Facebook NT Textual Criticism thread on Georgios Babiniotis and syntactic parallelism

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
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.
1 John 5:7 Is Authentic Proved by Legendary Greek Grammarian

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:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bill Brown
There is nothing interesting about this at all. Let’s say for the sake of argument that this so-called syntactic parallel requires it. Explain the utter silence on that issue. IF this was the grammatically sure argument that we are now being told (mostly by people who couldn’t parse a pluperfect), there would be reams of material with writer after writer saying “something is obviously missing!”
There isn’t. They have one guy (Gregory) whom they build upon Maynard’s nonsense claiming he recognized this argument when he didn’t.
The fact Comma advocates run all over the place trying to find points to argue in their favor really says all that needs to be said about the pathetic desperation of people wanting this to be authentic. It isn’t and this discussion was over centuries ago.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R
Nick Sayers
Bill Brown
You said:
“…There is nothing interesting about this at all…”
But hundreds of people have responded with great interest.
You said:
“…Let’s say for the sake of argument that this so-called syntactic parallel requires it. Explain the utter silence on that issue. IF this was the grammatically sure argument that we are now being told (mostly by people who couldn’t parse a pluperfect), there would be reams of material with writer after writer saying “something is obviously missing!”…”
So you are completely dismissing a prominent world expert who has written about 200 books on Greek including six dictionaries? Several people have expressed the “hole” left in the text when the Comma is deleted. That is the other side of the same coin. One side has the grammatical issues, the other the damage to the structure of the section as a whole.
You said:
“…There isn’t. They have one guy (Gregory) whom they build upon Maynard’s nonsense claiming he recognized this argument when he didn’t…”
Actually, several people in history saw the solecism.
You said:
“…The fact Comma advocates run all over the place trying to find points to argue in their favor really says all that needs to be said about the pathetic desperation of people wanting this to be authentic. It isn’t and this discussion was over centuries ago…”
You simply dismiss the Latin evidence as nothing because of your conspiracy theories. You ignore the attestation in the early and later church writings in both Greek and Latin. You have a bias against the verse and majority text argumentation to defend your usually minority based critical text. We know you guys will drop 12 verses because of two manuscripts, B and Aleph, so even if we had 99.9% of Greek manuscripts, you would still delete the Comma if it wasn’t in B and Aleph. So your majority text concepts hold no water. I can’t help it if you willing refuse the input of world leading experts. I thought you would at least think about it, but some biases and traditions are as deeply rooted as baby sprinkling or Idolising Mary.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Azim Mamanov
Nick Sayers, would that be possible for you to ask Professor Georgios Babiniotis to comment on Hoffstetter's comment on Greek grammar related to CJ https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/.../the-comma...? A while ago Ilias Theodosis, a native Greek, refuted his arguments. In light of statement made in the video regarding the fact that many scholars claiming they know the language but acually they don't, it would be interesting to know the professor's opinion. I am not sure if it's too much to ask him about, but you might try to explain to him how important it is and how pressing the subject matter is.

The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

THETEXTOFTHEGOSPELS.COM
The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar
The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Nick Sayers
Azim Mamanov He did read through the arguments of Hofstetter and said that his former argument still stood and was sufficient to counteract those claims:
——
Dear Mr Sayers,
I have given you my own linguistic explanation which is to keep verse 5.7. which justifies verse 5.8. It is grammatical and mainly “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses.
Γ. Μπαμπινιώτης
——
He didn’t seem to want to elaborate or get caught in the weeds of that argument, so I didn’t press him further.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Nick Sayers
It is estimated that 95% of the Latin has the Comma. It is also frequently quoted in early church writings. It dropped out of the majority of Greek texts.
Babiniotis simply confirmed what Eugenius Voulgaris had already stated in 1780, that there is a solecism in the text when the Comma is omitted, and that shows the Comma was indeed omitted.
It seems many detractors are not familiar with the claims of Voulgaris, and how his claims were highly respected in Comma defence by Nolan, Darby, and many others.
Being an expert linguist, Babiniotis ADDED to that argument the concepts of the syntactic parallelism as an EVEN STRONGER argument for the inclusion of the Comma than the grammatical issues raised by Voulgaris.
Babiniotis is probably THE leading world expert in the Greek language today, so the questioning of us “appealing to authority” seems rather lame, when at times such a legitimate appeal is warranted, especially since the person has written six dictionaries and worked on approximately 200 books concerning Greek linguistics, grammar, etymology, and many other topics to do with the Greek language, in all of its historical stages.
So detractors firstly ignore the Greek speaking Voulgaris, then secondly ignore the confirmation of Voulgaris by the many Protestant writers who confirmed his concepts as genuine, and now are ignoring Greek language experts who are not only confirming those claims, but are adding even more grammatical confirmation in the form of syntactic parallelism.
It must be asked, why are you ignoring the evidence of such experts? Surely this is proof of a bias against the Comma.


  • https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R

    Hefin Jones
    Admin
    For the simple reason that a solecism is not sufficient evidence as solecisms are not uncommon in the NT. Gregory Nazanius noticed the solecism at 1 John 5:6-8 and batted away the criticism of it back in the late 4th century.
    The fact that most Aussies speak a variety of english where solecisms abound doesn't lead me to postulate that they have missing phrases and clauses that I need to find or supply for them.
    2
    • https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R

      Nick Sayers
      Hefin Jones It just depends. The critical text has a solecism at 1 Tim 3:16 that is probably the worst in the entire critical text, having a predicate without a subject. Many assume falsely that Erasmus introduced solecism into Rev 1:4, but the critics don’t know enough Greek to recognise the the noun phrase that comes after it. Many “solecisms” are called so falsely, some are Hebrew idioms carried over into Greek also.
    • Hefin Jones
      Admin
      Let's remember it is not a critic who identifies the solecism here but a native speaker of Hellenistic Greek - i.e. Gregory.
      Fair enough that identifying a solecism "just depends" (i.e. not all alleged solecisms are indeed solecisms) - but in this case we know that grammarians of the late 4th century felt that there was one at 1 Jn 5.6-8. Unlike the grammarians committed to Atticism, Gregory simply takes it in his stride and dismisses their concern.
  • https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R

    Alexander Thomson
    Hefin, and Others, should be interested in your view(s) on the translation and meaning of the final phrase, "εις το 'εν" and of the referent of "το" in that phrase, on the supposition that the Comma is spurious.

    • Hefin Jones
      Admin
      Alexander Thomson interesting question to which I would have vague thoughts
      😉
      . For now I'm going to stick with focussing on the implications of Gregory's view of the grammar of the text.

      • Alexander Thomson
        Hefin, I think it just might impact on that grammar!

      • Bill Brown
        Nick Sayers Mr Sayers - 1) so what if 95% of the Latin manuscripts have the comma (which even you use the word "estimate" to describe since even you don't know)? What about the 99% of Greek and everywhere else that DON'T have it? Even if I concede it's in Latin, John wasn't written in Latin. This is EVIDENCE it is a LATIN corruption, which it is; 2) You state detractors are not familiar with this. Excuse me, I only wrote an entire thesis on this nonsense. Simply because two guys said something doesn't make it true; 3) So what if Babinitos is the leading authority of MODERN GREEK today? I hope you realize plenty a Greek scholar and commentator and translator and scribe has the opposite conclusion, and it's not particularly close; 4) nobody is ignoring Bulgaris, we are REJECTING Bulgaris and his argument. If you're going to go the "my scholar is better than your scholar" route, why was thi argument not persuasive to A.T. Robertson in his massive grammar or to anyone else? Not only do I know Bulgaris wrote on it, I know that Nolan and Dabney quoted it and Oxlee and Falconer and Horne refuted it; 5) your appeal to expertise is quite amusing since you don't follow it. Let's face it - Bart Ehrman IS a world famous textual critic. He IS an expert in th field and so was Bruce Metzger. Guess what? They get things wrong, and you have no problem questioning the experts there. The burden is not upon ME or anyone else to explain why two oddballs are wrong, it's for you to explain the data we have that contradict those assertions because this one isn't even close. What's funny is that folks like you reject "just these two old manuscripts" for the majority (largely) for the TR and now you turn right around and want everyone else to reject every other person who worked with text in the entire history of the church except for two guys; 6) I think you guys need to get out more. So many of you think that because YOU have a bias in favor of the Comma, everyone else rejecting your very few select appeals to "expertise" is likewise biased. We're all well aware of Bulgaris. Bulgaris was wrong, and if you've actually read what he said, he didn't even put the weight on this argument that the KJOs do.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Johnny Kilgore
Hefin Jones But isn't Gregory's teaching related to the grammatical differences in v. 8b? He is arguing that these differences does not undermine the fact that the Spirit, the water, and the blood are one (consubstantial)? Does this actually support the idea that v. 8b is related to the Trinity, whether one accepts the authenticity of vv. 7b-8a at all?

  • https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R
    Hefin Jones
    Admin
    Johnny Kilgore Clearly Nazanzinus text didn't contain the comma, and further he notices the minor grammatical problem that a comma-less text produces (a solecism), but he doesn't care that it is solecism and criticises others for grammatical overprecision.

  • https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R
    Johnny Kilgore
    Hefin Jones With respect: Anytime someone starts a sentence with "Clearly" my first thought is that it might not be so clear. This passage from Gregory neither "clearly" affirms nor denies his knowledge of the comma.



  • James Willison
    Author
    Johnny Kilgore your argument frustrates me because it amounts to obfuscation. I don’t know if you are a KJV/TR only person, but this is how they argue: by muddying the waters of transmission history to ridiculous degrees.
    No, it actually is clear. He had every chance to express something was missing against the charge that an infallible Word of God was grammatically in error, but he did not do so. He clearly didn’t know about the Comma or he would have said he knew about it.
    As well, the grammarians who claimed that it was in error, also likely had no knowledge of the comma. If they did we would expect them to say as much. But they thought it sufficient to simply mention the supposed grammatical error as we know through Gregory.
    This debate between Gregory and the grammarians shows that the grammar of 1 Jn 5:7-8 is peculiar, or out of the norm from the Greek language. It does not in anyway suggest anything was missing. Grammatical gender mismatches happen commonly enough in the Hebrew OT and Greek NT that this shouldn’t be looked at as evidence of omission.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
  • Nick Sayers
    Hefin Jones In 2010, when less information was available than today, Tim Dunkin in his book Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8 wrote:
    While it seems that Gregory himself does not know of the Comma, it is also apparent that those with whom he was discussing the passage recognized a grammatical error that is present in the text if the Comma is not included. Knittel notes both the objection to verse 8 offered by Gregory's opponents on the basis of the grammatical solecism introduced by the deletion of the Comma, as well as Gregory's attempt to get around the problem by an effected indifference to the problem. He writes,
    "And what says the venerable Greek bishop in reply? He says, "It is indifferent to me whether we say treis or tria, in speaking of things of the neuter gender. Yet, surely, the Linguists of his day would scarcely have conceded that point to him. Neither Gregory, nor any other Greek, as far as I know, confirms this rule by their style of writing. Neither can we attempt to call the treis marturountes, a Hellenism: at least, St. John has distinctly shewn, that he cannot be liable to such an imputation in the present instance; nor, indeed, throughout his First Epistle."79
    Knittel's argument is simply that despite Gregory's indifference, no knowledgeable Greek writer in that day would actually have believed the argument Gregory makes. Gregory's indifference appears to be more intended to turn aside an argument from his opponents through denigration, rather than by an appeal to reason or fact. Gregory himself, as well as other Greek writers (including John himself), did not make the sort of grammatical error introduced into the Johannine text by the deletion of the Comma. Far from being discovered "lately" by Robert Dabney (as certain Critical Text supporters on various internet forums have tried to claim), recognition of the grammatical difficulty for the Critical text supporter in this passage was recognized by a Greek-speaking patristic writer over sixteen centuries ago, though he apparently did not know what to make of it.
    79 F.A. Knittel, New Criticisms of the Celebrated Text 1 John v. 7, Ed. Trans. W.A. Evanson, p. 208

  • https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R

    Johnny Kilgore
    Thanks for sharing this but the quote shows that much is not known for certain about Gregory's statement. This is why it begins with "it seems." It is intriguing. Thanks for sharing. I don't think it settles much about the comma or the grammatical argument in its favor, but worth considering.
  • https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...EYEWybr_IHQ1J1di3EBETQdLu-WPPDi02&__tn__=R]-R
    Hefin Jones
    Admin
    Solecisms are common in the NT esp. the Johannine literature.
  • Ben Smith
    Could someone skillfully make an insertion that uses parallel structure and syntax and flows with the context?
    I bet I could do it in English. In fact, I do such things all the time with my own writing when revising drafts. Internal evidence can make inclusion of short bits like this unlikely or plausible, but to say it proves it is a gross overstatement since the passage makes sense without it as well.
    4
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top