Oops... my apologies for a type of double-post (length-wise) on William Craig Brownlee.
Related discussions to our grammatical discussions were going on at CARM, my participation has been limited for awhile by a one-week vacation, whose cause is unrelated to the discussion. And it might actually help me to travel in the USA heartland (Smokey Mountains high, not Colorado) !
grammatical gender, natural gender and multiple referent
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthre...-gender-natural-gender-and-multiple-referents
Jim1, on many forums, is actually the main person arguing against the grammatical gender solecism argument today. BVDB and other contras piggy-back on his writings, ignoring deficiencies.
The modern scholars mostly tap-dance (no stars) around the solecism and grammar issue, as hopefully you can see as the recent thread continues. Remember, since they are nicely duped by Metzger, they do not have to consider real evidences.
As for the CARM threads, Jim1 (anonymous, refuses to post on scholarly forums, see the Comma Johanneum Talk section) developed his arguments as classic special pleading, simply working backwards from the Greek New Testament to try to make a construct that excludes the grammatical importance. The irony is that he still has to fall back on a decrepit "personalization" attempt, however in his convoluted grammatical construct verse 7 does not help. ;-) Thus Jim pretends there is no grammatical argument (well, he actually believes what he pretends, which is fascinating). The BVDB cornfuseniks even had the astute James Snapp mildly hornswaggled (hope you are recovering, James) by a very limited focus on one grammar book, by following, Jim1ian logic.
Related to the discussion above is this one, I take you right to the most interesting post.
Discussion with Jim1
Robert H. Gundry responds to Jim1 accusation of inaccuracy
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthre...on-with-Jim1&p=3926213&viewfull=1#post3926213
Earlier in the thread you can the reaction of some posters with some Greek skills to the posts of Jim. His main base of operation is less astute forums (CARM is clearly risky, as it could lead to a Wiki knock-down), those dozen and more blogs he puts up, and the Wikipedia Comma Johanneum grammatical section.
In the older days it all seemed very strange, now that I am familiar with Eugenius, Knittel, Travis and Brownlee and (many) other strong writers, it all seems more like a nice little class and learning experience. Edifying, thank you Lord Jesus for learning about your word.
Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
The grammatical argument is clearly sound. A person can doubt that it is probative, eg. Daniel is looking for the ECW approach to solecisms. However it is hard for anyone astute to contend that it is not both sound, and strong. And it was only hidden by the Porson-mania and the Griesbach sleight of hand the Hortian Fog, and some weird Internet smoke. To give an example, 10 years ago, a forerunner to Jim, Gary Hudson, sparred with Jeffrey Nachimson, in a similar type of conversation. While very interesting, neither side was overly impressive. Also Thomas Strouse sparred a bit, even challenging Daniel Wallace, but did not follow up.
About Griesbach - I would especially like to know if his 1793-1794 dialog with William Friedrich Hezel includes the grammatical. He managed to keep it out of his Diatribe, a very strange omission. Hmm.. I didn't realize we have what might be the full Griesbach contra Hezel text.
Hezel had written
Über die Aechtheit der Stelle Johannis 1. Joh. 5, 7. "drey sind da zeugen im Himmel etc." aus Gründen der höhern Kritik: (1793) NOVIEW
nebst einer Erklarung des ganzen Abschnitts,
Wilhelm Friedrich Hezel
http://books.google.com/books/about/Über_die_Aechtheit_der_Stelle_Johannis.html?id=vyX_tgAACAAJ
And yet, this next one we have:
Bemerkungen uber des Herrn Geheimen in Regierungsraths Hezel : (1794)
Vertheidigung der Aechtheit der Stelle 1 Joh. 5, 7 Drey sind die da zeugen im Himmel.
William Friedrich Hezel (1754-1824)
http://www.archive.org/details/MN40351ucmf_4
http://archive.org/stream/MN40351ucmf_4#page/n5/mode/2up - Greisbach p. 5-80
http://archive.org/stream/MN40351ucmf_4#page/n81/mode/2up Hezel 81-98
http://archive.org/stream/MN40351ucmf_4#page/n99/mode/2up a section on 1 John 5
Anybody handy with the heavy German and tuff font, who can share about grammatical possibilities there (and anything else of interest)
Thanks !
Also the Council of Carthage material from August Bludau appeared online.
"Comma Ioanneum" (1. Joh. 5, 7) in dem Glaubensbekenntnis von Karthago vom Jahre 484
Theologie und Glaube vol. 11 (1919) p. 9-15 -
August Bludau
http://archive.org/stream/theologieundglau11padeuoft#page/n23/mode/2up
============================================================
Now to the post of James:
My first quote is from Falkener.
Show message history
Indeed. One wonders, then, why last year, as the KJV's 400th "birthday" arrived, no less avid a supporter of the Alexandrian Text than Daniel Wallace heartily invited his readers to possess a copy of the KJV, and even gave the impression that he wanted them to read it. Whereas if all these criticisms are true, then recommendations of the KJV by promoters of modern translations based on the Alexandrian Text are mystifying; it is like hearing a mechanic state that many of an engine's component parts are faulty and in need of replacement, but that the machine, as a whole, is admirable.
Steven
Right. Consistency is not their forte. Especially about the AV. Lots of little games.
SA: "Also from Malan, not online afawk - "Criticisms on the Revised Version of the New Testament," in The Quiver, Part 191."
James Snapp
It is online. But the article in question is not by Malan; it is by Alexander Roberts, one of the members of the Revision Committee of the New Testament. He attended about one-fourth of the Committee-meetings. I printed out the four pages (58-61) of his "Criticisms" article that focuses on shortcomings of the RV in the Epistles and Revelation. (I figure that there must be another issue of "The Quiver" out there somewhere containing criticisms of features of the
RV in the Gospels and Acts.)
Steven
Thanks for this update and correction Right, I think Frederic Gardner got upset with Roberts for spilling the beans.
Here is one of the Roberts works
Notice that here, with Milligan, he did not tow the party line on 1 John 5:7, allowing it to be an open question.
The words of the New Testament: as altered by transmission and ascertained (1873)
William Milligan (1821-1892), Alexander Roberts (1826-1901)
http://books.google.com/books?id=uqM8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14
Later Roberts tried to speak prophetically
Companion to the Revised version of the New Testament : explaining the reasons for the changes made on the Authorized version (1881)
Alexander Roberts
http://www.archive.org/details/companiontorevis00robe.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rcwLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA71
No defender of the genuineness of 1 John 7, 8, will probably arise in the future. The controversy regarding the passage is finished, and will never be renewed. ... so decidedly have the minds of all scholars now been made up as to the spuriousness of the words, that they have been omitted in the Revised Version without a line even on the margin to indicate that they had ever been admitted to a place in the sacred text.
An important Arthur Cleveland Coxe note on the heavenly witnesses, Cyprian, Tertullian, Porson, Grabe and more made it into one of the Alexander Roberts ECW books.
James Snapp
Roberts acknowledged that the RV-Committee exceeded its mandate, and gives a list of changes in the RV which, in his view, were not necessary. He also maintains, regarding the base-text:
"The exaggerated respect, amounting sometimes almost to servility, displayed towards a few of the most ancient manuscripts, has, in my humble judgment, gravely injured the Revised Version. Yet common sense has sometimes compelled a revolt from their authority. Thus, at I Thess. 2:7, we find this note on the margin, "Most of the ancient authorities read /babes," instead of 'gentle.' But it would have been absurd to make St. Paul say, "we were /babes/ among you;" and therefore the common text has very properly been retained, in spite of the preponderance of ancient authority. It would have been well had this course been more generally followed."
Roberts, near the end of the article, mentions that he composed the main portion of the article very shortly before the RV NT was published. It is interesting that he seems to have considered the RV's prospects of replacing the KJV rather dubious, especially considering how gung-ho a writer such as Frank Ballard was about the RV fourteen years later.
It occurs to me that considering Roberts' measured reservations against adopting Alexandrian readings, the Committee's votes must have been very close when he attended and Smith was absent.
Steven
Right, my conjecture (only a conjecture) is that Hort mesmerized them, using techniques from his seance occult friend, Augustus de Morgan.
They were not the sturdiest bunch.
SA: "E. F. O. Thurcaston is a pseudonym for: Edward Falkener - (1814-1896)."
> Ah; thanks!
Welcome. He had me puzzled for awhile, too.
Steven Avery - January 28, 2013
[TC-Alternate-list] Falkener & Alexander Roberts on Revision, Hezel and Griesbach, Bludau on Carthage, CARM on grammar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/5497
'
Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery