fault Eugenius Voulgaris for not pointing out this special case? Nahhh, he would expect his readers to know all about that. )

Unless you think that the spirit water and blood are similarly groups of people, this has no relevance.


James E Snapp Jr
Nick Sayers,
Eventually, I hope, the non-validity of the But-There's-A-Grammatical-Problem will dawn on you.
Here are excerpts from Hofstetter. If the imagined grammar-based objection were real, it would apply to other NT passages:

● 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.

This is a well known constructio ad sensum.
No discordance.

Ilias Theodosis
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.!!

● 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.)

● 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.

... they ought to suffice to show that the grammar-based objection is a phantom,


Response in process

1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.


James Snapp will not see this, unless he lifts the block or comes in without his regular name. Feel free to give him the url here:
And online.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Some earlier constructio ad sensum threads - move this is a central thread

constructio ad sensum

Daniel Wallace makes constructio ad sensum theory out of CT corruptions, often ultra-minority

blunder by Doug Kutilek on masculine grammar, supposed constructio ad sensum (discussion of pneuma)

WIP (no posts yet)
abstract and metaphoric constructio ad sensum - nouveau special pleading for Critical Text corruptions

Acts 8:10, finding and exposing yet another phantom constructio ad sensum - Hofstetter "you happen to have nailed it"

Barry Hofstetter flubs the grammar by giving two false analogies - Matthew 23:23 & 1 John 2:16
(formerly - Key analogy verses that fail because nouns are not neuter)

proposed analogy verses and contstructio ad sensum

the grammatical gender (solecism) research
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Some earlier solecism and related threads

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

Facebook - King James Bible Debate

James Snapp with bogus analogy attempts]-R

the fallacy of division - commonly used in contra grammatical argumentation

Ilias Theodosis explains how the poetry of the heavenly and earthly witnesses affects the grammar

sister PBF threads on the solecism in the earthly witnesses text

George Panayiotou, (fully Greek-fluent) shares thoughts on the heavenly witnesses grammar