The most active and most imbalanced writing on the heavenly witnesses grammar today is by Bill Brown (William A. Brown, Jr.) of Dallas Theological Seminary, who considers Daniel Wallace his mentor.

A lot of Bill's writing is on the level of calling Eugenius Bulgaris an "idiot" simply because Bill does not understand and accept his writing on the heavenly witnesses. Or Brown goes into repetitive rants or he accuses people of "lying" .. based on his own errors. (Similar to James White boomearang attack on Sinaiticus.)

Sometimes he seems borderline deranged, as in an ongoing obsession about a time a few years back when I quoted a Wikipedia article that mentions an 1844 typewriter . An irrelevant detail, easily corrected, of no consequence to the post, but a point of insanity for Bill. (And the Wikipedia article was corrected, as well.)

Within the midst of all the rather weird posting (on BVDB and other spots) we might be able to find a couple of actual points to consider.

Similar with a paper of his that we plan to review.

So this thread will try to find any potential substance in his writing, consider the positions, and offer thoughtful counterpoint.


Bill Brown apparently has his own new theory to explain the heavenly witnesses grammar, the Critical text mangled solecism. However, he will not reveal publicly his theories . So that will wait until his thesis is available to review.


As a "note to self" other recent writings, include Grantley Robert McDonald - The Ghost of Arius, should be checked for possible contributions (positive or negative) to this grammatical and "internal" research.


Here is one page on BVDB where he uses his reactive attack style on something I wrote about the heavenly witnesses grammar, in fact it touched on a key question:

"We see there are many explanations of the masculine, when a grammarian must work with the Critical Text. This is something of an overview of what we have so far:"

We even have a brand spanking new attempt by Barry Hofstetter today on May, 19, 2016 (the participle for witnessing is acting as a masculine noun, supplanting the gender of the actual nouns.)

Brown's reactive harumph.

There is a note there to look at Raymond Brown. I'll have to check if I still have my scanned in pages (if I remember it was about 10 pages from his Commentary) or need a new library visit. Often with Brown it is all much ado about nothing, however since he actually gives a reference, it will be good to check.


You will see a link there to a thread on 1 Timothy 3:16 on b-greek.

Read the thread and you can easily see that the moderator was simply wrong, he was flunking Logic 101, nothing real complicated. Hofstetter is the fellow who just came up with the brand spanking new theory on the heavenly witnesses, negating his position of the last decade. He refused to correct the errant moderator at the time (but avoided taking any positions himself.) Typical stuff from the non-fluent grammarians stuck with trying to find excuses for the corruptions in the Critical Text.


Steven Avery