Eugenius Bulgaris on the Solecism

[Steven Avery]

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/t...an-topics/biblical-languages/47077-1-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 for 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/latin/substantina.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. (This is no longer online, only in email boxes.)
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/la...ntummodo-in-praesenti-addere.7463/#post-39630

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

(The Greek below likely has errors.)

Best we have is in POST#4, translation by Professor Barry Hofstetter.

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/

 

[Steven Avery]

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/

 

[Steven Avery]

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/latin/substantina.11586/

SS[ancti] apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae (1782)
Christian Frederick Matthaei (1744–1811)
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.

 

[Steven Avery]

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.

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

 

[Steven Avery]

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.

 

[Steven Avery]

Eugenius Bulgaris bio post put in 2014 to the WhichVersion forum

SA NOTES: Check earlier post - Map - Glance at Eudora -Add new material - "next post"- Yahoo neo urls
Top post> sister threads, including new one on Greek Orthodox - add Facebook threads

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

Facebook post shows Grantley McDonald recognizes the skill of Bulgaris (in his second work, he was not in the first)

Facebook - Pure Bible Forum
Eugenius Bulgaris gets some long-overdue scholarship recognition!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1706036159432575&set=p.1706036159432575&type=3&theater&ifg=1

Pure Bible Forum
Raising the Ghost of Arius - Grantley McDonald
Eugenius Bulgaris - in Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe book
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.421/post-974

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

[W-V] Eugenius Bulgaris - primary scholar in the heavenly witnesses grammatical gender history
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/whichversion/conversations/topics/43652

1 John 5:7-8

For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

We are updating a post from 2009 :

[W-V] Eugenis Bulgaris - an introduction.
Steven Avery - Tue Nov 24, 2009
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/message/34049

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

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Eugenius Bulgaris - heavenly witnesses - grammatical gender

The first writer who first placed the grammatical gender of the heavenly witnesses on the table in a direct and forceful manner (although earlier grammatical references like John Mill and Johann Albretcht Bengel are worthy of study, in addition to others like Gregory Nazianzen and his opponents, Erasmus, Wolf and Ernesti )

---- was a master Greek translator and scholar.
This was a gentlemen for whom the phrase "world-class Greek linguist" could be an understatement.

An introduction to:

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

Eugenius Bulgaris (Eugenios Voulgaris) (Eugenius of Cherson, Kherson)

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

First, his location.
Cherson, now in Ukraine, Bulgaria at the time.
And at one time a Greek colony, religiously Greek Orthodox, with the Greek Bible being the scholarly Bible.

Map

Greek Colonies of the North Black Sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ancient_Greek_Colonies_of_N_Black_Sea.png
This is Ukraine, just west of Turkey - - note Chersonesos in the pic with the Crimean Peninsula

http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&q=crimea+peninsula&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x40ea51e9edc7fa91:0xf6b10a07a2689492%2cCrimea%2c+Ukraine&gl=us&sa=X&ei=14XuUPv3HMuA0AGVkYHgBw&ved=0CI8BELYD

(map of Black Sea region)

Chersonesus (Crimea)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chersonesos_Taurica
Chersonesus ... is an ancient Greek colony founded approximately 2,500 years ago in the southwestern part of the Crimean Peninsula, known then as Taurica. The colony was established in the 6th century BC by settlers from Heraclea Pontica.

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

Eugenius Bulgaris - Biography

The Wikipedia article is very good, I will only include a little, it is easy to see that calling Eugenius Bulgaris is among the premier Greek scholars of modern times.

Eugenios Voulgaris or Boulgaris (...1716- 1806) was a Bulgarian, prominent Greek Orthodox educator, and bishop of Kherson (in Ukraine). Writing copiously on theology, philosophy and the sciences, he disseminated western European thought throughout the Greek and eastern Christian world, and was a leading contributor to the Modern Greek Enlightenment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenios_Voulgaris
Orthodox WIki
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Eugenios_Voulgaris
.... Greek language question
The discussion on the Greek language question began at the end of the 18th century. Because western Europeans were familiar with, and valued, the ancient Greek language, Eugenios Voulgaris, along with Lambros Photiadis, Stephanos Commitas (1770-1832) and Neophytos Doukas, proposed that the modern Greek language should be archaised and assimilated to Ancient Greek, while his students Iosipos Moisiodax (1725-1800) and Dimitrios Katartzis (ca. 1725-1807) preferred the use of the contemporary vernacular language as it had evolved (Dimotiki). This discussion would become crucial when it was to be decided which form should be the official language of the modern Greek state.

The humanist scholar Adamantios Korais (1748-1833) also influenced this discussion. While supporting the language of the people, Korais sought to 'cleanse' it from elements that he considered 'vulgar' and evolved the 'purifying' or Katharevousa forms, which were supposedly set at some midpoint between ancient and contemporary Greek.

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

Four Additional Eugenius References

The European magazine, and London review, Volume 11 (1787)
Philological Society (Great Britain)
http://books.google.com/books?id=zCIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA103

There has also appeared here a phenomenon of literature ; it is a translation of the Georgics of Virgil into Gieek verse, done by Eugenius de Bulgaris, formerly rector of a convent on mount Athos, and now archbishop of Cherson, and by the learned in Russia is spoken of in terms of great approbation

========

Neohellenica: An Introduction to Modern Greek in the Form of Dialogue (1892) p. 315-322
Michael Constantinides
http://books.google.com/books?id=9-MXAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA319
http://www.archive.org/details/neohellenicaintr00consiala
Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806)
Who are regarded as the more distinguished among the learned Greeks of this period ?
Eugenius Bulgaris and Nicephorus Theotokes. Regarding these learned men Mr. Thereianos very justly remarks that they were " the foremost heroes of science and Greek literature, the eloquent heralds of the intellectual reformation of the race, renowned as teachers, more renowned as writers, a real honour to Greece."
(snip biography, available at urls)
Did he write many works ? A very large number, of which you can find a long catalogue in the Modern Greek Literature of Sathas. His translation into heroic hexameters of the Aeneid and Georgics of Virgil in three folio volumes is worthy of note. In what style did Eugenius write his works ? In the ancient Greek style : but in some of them he employed modern Greek, which he certainly did not write with so much purity as Nicephorus Theotokes

========

Eugenius Bulgaris - Encylopedia Brittanica
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9018014/Eugenius-Bulgaris
Greek Orthodox theologian and liberal arts scholar who disseminated Western thought throughout the Eastern Orthodox world and contributed to the development of Modern Greek language and literature...Esteemed for his Modern Greek translations and revisions of classical literature, Bulgaris also wrote many Greek treatises in philosophy, the sciences, and theology. His Dogmatic Theology (c. 1800) was the first Greek compendium on philosophical theology since the 14th century

========

Archbishop Eugenius, the first of Greek scholars ... (Greek was as familiar as his mother tongue to him, who translated the Georgics into classick Greek.) -
-- On the Authenticity of 1 John V. 7, William Craig Brownlee, (1794-1860) Chrisian Advocate, 1825, p.70
http://books.google.com/books?id=_tk2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA70

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

Exquisite Level of Fluency, Proficiency, Skill Noted.

An unusual note, a discussion of the tonal skills of Eugenius:

Exercises on the syntax of the Greek language (1834)
William Neilson
http://books.google.com/books?id=OmESAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188
The learned translator of Michaelis (Herbert Marsh) was informed by Professor Reiz, that he had frequently heard Eugenius, a Greek priest, afterwards Archbishop of Cherson, read Greek verse, and that he marked by his pronunciation both accent and quanttity.- Marsh's Mich., vol. 2, p. 901.

When you get a chance, for a bit of contrast, after researching their fluency in dialog and debate, check out the tonal skills of today's piddle-Greek crew -) .

Introduction to the New Testament, tr., and augmented with notes ... 4 vols. (1793)
Michaelis, translated by Herbert Marsh
http://books.google.com/books?id=-2AUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA892
I have been told by the late learned Professor Reiz, that he had frequently heard Eugenius, a Greek Priest, who is now Archbp. of Cherson, read Greek verse, during his residence in Leipzig, that Eugenius distinctly marked by bis pronunciation both accent and quantity; lengthening the sound, without raising the tone of his voice, when he pronounced a long fyllable which had not an acute accent, and raising the tone of his voice without lengthening the sound, when he pronounced a short syllable which had an acute accent; in the same manner as in music, where the highest note in a bar is frequently the shortest ... (continues)

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

Eugenius Bulgaris Writings on 1 John 5:7

Now, I want to mention that Eugenius wrote on more than on the grammatical gender on the topic of 1 John 5:7. Franz Knittel writes of
"the learned Archbishop Eugenius's Criticisms on 1 John V:7".

In the next post we can make all this clearer.
Meanwhile, here we can offer two extracts, outside the grammatical gender, one recognized by William Wright, one by Richard Porson.

========

Joseph Bryennius

Eugenius is credited with giving the text of Joseph Bryennius (one of the Greek references of the heavenly witnesses before Erasmus and the Reformation era):

Biblical hermeneutics, or, The art of Scripture interpretation (1835)
George Seiler - section by William Wright
http://books.google.com/books?id=1J4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA617

In tbe l5th Century, Joseph Brvennius, a Greek monk, chaplain to the court of Constantinople, quotes it in this form, according to the testimony of Eugenius, bishop of Cherson; a form, however, which manifestly betrays Symptoms of its Latin origin ;
(pic of Greek section)

========

Philopatris

Eugenius comments on the Philopatris evidence (fascinating, today not on the radar of the common piddle-studies) given by Richard Porson, who managed to not mention his grammatical writings. Hmmmm.

On this Philopatris evidence from the 2nd century, worthy of its own study, Eugenius is equivocal.

Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis (1790)
Richard Porson
http://books.google.com/books?id=SUg7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA235
Bishop Eugenius too, who published Joseph Bryennius, and translated Virgil's Georgics into Greek hexameters, seems to be of my opinion ; for after mentioning Cave's demonstration, he adds, Sed genitilem illum auctorem relinquamus, qui forsitan non ex Joannis epistola, sed ex propalato jam tunc Christianorum dogmateunitatem naturaecum Trinitatesubsannare scrurriliter intendebat ..

========

Overview - Historical Basics - more on the overview planned shortly, Tim Dunkin gives us the one sound and succienct summary

A Defense of the Johannine Comma
Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
Timothy Dunkin
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
We should note, again for emphasis, that Robert Dabney was not the modern "inventor" of the grammatical problem seen in I John 5:7-8 when the Comma is deleted. As early as 1740, Bengel noted the grammatical issue involved.82 Also in the 18th century, we see the testimony to the grammatical problem introduced by the removal of the Comma, as it was recognized by Eugenius Bulgarus, Archbishop of Cherson, a high official and scholar in the eastern Greek church. Knittel reproduces Eugenius' discussion of the solecism as it was reported by a Professor Matthaei in Moscow, in 1780, who included a letter from Eugenius in his own discussion of the passage.83 A similar grammatical argument was advanced by Frederick Nolan in 1815. 84

(82) - J.A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 808
(83) - See Knittel, op. cit., pp. 206-8; interestingly, Knittel also notes where Gregory Nazianzus dealt with the grammatical issue.
(84) - F. Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament, pp. 254-61, 564-5

Later, we will show that Frederick Nolan does directly credit Eugenius Bulgaris.
In a sense, the key four early proponent figures on the grammatical gender are :

Eugenius Bulgaris, (1716-1806)
Christian Freidich Matthaei (1744-1811),
Franz Knittel (1721-1792)
Frederick Nolan (1784-1864),

Followed by an interesting group of second-debate figures, with only a minimal attempt to deny the argument. then a pseudo-scholarship wall of silence.and diversion. then by a baggle of modern cacophany.

And now - attempts today to return to solid roots and understanding.

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

And despite the fact that the grammatical gender argument comes in its clear, early and accurate form directly from one of the very strongest Greek scholars of modern times, there is very little reference to his contribution in any of the literature. Not just ignored by Metzger and the Parrots, even more informed writers like Raymond Brown. We plan to examine this incredible omission (and the internet humorous handwaves) in future posts in this series.

One side-note. Remember that the Greek Orthodox were still a bit unsure of the verse, since their earlier manuscripts were marked by omission. Eugenius Bulgaris was one of the strong Greek orthodox scholars in the 1600-1800 era who contributed to the correction of the Greek manuscript line to include the heavenly witnesses (part of answering a question raised by Maurice Robinson). One reason .. they understood Greek ! And could see the deficiency with the verse removed.
==============================================

Next we can continue with the writings of Eugenius on the grammatical gender, and the responses, then and now, and the tendency for the contras to not want to properly relate to the main source of the argument, and his skills (allowing earlier references that were less focused).

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

First post:

[W-V] heavenly witnesses - grammatical gender - Eugenius Bulgaris of Cherson
Steven Avery January 19, 2013
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/message/43646

This post:

[W-V] Eugenius Bulgaris - primary scholar in the heavenly witnesses grammatical gender history
Steven Avery January 19, 2013
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/message/43652

Thank you for your attention and interest. All sincere responses welcome.
Stay tune as this series continues.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY'
http://purebible.blogspot.com/
http://www.purebibleforum.com/