+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: the grammatical gender (solecism) research

  1. Default Constructio ad Sensum - A Worthwhile Topic


    Facebook - Nerdy Language Majors
    Constructio ad Sensum - A Worthwhile Topic
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/Nerd...%22%3A%22R%22}


    (small updates)

    As for BDF, I am sure 10 more grammar books can confirm the same thing. With 4 grammars already lining up, I doubt that 8 more will make a difference smile emoticon. Although if anyone wants to share, it will be appreciated.

    Also, you do make a point about "grammatical curiousities". Once we dump this one-man Internet nonsense about changing NT grammar, all the books are wrong ... we still have a lot to consider about constructio ad sensum in general.

    Constructio ad sensum, in a variety of iterations, is where the traditional (less flaky or non-flaky) attempts to justify the CT grammar lie. And most of the grammars I am looking at have only a smidgen on the topic, and nothing that would match the proposed constructio on the CT (e.g. the metaphor of witnessing.)

    And you have to be careful with modern NT grammars because they can have a circular approach of a priori accepting a dubious Critical Text variant as authentic. Simply because it is in the critical text. (This could effect anything after 1881.) This leads to circular reasoning. Thus, they can not even offer the alternative that the CT grammar of 1 John 5:7-8 is lacuna derived! There is a similar phenomenon with the grammar discussions of 1 Timothy 3:16, involving alternate variants rather than lacuna.

    So that leaves open the open-ended question.

    Who has a really strong section or paper on the Greek grammar phenomenon of constructio ad sensum?

    Similarly, who has a native Greek fluency fluid sense of the topic? (Including, how close would a modern Greek expert's sense be appropriate for issues like grammatical gender concord and constructio ad sensum determinations and liberties.)

    On the heavenly witnesses, how much weight (appeals to authority are sometimes valid) should we place on Eugenius Bulgaris, who at least was world-class and fully fluent, even unto tonal skills?

    Steven Avery
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-11-2018 at 06:26 AM.

  2. Default Greek grammar books vs. jim (contra)

    The acknowledgement by Jimcontra that he does not agree with the grammar book statements is most clearly stated here:

    1 John 5/7 - 8-05-2015 - Pg. 52 - #520
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...91#post7003291
    Jim1
    "
    I disagree with the author’s statement that the adjective is plural and agrees with the grammatical gender of multiple nouns that have the same grammatical gender. That is NOT what happens."


    1 John 5/7 - 8-05-2015 - Pg. 53 - #522
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post7003666
    "Those grammarians that you have quoted have not provided any such example. They say it, but they don't back it up with an example. I think that their statement is incorrect and that they have misunderstood what they think they are seeing."

    Perhaps a picture should taken of these pages for future reference, when the CARM thread poofs. Also some CARM pages could be saved or mirrored, as we can expect the thread to last through about 2016. And a couple of similar quotes, saying that the grammar writers should not be looking for grammar concord as normative, could be found, including earlier in the thread. However, the two quotes above are sufficient for the purpose of showing that the grammar books say one thing, jim another.

    There are also a short series of unanswered questions.

    ========================================

    Oh, once you start with an absurd positions, other absurdities flow forth. eg.

    1 John 5:7 - p. 51 - #508
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...=1#post7001742

    Eugenius -> Since indeed "the spirit and the water and the blood" are nouns of neuter gender

    Jim ends up claiming that this statement from Eugenius is not a reference to the grammatical gender of the three nouns!
    Rather, Eugenius is supposed to be referring to "natural gender", which in Jim's economy is a different something.

    Normally I might say "bridge for sale" .. but I don't want to make bridge salesmen look bad!

    ========================================

    Steven

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-11-2018 at 06:25 AM.

  3. Default why not let the Greek geeks handle this?


    Nerdy Language Majors
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/Nerd...22%3A%22R0%22}


    It is true that I have little expectation of convincing the recalcitrant. And it is also true that the examples (more sentences with multiple neuter nouns) are not that important, now that the grammatical sections from the books are available, and show clearly that the claims are bogus.

    However, the significance goes way beyond the phenomenon of someone being wrong on the internet.

    An important Bible discussion has been effectively diverted and even derailed, and the puppy has to be put to sleep and taken off the tracks so the discussion train can continue. Much of that has been accomplished in the last few days (it will be easy enough to place the refutation truth on one master page).

    Another consideration is that this is not just academic. Wild accusations have been made against Bible scholars with fine reputations, to impugn their positions, right or wrong. All part of using a bogus argument to attempt to discredit a critical verse in the Reformation Bible tradition.

    So there has been a purpose above and beyond simply correcting something wrong on the internet.

    ==========================

    CARM
    the battle here is Jim vs. the Greek grammarians
    http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?228338-1-John-5-7&p=7007231&viewfull=1#post7007231

    Oh, it would have been nice if all sorts of Greek-savvy folks had pointed that out over the years. It is now 100% clear, and simply because of the extra effort to nail down Jim's position and compare it to the grammar books. Why did other contras try to hitch their posturing against the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses on arguments that they should have easily seen were bogus? (Note also that Jim would continually attack the integrity and skill of the Christian defenders of authenticity who raised the grammatical discord issue.) Hmmm... I would say that anyone who tried to use Jim's thousands of lines of mistaken writing to their advantage has some splaining, at least before God, and best also to man.

    ==========================

    Steven

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-11-2018 at 06:25 AM.

  4. Default resources on the heavenly witnesses excellence and the earthly witnesses solecism


    These are the pro-authenticity resources. Included are ones that are either very fine, historically significant, or get an a-+ for clarity.

    Beyond this set of writings.

    ============================

    Eugenius Bulgaris - read here!

    Matthaei
    http://books.google.com/books?id=AjJOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR60 - Eugenius

    http://books.google.com/books?id=AjJOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA138 - Greek scholium

    Franz Knittel
    http://archive.org/stream/newcritici...e/206/mode/2up
    (check other pages)

    Frederick Nolan
    http://books.google.com/books?id=FF4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA257
    http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/cl.../inquiry4.html
    http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/cl.../inquiry6.html


    Robert Louis Dabney (1871c) (1890)
    http://books.google.com/books?id=CF3UAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA378

    Jeffrey Nachimson
    http://web.archive.org/web/200611050...ammatical.html

    Thomas Holland
    http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

    Tim Dunkin
    http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleve...mmadefense.pdf

    KJVToday
    http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-fat...atical-anomaly

    ===========================

    (On forums and articles Thomas Strouse and Thomas Cassidy may have written a little years back.) - Edward Freer Hills - Burgess etc ?

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-11-2018 at 06:24 AM.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
    =============================

    GROUP OF CONFLICTING CRITICAL TEXT GRAMMAR EXPLANATION ATTEMPTS


    personalization of πνεῦμα - Ian Howard Marshall and others
    (this has grammatical difficulties as well as presupposing a questionable interpretation)

    personalization by being (concrete) witnesses -
    Lücke

    personalization by witnessing - (even though the noun is not used) - Daniel Wallace offers that perhaps "the metaphor .. is driving the gender shift."
    1814 - https://books.google.com/books?id=U2kSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA305
    "when the apostle represented the water and blood ... it became necessary to personify them, for as bearing witness is a personal act,
    it would have been absurd to attribute it to things inanimate unless they were personified"

    symbols of the Trinity - scholium from c.10th century, showing an awareness of the grammatical concern (see also Gregory Nazianzen)

    classes of men from 1 John 5:9 - Bengel (however he actually did not base the male grammar on this connection)
    Wallace calls the Marshall idea, #1, "an oblique reference to the Spirit's personality" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics). Since Wallace is focused on witnessing, he offers a counterpoint that:

    "the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender ... the elder may be subtly indicating (via the masculine participle) that the Spirit, water, and blood are all valid witnesses".
    If this seems a bit backwards, the answer is yes, it is.

    Why is water and blood "personified". It should be pointed out that even if one element were personified, the Spirit, that would impel the masculine grammar. (Wallace has a major related stumble in he issue of masculine constructio ad sensum in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, which we will plan on documenting below.)

    You could have the Spirit personified, and you can have the concept, or metaphor, of witnessing personified, but there is no reason to talk of water and spirit being personified.

    And since Wallace eschews the Spirit being personalized in his other work:
    Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit

    How does he reconcile water and blood being personified, while claiming that the Spirit is not personified?

    ===============================================

    Bill Brown, amazingly the author of a paper on the heavenly witnesses, claims that the first three points above are the "EXACT SAME THING".
    http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.y...-Greek-Grammar

    This of course is totally dumb, and makes you chuckle that someone so devoid of logic could pass a paper throught DTS. The ideas of
    Lücke and Wallace is independent of what are the substantives, they could be broached even if there was no pneuma, unlike the Marhsall and company idea of personalizing Spirit. They are focused on the concept of witnessing.

    Lücke and Wallace are closer. However, Wallace is insisting that witnessing is a personal act and emphasizing a "metaphor".

    The exact meaning of the "concrete witnesses" of
    Lücke, and by extension unnamed others, (this is the term used by Lunemann):

    Lunemann
    http://books.google.com/books?id=mSFVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA610

    can be examined here:

    Lücke
    https://books.google.com/books?id=3qACAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA272

    The first oddity we find is that
    Lücke
    actually tries to marshall Eugenius Bulgaris!
    Later we find:

    In ver. 8, St. John places the pneuma first, as endowing the two others with a testifying power. He lays a stress on the witnesses being three, according to the ancient rule, Deut. xvii. 6 ; xix. 15, cfr. Matt, xviii.
    16. John viii. 17, 18. This is a popular mode of demonstration, an argumentum ad hominem. ...
    So is the witnesses of Lücke and others the same as the metaphor of witnessing of Wallace? Not really. Only Wallace talks in terms of a "metaphor" being the cause of the gender shift.

    Now Barry Hofstetter is adding another idea. Shifting away from his earlier support of a Marshall type of approach. This is a specific grammatical idea that the witnesses participle acts as a noun, and since that noun is masculine, the grammar is masculine. (See the separate page on the Hofstetter idea.) This idea is purely grammatical. There is no need to personify anything, the grammar of witness supplants the grammar of the actual nouns. This becomes idea number six.

    (We don't include jimcontra, because that is nonsense. We could add James White, who has an oddball attempt around "three". Gary Hudson could be checked.

    Going backwards, Westcott started the idea of just ignoring the issue, how about Lange?)

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-11-2018 at 06:47 AM.

  6. Default an example of the explanations before the modern corruption version arrogance became the norm

    In an earlier day, the writing was a bit more sensible.

    Sermon illustrating the doctrine of the Lord, and other fundamental doctrines of the New-Jerusalem Church (1840)
    Richard de Charms (1796-1863)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=YUZgAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA82

    He says, using the crippled text, that if the Spirit is personalized, then that would mean also the water and blood, which of course is absurd.

    ================

    Looking for simple attempts to say the corruption grammar is ok, the two main attempts in earlier days are John Pye Smith and Henry Alford.

    Scrivener actually acknowledges the argument from Gaussen, "Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent:" and just decides that this is not strong enough!
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-11-2018 at 06:58 AM.

  7. Default improvements made to this solecism research thread

    (1755) Bernardo Maria De Rubeis (added 12/10/2018) was added above, and the posts made easier to read. e.g. the five grammatical books about concord were placed in their own boxes. the font size was normalized, the German umlauts that got messed up with the forum upgrade were corrected, etc.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •