Attention Greek Language Students (1 John 5:7-8 Grammar)

[OVemLogo]

For any student of Greek out there, I was wondering how plausible this argument was to you for the disputed Johannine Comma:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Folks say regarding this "...The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar..."

Is this really "poor grammer" if that section is not included? I also wonder if there are any other examples of poor grammer elsewhere in the bible that is not disputed.

Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle?

[Obadiah]

The argument is weak.

The Textus Receptus of 1 John 5:7-8 also has the three neuter nouns and the masculine plural participle. It's still a grammatical anomaly regardless of the presence or absence of v.7.

It sounds like the person proposing this argument is trying to explain the masculine participle in v.8 by the parallel to the same form in v.7. It's possible the use of the masculine in v.8 is a tad less anomalous for that reason, but it's still a lack of grammatical concord.

My guess is that John is personifying the three witnesses and thus making them masculine.

Although I would have to concede the text flows better with the inclusion of v.7 than without it, the improved flow is just too unsubstantial an argument vs. the overwhelming textual evidenced against the comma.

[OVemLogo]

Here is a response I got in email for the same question:

"The intent of this article is to make doctrine determine the text, rather than the text determining doctrine. There is no credible textual evidence for the Johannine comma. On this there is no dispute among scholars.

As for example of poor grammar yes, there are a number --- Mark for example, is rather simplistic (perhaps even called “poor” at least in comparison to 1 Peter for example, but the this “strongest evidence” is not very strong --- when you consider that none of the church fathers reference this “Comma Johanneum” when it would surely of helped them while they hammered out the finer points of Trinitarian doctrine."

On those two bolded points above, I'm wondering if that is indeed the case?

If there is no dispute, why do the NIV and HCSB include it in the foot notes?

Finally, I might be wrong, but wasn't there folks who referenced this way back when, even as early as the 4th century?

[Obadiah]

On your two bolded points:

On this there is no dispute among scholars.

That's pretty well true. The manuscript evidence is incredibly slender and very late.

none of the church fathers reference this “Comma Johanneum”

That's not so true. In fact, I recall a reference from Cyprian that looks very much like a citation of the comma as Scripture. I haven't yet made the effort to track it down and read it in the original language in context, but you might google "johannine comma" and cyprian.

On the grammatical issue, I've pondered that a bit and come to a hypothesis on the use of the masculine οι μαρτυρουντες to refer to the three neuter nouns. I'm thinking perhaps by this time (late 1st c) the participle μαρτυρων has effectively become a noun ("a witness" rather than "one bearing witness"). This process occurred with αρχων, which was originally simply the participle of αρχω ('to rule') but is recognized by all the dictionaries as a noun ('ruler'). If οι μαρτυρουντες is a noun rather than a substantive participle in 1 John 5, then there would be no issue of gender concord with the neuter nouns. I'm thinking this is especially plausible because the common Greek word for 'witness' found in earlier texts, μαρτυς, might by the time of 1 John have already developed its technical Christian sense as 'martyr', which would be confusing at best in this context.

[Jim1]

There is nothing wrong with the grammar in 1 John 5:6-9 in its original form (without the added Johannine Comma). Everything is written as it should be written.

There is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns (as Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney imagined), even when all of the nouns have the same grammatical gender. It never happens. Never.

There are only eight instances in the Majority Text (MT) in which the referent of a pronoun or substantival (functioning as a noun) participle is represented in the text by multiple nouns (Matthew 15:19-20 and 23:23, John 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21 and 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:5-7 and 3:12-14), and grammatical gender agreement does not occur in any of them, even when all of the referent nouns have the same grammatical gender (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:22-23), the reason being that grammatical gender agreement can occur only with a single referent noun.

Thus, there would be no expectation of grammatical gender agreement between the masculine substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in 1 John 5:8 (MT) and the three grammatically neuter nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood” in the same verse if the referent of this participle were represented in the text by these three nouns, which it isn’t.

Neither is there any such thing as gender attraction either between participles (as Frederick Nolan imagined) or between nouns (as Robert Dabney imagined). It never happens. Never.

The only actual instance of attraction in the Greek language is when the grammatical case of a relative pronoun conforms to the grammatical case of its antecedent noun instead of conforming to the grammatical case which is dictated by the grammatical function of the relative pronoun in its own clause, the latter being what normally occurs as a rule.

The grammatical argument in favor the Johannine Comma is nonsense. Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney made the whole thing up. They started with the unfounded assumption that John originally wrote the Comma, and then they imagined what they might say about the grammar in support of this, and then they presented their imagination as if it were fact without checking it against the Greek text of the New Testament to see whether what they were imagining (grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns and gender attraction between participles and gender attraction between nouns) actually occurs in the Greek language, which it doesn’t. People such as Edward Hills and Thomas Holland (the person quoted in the first message in this thread) and Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman and Thomas Strouse have been perpetuating their false argument ever since.

In Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15, Moses prescribed that two or three witnesses (men) would establish the truth of a matter. This Mosaic tradition is cited in Matthew 18:16 and John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (MT).

In 2 Corinthians 13:1 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (MT), the two or three things that bear witness to the truth of a matter are comparatively (this is like that) equated to the two or three men of the Mosaic tradition for establishing the truth of a matter.

Just as in 2 Corinthians 13:1 Paul comparatively (this is like that) equates three things (his three visits to Corinth) to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15, and just as in Hebrews 10:28-29 the author of Hebrew comparatively (this is like that) equates three things (trampling the Son of God and considering His Blood to be ordinary blood and insulting the Spirit) to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter, likewise in 1 John 5:8-9 (MT) John comparatively (this is like that) equates three things (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter, hence the masculine gender of “the ones bearing witness” and “the three ones” in verse 5:8 (MT) in reference to the “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9.

John says (Majority Text), “5:6 This-One He-is the-One having-come through water and Blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the Blood. 5:7 And the Spirit it-is the-thing bearing-witness, because the Spirit it-is the truth. 5:8 Because THREE they-are THE-ONES BEARING-WITNESS, the Spirit and the water and the Blood, and THE THREE-ONES for the one-thing they-are. 5:9 If THE WITNESS OF-THE MEN we-accept, the witness of-the God greater it-is, because this it-is the witness of-the God which He-has-born-witness regarding the Son of-Him.”

John comparatively (this is like that) equates “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8, which comprise “the witness of the God / the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him” in verse 5:9, to “the ones bearing witness / the three ones” in verse 5:8, who comprise the “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender in verse 5:8.

The gender of “the thing bearing witness” in verse 5:7 (MT) is neuter either (1) because it refers to a thing (the Spirit), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the single referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse, or (3) both.

The gender of “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 (MT) is masculine either (1) because it refers to persons (men), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the single referent noun “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, or (3) both.

Thus, everything is written as it should be written.

Notice also that throughout Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 and Matthew 18:16 and John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (MT), the number of witnesses is always two or three, never more.

In contrast, the number of witnesses is five (the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit ... and the water and the Blood) when the Comma is added to the text in contradiction to the two or three witness (men) Mosaic tradition to which John is comparatively equating the witness of God regarding His Son. The number of witnesses is incorrect when the Comma is added to the text. Thus, John obviously did not write the Comma.

[Hootmon]

Well... That is one heck of a first post, I must say...

[bookworm1711]

Very good first post, indeed, Jim1.

While I don't have a quibble with the argument presented, I must say I'll someday have to dust off my copy of Nolan's work and look at it again for myself. My present and original impression is that Nolan is much stronger than his modern critics assert. I doubt most of them have studied Nolan at length first hand.

I have, but it has been now too many years for me to remember the precise details off the top of my head.

I have several of Robert Dabney's works. I wonder if Jim1 could provide the bibliographical reference to which work of Dabney he references. I had forgotten that Dabney discusses this particular issue. Immediately at my elbow I have his Lectures in Systematic Theology, but it does not possess a Scripture index, and a quick scan of the subject index and table of contents suggests the discussion referenced is not to be found in this book. I have a large two volume work of his additional writings or lectures and one or two other titles by Dabney in my personal library. One of the titles is of historical interest, being a defense of old Virginia, a Biblical defense of slavery!

[Buzzardhut]

The TR is a good rendering of the Koinonia Greek text, written in the street language of the people.

It was not intended for the scholarly student.

It was written for the daily worker, the common man, the language of the people.

The TR was translated into the the higher level scholarly Greek and Latin for the cemetarians :heh , which is when all the grammatical changes were made to fit higher grammar and high church doctrine.

They ignored God's true intentions and changed the Word to what seems right to man.

[Jim1]

Hi bookworm1711,

Here's what I have:

Robert Dabney (1820-1898):

The internal evidence against this excision [of the Johannine Comma] ... if it be made, the masculine article, numeral, and particle . . . are made to agree directly with three neuters, an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun . . . where, according to a well known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them. ... Then the occurrence of the masculines ... in verse 8 agreeing with the neuters ... may be accounted for by the power of attraction ... the pneuma, the leading noun of this second group, and next to the adjectives, has just had a species of masculiness superinduced upon it by its previous position in the masculine group ... The purpose of his writing was to warn ... against seducers ... whose heresy ... the Latin Church stands opposed to the Greek ... There are strong probable grounds to conclude, that the text of the Scriptures current in the East received a mischievous modification at the hands of the famous Origen. ... (The Doctrinal Various Reading of the New Testament Greek [in Discussions by Robert L. Dabney, Volume One, Theological and Evangelical, pages 350-390])

http://www.bibleone.org/Article.aspx...l=1&article=22
http://scribe7580.wordpress.com/2008...ohn-57-part-1/
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleve.../1john5n7.html


Frederick Nolan (1784-1864):

... In 1 John v. 7, the Byzantine and Palestine texts agree, while they differ from the common reading of the Latin Vulgate, omitting “en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiV en eisin kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh,” which occurs in the Received Text of our printed editions and answers to "in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra” in the Latin Vulgate. ... In 1 Joh. v. 7, three masculine adjectives, “treiV oi marturounteV,” are forced into union with three neuter substantives, “to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima,” a grosser solecism than can be ascribed to any writer, sacred or profane. And low as the opinion may be which the admirers of the Corrected Text may hold of the purity of the style of St. John, it is a grosser solecism than they can fasten on the holy Evangelist, who, in his context, has made one of these adjectives regularly agree with its correspondent substantive in the neuter. There seems to be consequently ... little reason for tolerating this text ... In 1 John v. 7, the manifest rent in the Corrected Text, which appears from the solecism in the language, is filled up in the Received Text, and, “o pathr o logoV” being inserted, the masculine adjectives, “treiV oi marturounteV,” are ascribed suitable substantives; and by the figure attraction, which is so prevalent in Greek, every objection is removed to the structure of the context. Nor is there thus a necessary emendation made in the apostle's language alone, but in his meaning. St. John is here expressly summing up the divine and human testimony, “the witness of God and man,” and he has elsewhere formally enumerated the heavenly witnesses, as they occur in the disputed passage. In his Gospel he thus explicitly declares, “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me ... and when the Comforter is come, even the Spirit of truth, he shall testify of me." And yet, in his Epistle, where he is expressly summing up the testimony in favor of Jesus, we are given to understand that he passes at least two of these heavenly witnesses by to insist on three earthly, which have brought the suppressed witnesses to the remembrance of almost every other person who has read the passage for the last sixteen centuries! Nay more, he omits them in such a manner as to create a gross solecism in his language, which is ultimately removed by the accidental insertion, as we are taught, of those witnesses from a note in his margin. Nor is this all, but this solecism is corrected and the oversight of the Apostle remedied by the accidental insertion of the disputed passage from the margin of a translation, the sense of which, we are told, it embarrasses, while it contributes nothing to amend the grammatical structure! Of all the omissions which have been mentioned respecting this verse, I call upon the impugners of its authenticity to specify one half so extraordinary as the present? Of all the improbabilities which the controversy respecting it has assumed as true, I challenge the upholders of the Corrected Text to name one which is not admissible as truth when set in competition with so flagrant an improbability as the last. Yet, on the assumption of this extravagant improbability as matter of fact must every attack on the authenticity of this verse be built as its very foundation ! ... (An Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament [chapter 4])

http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/chapter_4.htm
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/the_johannine_comma.htm


It has been stated against I Joh. v. 7, 8, as read in the Greek Vulgate, that the objection raised to the grammatical structure of the Palestine text is removed but a step back by the insertion of I Joh. v. 7, as the same false concord occurs in the context in I Joh. v. 8, as read in the Byzantine edition, “treiV oi marturounteV” being there made to agree with “to pneuma kai to udwr.” But this objection has been made without any attention to the force of the figure attraction. The only difficulty which embarrasses the construction lies is furnishing the first adjectives, “treiV oi marturounteV,” with substantives, which is effectually done by the insertion of “o pathr o logoV” in the disputed passage. The subsequent “treiV oi marturounteV” are thence attracted to the foregoing adjectives instead of being governed by the subsequent “to pneuma kai to udwr” in the strictest consistency with the style of St. John and the genius of the Greek language. (An Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament [chapter 6])

http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/chapter_6.htm
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/the_received_text.htm


Jim

[RoyS]

I've heard that these verses are forgeries and not part of the original manuscripts.