Andy Ansell comment on Steve Waldron Youtube - grammatical summary adds to "Witness of God" harmony

[Steven Avery]

Andy Ansell - May, 2021​

“ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα• καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν”

“For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one”

Since 1881 and the Revised Version, this verse reads: “οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες”, “For there are three that testify”. Which is continued in verse 8, “το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν”, “the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree in one”

In the reading that excludes these words in verse 7, it reads: "οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες”, which is in the masculine, though "το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα", are neuters. Some argue that because John mentions the Holy Spirit, so the masculine is used because the Spirit is Personal. However, when John speaks of the Witness of the Holy Spirit in verse 6, he writes, “το μαρτυρουν”, which is in the neuter, because "τὸ πνεῦμά" is neuter. Why would John, who had already mentioned the Witness of the Holy Spirit, in verse 6, using the neuter, then use the masculine in verse 7? It can only be because of "ο πατηρ ο λογος", two masculines and "τὸ πνεῦμά", grouped with them.

In verse 8, with the reading, “και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν”, “and the three agree in one”. How do we account for John’s use here, of the Greek definite article, “το”? It is clear here is used for renewed mention. There is no problem when we read verse 7, “καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν”, (and these Three are one), where we have “ἕν” (one) used a previous time, and the article in verse 8, is referring back to this use in 7. However, when these words in verse 7 are removed, there is a distinct problem with the Greek, as it stands in verse 8. Bishop Thomas Middleton, in his excellent work on the Greek Article, had this to say on the article in verse 8;

“But the difficulty to which the present undertaking has directed my attention, is of another kind : it respects the Article in εις το εν in the final clause of the eighth verse : if the seventh verse had not been spurious, nothing could have been plainer than that το εν of verse 8, referred to hen of verse 7 : as the case now stands, I do not perceive the force or meaning of the Article” (The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, page 441)

Because the “το εν” in verse 8, refers back to that in verse 7, that their “meanings” do not have to be identical, as Dr Plummer argues in the Cambridge Greek Testament. As Dr Green says in his grammar on “renewed mention”, “Sometimes the reference is implicit, the second expression, bearing the article, being equivalent to the former, though not identical” (Handbook to The Grammar of The Greek Testament, page. 181).

SA: This is the new section.

Then we have verse 9

“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son” (KJV)“η μαρτυρια του θεου ην μεμαρτυρηκεν περι του υιου αυτου” (the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son)

Here we have the relative pronoun, “ἥν” (which), as found in the Received Greek Text. This has been corrupted to the conjunction, “ὄτι”. The former reading is used by Tertullian in the early 3rd century, in the Latin, but Tertullian translated himself from the Greek text. Of the latter reading, B F Westcott, who prefers the reading with the conjunction, says, “The second ὅτι is ambiguous… No one of the explanations is without difficulty” (Commentary on 1 John). And, A T Robertson, says that this reading is, “a harsh construction” (Word Pictures). With the reading “ἥν”, this takes us back to the “αὕτη”, in the verse, “THIS is the Witness of God”, which is to the Heavenly Witnesses in verse 7. That the relative pronoun is the correct reading, is confirmed by verse 10, “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that (ἥν) God gave of his Son”. The only Witnesses that God the Father has given, concerning Jesus Christ, is the Witness that we have in the words of verse 7. In verse 6 we have the Witness of the Holy Spirit, concerning Jesus Coming in the flesh, which is again confirmed in verses 7 and 8. Verses 9 and 10 speak of the Witness of the Father,

Also posted on the James Snapp page
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/08/the-comma-johanneum-and-greek-grammar.html

 

[Steven Avery]

1John 5:9 ​

http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=69&rif2=5:9

1 John 5:9-10 (AV)
If we receive the witness of men,
the witness of God is greater:
for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself:
he that believeth not God hath made him a liar;
because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν, ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Westcott and Hort​

εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν, ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Byzantine​

Εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν· ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἥνμεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.

NETBible

22 tn
The problem with αὕτη (hautē) in 5:9 lies in determining whether it refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. A few interpreters would see this as referring to the preceding verses (5:7-8), but the analogy with the author’s other uses of αὕτη (1:5; 3:11, 23) suggests a reference to what follows. In all of the other instances of αὕτη ἐστιν (hautē estin, 1:5; 3:11, 23) the phrase is followed by an epexegetical (explanatory) clause giving the referent (ὅτι [hoti] in 1:5, ἵνα [hina] in 3:11 and 23). The ὅτι clause which follows the αὕτη in 5:9 does not explain the testimony, but should be understood as an adjectival relative clause which qualifies the testimony further. The ὅτι clause which explains the testimony of 5:9 (to which the αὕτη in 5:9 refers) is found in 5:11, where the phrase αὕτη ἐστιν is repeated. Thus the second use of αὕτη ἐστιν in 5:11 is resumptive, and the ὅτι clause which follows the αὕτη in 5:11 is the epexegetical (explanatory) clause which explains both it and the αὕτη in 5:9 which it resumes.

23 tn
The second ὅτι (hoti) in 5:9 may be understood in three different ways. (1) It may be causal, in which case it gives the reason why the testimony just mentioned is God’s testimony: “because he has testified concerning his Son.” This is extremely awkward because of the preceding ὅτι clause which is almost certainly causal (although the second ὅτι could perhaps be resumptive in force, continuing the first). (2) The second ὅτι could be understood as epexegetical (explanatory), in which case it explains what the testimony of God mentioned in the preceding clause consists of: “because this is the testimony of God, [namely,] that he has testified concerning his Son.” This is much smoother grammatically, but encounters the logical problem that “the testimony of God” is defined in 5:11 (“And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life”) and the two definitions of what the testimony of God consists of are not identical (some would say that they are not even close). Thus (3) the smoothest way to understand the second ὅτι logically is to read it as a relative pronoun: “because this is the testimony of God that he has testified concerning his Son.” In this case it is exactly parallel to the relative clause which occurs in 5:10b: “because he has not believed the testimony that (ἣν, hēn) God has testified concerning his Son.” (There is in fact a textual problem with the second ὅτι in 5:9: The Byzantine tradition, along with ms P, reads a relative pronoun [ἣν] in place of the second ὅτι in 5:9 identical to the relative pronoun in 5:10b. This represents an obvious effort on the part of scribes to smooth out the reading of the text.) In an effort to derive a similar sense from the second ὅτι in 5:9 it has been suggested that the conjunction ὅτι should be read as an indefinite relative pronoun ὅτι (sometimes written ὅ τι). The problem with this suggestion is the use of the neuter relative pronoun to refer to a feminine antecedent (ἡ μαρτυρία, hē marturia). It is not without precedent for a neuter relative pronoun to refer to an antecedent of differing gender, especially as some forms tended to become fixed in usage and were used without regard to agreement. But in this particular context it is difficult to see why the author would use a neuter indefinite relative pronoun here in 5:9b and then use the normal feminine relative pronoun (ἣν) in the next verse. (Perhaps this strains at the limits of even the notorious Johannine preference for stylistic variation, although it is impossible to say what the author might or might not have been capable of doing.) Because of the simplicity and logical smoothness which results from reading ὅτι as equivalent to a relative pronoun, the third option is preferred, although it is not without its difficulties (as are all three options).