Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Eugenius Bulgaris on the Solecism

  1. Default Eugenius Bulgaris on the solecism


    [TC-Alternate-list] Eugenius Bulgaris - heavenly witnesses - epistle on grammar
    Steven Avery - January 24, 2013
    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/5476

    This was historically from a CARM thread in 2016, since they switched to vBulletin v. 5 it takes time to find the exact page.
    https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...077-1-john-5-7


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


    Eugenius Bulgaris
    This I could only have added now, what has been observed by no one thus far, as far as I know. So much certainly was missing, through a false alteration which had crept into that place, that verse eight, which follows, would not stand, unless verse seven were to proceed it, which is what this matter deals with. For indeed in the Latin version it is correctly expressed by a masculine kind of word, this in the same original Greek text, not having presupposed it to be a superior verse, does not clearly correspond to it, without some violence of language, and through a most manifest grammatical solecism. Since indeed "the spirit and the water and the blood" are nouns of neuter gender, by what reasoning would they agree with those, that which immediately precedes: "three that bear witness on earth;" and that which immediately follows: and "and these three (agree) in one ".
    "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to ta pragmata, are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns." Again here we read in verse eight: "three (m) that bear witness (m) in earth, the spirit (n), and the water (n), and the blood (n): and these three (m) agree in one (n). I ask, surely, here the natural and idiomatic language is better: "three (n) that bear witness (n) in earth, the spirit (n) and the water (n) and the blood (n), and these three (n) agree in one (n)?" However, the former was written, not the latter. Therefore what other reason can be adduced from the occurrences of this mismatch, unless the sole expression of the preceding verse seven, which by means of this immediate following verse eight, is explained symbolically and plainly/completely replicated, by the allusion made to that, which preceded it? The three therefore that in heaven testify are placed first in verse seven, For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. In succession , we are immediately influenced by the same witnesses to extend even to the earthly testimony to confirm the same, the three symbols of verse eight. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. And if he would say, our Evangelist, Those same Ones bearing witness in heaven, as sufficiently indicated through particle και [and, also, even], sense of which in present not simply copulative it is, but plainly identifying, regarding Whom in the above verse it has been stated, namely, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, the same Ones bearing witness, are also on the earth, through which symbols they have been revealed. And the symbols are the spirit, though which the Father is indicated, the blood, through which the Son, the water, through which the Holy Spirit. And these three Ones, Who certainly above revealingly through the sovereign names themselves in the heaven bearing witness, are presented, the same Ones, on the earth through the memory in the arrangement, symbolically being taken on again, these three Ones for the one thing They are. But alas, jug [a two gallon vessel] I have instituted, not amphora [a nine gallon vessel].


    Utilizing f
    or the section "And if he would say.."
    https://web.archive.org/web/20120425051413/http://the1780letterofeugenius.blogspot.com/

    (looks like Jim mangled the last sentence, a Latin idiom, so ignore that.)

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

    http://latindiscussion.com/forum/lat...tantina.11586/ - updated this from the original
    Truly for masculine and feminine nouns to be arranged with nouns, adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, respect being had for "the matters" [the things being discussed],
    this is certainly a specific feature of our tongue, well known to all who are skilled at it; but no one has said that also a neuter substantive noun is indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns.


    On the TC-Alternate post, I do some highlighting.
    http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/letter-1780-hoc-ego-tantummodo-in-praesenti-addere.7463/#post-39630

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

    (The Greek below likely has errors.)

    Hoc ego tantummodo in praesenti addere possem, quod a nemine quod sciam hactenus observatum. Tantum scilicet abesse, per interpolationem locum illum surrepsisse, ut ne quidem versus octavus, qui sequitur, staret, nisi versus septimus praecederet, de quo agitur. Quod enim in versione Latina recte exprimitur masculino sermonis genere. Id in ipso textu Graeco originali, non praesupposito superiore versiculo, haud plane consisteret, nisi cum violentia quadam dictionis ac per soloecismum patentissimum. Cum etenim, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα, nomina neutrius generis sunt, qua ratione concordabit cum iis quod immediate praecedit, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες, et quod illico sequitur, και ουτοι οι τρεις, κ. τ. λ.? Masculina equidem nomina et faeminina nominibus adjectivis pronominibusque in neutro genere expressis construi respectu habito ad τα πραγματα id sane linguae nostrae peculiare genium esse omnibus eam callentibus notissimum est. Sed quod etiam reciproce neutra nomina substantiva adjectivis vel pronominibus masculinis aut faemininus indecentur nemo dixerit. Porro hic versu octavo sic legimus, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις εν εισιν. Sed none quaeso dictio naturalis hic et propria potius esset, τρια εισιν τα μαρτυρουντα εν τη γη το πνευμα το υδωρ και το αιμα και τα τρια εις το εν εισιν. At illud tamen est scriptum non hoc. Quae igitur alia ratio occurrentis istius ακαταλληλιας afferri potest nisi sola praecedentis versus septimi expressio quae per hunc immediate sequentum versum octavum symbolice explicatur et plane replicatur allusione facta ad id quod praecesserat? Tres igitur qui in caelo testimonium perhibent, primo positi sunt versu septimo, tρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν. Deinceps vero immediate adducti, iidem ipsi testes, quatenus in terra etiam testimonium idem confirment per tria haec symbola versu octavo, και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις εν εισιν. Ac si diceret Evangelista noster, Οι αυτοι εκεινοι οι εν τω ουρανω μαρτυρουντες quod satis indicatur per particulum και cujus vis in praesenti non simpliciter copulativa est, sed plane identifia περι ων εν τω ανωτερω εδαφιω ειρηται δηλαδη ο πατηρ ο λογος και το πνευμα οι αυτοι μαρτυρουντες εισιν και εν τη γη δι ων ημιν συμβολων απεκαλυφθησαν ταυτα δε τα συμβολα εστιν το πνευμα δι ου δηλουται ο πατηρ το αιμα δι ου ο υιος το υδωρ δι ου το πνευμα το αγιον. Και οι τρεις οιτοι οιτινες ανωτερω μεν ανακεκαλυμμενως δι αυτων των υεαρχικων ονοματων εν τω ουρανω μαρτυρουντες παριστανται οι αυτοι εν τη γη δια της εν τη οικονομια μνησεως συμβολικως επανακαμβανομενοι οι τρεις ουτοι εις το εν εισιν. Sed ohe. urceum institui non amphoram.
    http://the1780letterofeugenius.blogspot.com/
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-21-2018 at 07:34 AM.

  2. Default Latin and Greek separated for translating


    Hoc ego tantummodo in praesenti addere possem, quod a nemine quod sciam hactenus observatum. Tantum scilicet abesse, per interpolationem locum illum surrepsisse, ut ne quidem versus octavus, qui sequitur, staret, nisi versus septimus praecederet, de quo agitur. Quod enim in versione Latina recte exprimitur masculino sermonis genere. Id in ipso textu Graeco originali, non praesupposito superiore versiculo, haud plane consisteret, nisi cum violentia quadam dictionis et per solaecismum patentissimum. Cum etenim,

    το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα,

    nomina neutrius generis sunt, qua ratione concordabit cum iis quod immediate praecedit,

    τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες,

    et quod illico sequitur,

    και ουτοι οι τρεις, κ. τ. λ.?


    Masculina equidem nomina et faeminina nominibus adjectivis pronominibusque in neutro genere expressis construi respectu habito ad τα πραγματα id sane linguae nostrae peculiare genium esse omnibus eam callentibus notissimum est. Sed quod etiam reciproce neutra nomina substantiva adjectivis vel pronominibus masculinis aut faemininus indecentur nemo dixerit. Porro hic versu octavo sic legimus,

    τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις εν εισιν.

    Sed none quaeso dictio naturalis hic et propria potius esset,

    τρια εισιν τα μαρτυρουντα εν τη γη το πνευμα το υδωρ και το αιμα και τα τρια εις το εν εισιν.

    At illud tamen est scriptum non hoc.
    Quae igitur alia ratio occurrentis istius ακαταλληλιας afferri potest nisi sola praecedentis versus septimi expressio quae per hunc immediate sequentum versum octavum symbolice explicatur et plane replicatur allusione facta ad id quod praecesserat? Tres igitur qui in caelo testimonium perhibent, primo positi sunt versu septimo,

    tρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν.

    Deinceps vero immediate adducti, iidem ipsi testes, quatenus in terra etiam testimonium idem confirment per tria haec symbola versu octavo,

    και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις εν εισιν.

    Ac si diceret Evangelista noster,

    Οι αυτοι εκεινοι οι εν τω ουρανω μαρτυρουντες

    quod satis indicatur per particulum

    και

    cujus vis in praesenti non simpliciter copulativa est, sed plane identifia

    περι ων εν τω ανωτερω εδαφιω ειρηται δηλαδη ο πατηρ ο λογος και το πνευμα οι αυτοι μαρτυρουντες εισιν και εν τη γη δι ων ημιν συμβολων απεκαλυφθησαν ταυτα δε τα συμβολα εστιν το πνευμα δι ου δηλουται ο πατηρ το αιμα δι ου ο υιος το υδωρ δι ου το πνευμα το αγιον. Και οι τρεις οιτοι οιτινες ανωτερω μεν ανακεκαλυμμενως δι αυτων των υεαρχικων ονοματων εν τω ουρανω μαρτυρουντες παριστανται οι αυτοι εν τη γη δια της εν τη οικονομια μνησεως συμβολικως επανακαμβανομενοι οι τρεις ουτοι εις το εν εισιν.

    Sed ohe. urceum institui non amphoram.

    http://the1780letterofeugenius.blogspot.com/

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-21-2018 at 06:48 AM.

  3. Default Eugenius Bulgaris on neuter nouns substantive with masculine grammar

    .
    Eugenius Bulgaris, Archbishop of Cherson (1716-1806) was a world-class Greek scholar.

    In discussing one of the verses, he made the following statement.


    3) "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to τὰ πράγματα [ta pragmata], are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns."

    The translation was mostly from the latindiscussion forum, τὰ πράγματα was left untranslated, perhaps a bit idiomatic
    http://latindiscussion.com/forum/lat...tantina.11586/


    SS[ancti] apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae
    (1782)
    Christian Frederick Matthaei (1744–1811)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=AjJOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR60
    https://books.google.com/books?id=AjJOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR60

    Masculina equidem nomina et feminina nominibus adjectivis pronominibusque in neutro genere expressis construi, respectu habito ad τὰ πράγματα, id sane linguae nostrae peculiare genium esse, omnibus eam callentibus notissimum est. Sed quod etiam reciproce neutra nomina substantiva adjectivis vel pronominibus masculinis aut femininis indicentur, nemo dixerit.

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

    I had emphasized three parts.

    Eugenius
    1) "a false alteration which had crept into that place, that verse eight, which follows, would not stand, unless verse seven were to proceed it"

    2) "some violence of language, and through a most manifest grammatical solecism."

    3) "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to τὰ πράγματα, are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns."
    The third one is the one that is straight grammar, ie. a statement not simply based on his feel and fluency.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-21-2018 at 06:50 AM.

  4. Default new Eugenius translation

    New Translation by Barry Hofstetter with his notes (1) and (2) - (formatting added by SA)

    This, however, I am able to add here, something which, to my knowledge, has not been heretofore observed. Surely if the passage is absent, if it is secreted away through alteration, the result is that not even verse 8, which follows, would stand, unless verse 7 came first. It is this I wish to discuss.

    In the Latin version this is correctly expressed with the phrase in the masculine gender,(1) but in the original Greek text itself, if the prior verse is not there, it obviously by no means can stand without some violence to the syntax and through a most obvious solecism. Since

    τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
    (the spirit and the water and the blood)

    are all neuter nouns, how will they agree with the preceding

    τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες
    (there are three who give witness)

    and the following

    καὶ οὑτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ.τ.λ.
    (and these three, etc.)?

    It is very well known, since all have experience with it, and it is clearly a peculiar genius of our language, that masculine and feminine nouns may be construed with nouns, adjectives and pronouns in the neuter, with regard to the actual sense (τὰ πράγματα). On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns. However, we read as follows in the 8th verse:

    και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι.

    But, I ask, wouldn’t the natural and appropriate syntax here rather be:

    και τρια εισιν τα μαρτυρουντα εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και τα τρια εις το εν εισιν.

    But the former is written, not the latter. What reason can therefore be given for this failure to comply with the rule? It can only be the expression of the preceding 7th verse, which through the immediately following 8th verse is set forth symbolically and obviously restated, an allusion made to that which precedes. Therefore the three who give witness in heaven are first placed in the 7th verse,

    τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν.

    Then immediately the very same three witnesses are brought in, to confirm on earth the same witness, through these three symbols, in vs. 8:

    και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν.

    And so our Evangelist might say “They are the same as those giving witness in heaven.” (This is sufficiently indicated through the particle καί, the force of which here is not simply connective but plainly identifying. [At this point, Eugenius shifts to Greek] Concerning what was said in the text [perhaps = manuscript] above, clearly the Father, the Word and the Spirit. These are the ones giving witness also on the earth, and they are made manifest to us through symbols. These symbols are the spirit, through which the Father is revealed, the blood, through which the Son is revealed, and the water, through which the Holy Spirit is revealed. But these three, who above by way of revelation through the divine names themselves are presented as giving witness in heaven, are the same on earth through remembrance in the divine plan presented repeatedly by way of symbols. But alas! I have made a cup, not a jug.(2)
    _________

    1) In the Latin text, spiritus and sanguis are both masculine, aqua feminine. Using the masculine in Latin of such a mixed gender list is common.

    2) Urceum institui, non amphoram. Cf. Jerome Letter 107.3,
    Paene lapsus sum ad aliam materiam et currente rota, dum urceum facere cogito, amphoram finxit manus.
    This refers to shifting subject matter, so that the contrast is between the type of pottery, and not the size.
    =========================

    Steven Avery
    The differences I see:

    1) Generally a little smoother.
    2) Footnote (1) is helpful context, well known, but helpful to say
    3) Footnote (2) is helpful on the idiom ending
    4) ta pragmata (τὰ πράγματα) being the actual sense (i.e. akin to constructio ad sensum) is helpful.

    There may be a bit more.

    ==========================
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-21-2018 at 07:36 AM.

  5. Default without the formatting

    Here it is without the spacing:


    This, however, I am able to add here, something which, to my knowledge, has not been heretofore observed. Surely if the passage is absent, if it is secreted away through alteration, the result is that not even verse 8, which follows, would stand, unless verse 7 came first. It is this I wish to discuss. In the Latin version this is correctly expressed with the phrase in the masculine gender,(1) but in the original Greek text itself, if the prior verse is not there, it obviously by no means can stand without some violence to the syntax and through a most obvious solecism. Since τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (the spirit and the water and the blood) are all neuter nouns, how will they agree with the preceding τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (there are three who give witness) and the following καὶ οὑτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ.τ.λ. (and these three, etc.)? It is very well known, since all have experience with it, and it is clearly a peculiar genius of our language, that masculine and feminine nouns may be construed with nouns, adjectives and pronouns in the neuter, with regard to the actual sense (τὰ πράγματα). On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns. However, we read as follows in the 8th verse: και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι. But, I ask, wouldn’t the natural and appropriate syntax here rather be: και τρια εισιν τα μαρτυρουντα εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και τα τρια εις το εν εισιν. But the former is written, not the latter. What reason can therefore be given for this failure to comply with the rule? It can only be the expression of the preceding 7th verse, which through the immediately following 8th verse is set forth symbolically and obviously restated, an allusion made to that which precedes. Therefore the three who give witness in heaven are first placed in the 7th verse, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν. Then immediately the very same three witnesses are brought in, to confirm on earth the same witness, through these three symbols, in vs. 8: και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. And so our Evangelist might say “They are the same as those giving witness in heaven.” (This is sufficiently indicated through the particle καί, the force of which here is not simply connective but plainly identifying. [At this point, Eugenius shifts to Greek] Concerning what was said in the text [perhaps = manuscript] above, clearly the Father, the Word and the Spirit. These are the ones giving witness also on the earth, and they are made manifest to us through symbols. These symbols are the spirit, through which the Father is revealed, the blood, through which the Son is revealed, and the water, through which the Holy Spirit is revealed. But these three, who above by way of revelation through the divine names themselves are presented as giving witness in heaven, are the same on earth through remembrance in the divine plan presented repeatedly by way of symbols. But alas! I have made a cup, not a jug.(2)_________

    1) In the Latin text, spiritus and sanguis are both masculine, aqua feminine. Using the masculine in Latin of such a mixed gender list is common.

    2) Urceum institui, non amphoram. Cf. Jerome Letter 107.3, Paene lapsus sum ad aliam materiam et currente rota, dum urceum facere cogito, amphoram finxit manus. This refers to shifting subject matter, so that
    the contrast is between the type of pottery, and not the size.

Posting Permissions

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