Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/4635569143196716/
What do people on here think of this argument for the Comma Johanneum? Essentially, the argument says that 1 Jn 5:7 (the Comma) justifies 5:8 (what all english bibles have) and should be retained based on syntactic parallelism. For me, the external data is overwhelmingly against the Comma but I thought that this was interesting because of the source.
YOUTUBE.COM
1 John 5:7 Is Authentic Proved by Legendary Greek Grammarian
#1John5:7 #CommaJohanneumhttps://johanninecomma.blogspot.com/2020/09/voulgaris-vindicated-by-leading-greek.html?fbclid=IwAR2bRbinDVF3j4Wh7sFNLtOXBqkuI3MuoGYs...
James Willison
Author
James E Snapp Jr this right here. I don’t think they are being purposefully deceptive, but I also don’t think Baboniotis is aware of what is actually being debated.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/4635569143196716/
James Willison shared a link.
·What do people on here think of this argument for the Comma Johanneum? Essentially, the argument says that 1 Jn 5:7 (the Comma) justifies 5:8 (what all english bibles have) and should be retained based on syntactic parallelism. For me, the external data is overwhelmingly against the Comma but I thought that this was interesting because of the source.
YOUTUBE.COM
1 John 5:7 Is Authentic Proved by Legendary Greek Grammarian
#1John5:7 #CommaJohanneumhttps://johanninecomma.blogspot.com/2020/09/voulgaris-vindicated-by-leading-greek.html?fbclid=IwAR2bRbinDVF3j4Wh7sFNLtOXBqkuI3MuoGYs...
James Willison
Author
James E Snapp Jr this right here. I don’t think they are being purposefully deceptive, but I also don’t think Baboniotis is aware of what is actually being debated.
- https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R
Bill Brown
James Willison I respectfully disagree. They know FULL WELL what they're trying to do. They're basically sending a bunch of emails and trying to see if they can find a scholar that they can quote in favor of their position. If Babinitos had written them back and said, "You're out of your mind," do you really believe for one second we would have heard about this? This is a group of people that enjoys fighting about the Bible, but they have to invent a way to make their defense sound like someone actually endorses it. Babinitos has no idea what they're up to, but the rest of us who have spent decades watching this tactic are not even remotely surprised. It's the "my scholar can whip your scholar" game, played by people who can't do their own research or original work.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R
Matthew Rose
"Here is my opinion as a linguist, not as an expert in theology."
-Babiniotis
(And this is to say nothing of NTTC!)
'Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent:' [-Gaussen] a reason truly, but one not strong enough to carry his point. -Scrivener- https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R
Nick Sayers
James E Snapp Jr - This was part of the question I asked him (caps are my emphasis):
——
I have been looking at the writings of Eugenius Bulgaris and have been trying to work out some things he said about a verse that LATER appears in the old Antoniades 1904/1912 Patriarchal Bible.
Although the Synod admitted that the text had DROPPED OUT many of historical Greek manuscripts, they did PLACE IT IN THERE, and Bulgaris had written in 1780 that the Grammar was greatly distrupted without the inclusion of the words in verse 7.
So my questions are, has there been an examination of this grammatical concept of Bulgaris that you know about? Also what are your thoughts on what he says below, do you think he was correct, or is there something us Anglo guys are missing?
The issue is below.
Nick Sayers
======
I have been told the translation into English is bad... so I will give a few links also.
This is a translation of a letter from Bishop Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806) regarding 1 John 5:7 (a Latin version was quoted in Knittel). Bulgaris was the Archbishop of Cherson (in modern Crimea) and a Greek linguist who was one of the key figures in the development of the Katharevousa dialect. He says in a letter dated Dec 10, 1780:
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)_________ Poltaviae, ad d. 10 Decemb. 1780.
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.
New criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John v. 7, a lect., tr. by W.A. Evanson The 1780 Letter of Eugenius
https://web.archive.org/.../the1780letterofeugenius.../
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AjJOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP61...
WEB.ARCHIVE.ORG
The 1780 Letter of Eugenius
https://web.archive.org/web/20120425051413/http://the1780letterofeugenius.blogspot.com/
Last edited: