Here is your key section, replying to Gary Robert Hudson. I am adding
bold at key spots. btw, there was also a response put out in 2005 by Jeffrey D. Nachimson.
Bible Version Discussion Board
The Trinity
2002
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/the-trinity-t2632-s30.html#p31236
I was hoping to have some time to write it out a second time--so the following information is from a copyrighted (2001) work of mine--so I'm kind of nervous about having it lifted:
Nevertheless, Gary Hudson, in a very long, repetitious, smug, and abrasive work entitled 1 John 5:7 Grammatical Argument Refuted: An Answer to Dabney, Hills, Strous, & Cloud, claims that, Any known rule of syntax about the masculines among the group that control the gender over a neuter connected with them is completely irrelevant here. John in his Gospel narrative uses the masculine ekeinos (he) to refer to the neuter, Spirit in John 16:13. On this reasoning, he attempts to dismiss the mismatched gender completely apparently failing to note that the beloved Apostle John is specifically employing the masculine demonstrative pronoun
ekeinos here to agree with the masculine
parakletos, Comforter, in John 16:7. While
ekeinos is often placed in apposition to the noun it is intended to modify, it can also be used as a substantive which ought to be clear in this place where the genders would otherwise be mismatched.
Even in the preceding verses (such as
auton in v. 7 and
ekeinos, as a substantive, in v.
, the noun referred to by each pronoun is clearly and unambiguously the masculine
parakletos, Comforter, and so it should be understood contextually in vv. 13 and 14.
To pneuma tes aletheias (the Spirit of truth), ought then to be understood parenthetically. Hence, its placement in apposition to the Spirit here is contrary to Hudsons argument proving the rule rather than refuting it. Accordingly, the rest of his long, repetitious argument now begins to fall apart.
Additionally, in that same work, he notes that, It may be seen, for example, in
I Cor. 13:13, where the antecedents, faith, hope, and love (feminine genders) are followed immediately by these three (neuter, tauta).
Matt. 23:23 proves the point further, that judgment (feminine), mercy (masculine), and faith (feminine) are the implied antecedents of the demonstrative pronoun these (neuter) ought ye to have done. In this argument, hes trying to prove that the constructions f + f + f = n and f + m = n disprove this argument
which has absolutely nothing to do with the grammatical syntax at hand (m + m + m + n + n + n = m[pl]). It would be superfluous for me to address these issues. The argument hes attempting to refute
deals with masculines controlling the neuters of a group, not neuters in connection with the feminine gender, or masculine controlling the feminine gender, or feminine controlling the neuter gender, or any other construction one could conceive of (real or imagined).
He proceeds, further into the argument, to ask, Why did the Greek scribes who transmitted and copied multiple hundreds of Greek manuscripts of I John allow such a grammatical difficulty to remain in the text if it was so insuperable and very bald? Greek-speaking copyists down through the centuries likewise had this opportunity [to correct the text] but left both the omission and the genders stand in virtually every Greek manuscript of the passage, and their reason for doing so was obvious: the grammatical difficulty did not exist. Again, Hudson's argument is hasty. Greek scribes weren't so hasty to correct their texts. Additionally, the Greek writer Gregory of Nazianzius, in the fourth century, obviously noted the grammatical difficulty when he remarked to his opponent, concerning v. 8, for after using three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. (5th Oration: On the Holy Spirit). By Gregory's comments, its hard to tell whether he knew of v. 7 (he seems to remark upon the structure), or whether he knew nothing at all of it (which is surely the safer assumption) but I don't believe there's any question as to how grammatically correct he found the passage to be as it stands in our more modern texts. So the grammatical difficulty not only existed, but was obviously known.
Regarding Strouse's explanation of the article placement of en in v. 8, Hudson remarks, To is a neuter definite article, and simply means the-something neuter. This neuter article directly modifies the neuter numeral hen, meaning one. To in v. 8 neither that nor does it take any antecedent. Rather, it directly modifies the numeral one it immediately precedes (the one). The four words in Greek, eis to hen eisin (into the one are), necessarily form an idiomatic phrase which together mean, are in agreement. However, according to the rules of syntax regarding the Greek definite article in this context, as laid down by Middleton in his essay on the Greek definite article, Strouse is absolutely correct. In cases such as these, the Greek article, to, before hen (one) could be only used for one of two purposes either for hypothesis, or for reference. Hudson even seems to refute himself on this point by later providing the literal translation as, and these three into the One are. And thus, his conclusion, as found in his final paragraph, seems rather to be upon his own head.
b.w.
