Steven Avery
Administrator
Jeffrey Riddle on internal evidences
An Internal Argument for the Comma Johanneum
Jeffrey Riddle - Freb 3, 2016
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2016/02/an-internal-argument-for-comma-johanneum.html
There was a bunch of blah blah by Denver McDaniel in the comments which I answered easily, albeit briefly.
Another poster anonymous linked to this weak page which has a jimcontra comment.
http://lhim.org/blog/2011/01/24/the-johannine-comma/
=============================================
An Internal Argument for the Comma Johanneum
Jeffrey Riddle - Freb 3, 2016
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2016/02/an-internal-argument-for-comma-johanneum.html
The problem would be that the three neuter singular nouns in v. 8b would be preceded by the masculine adjective number three [treis] and the masculine plural article and participle [hoi martyrountes] and followed by the masculine plural article and masculine adjective number three [hoi treis].
If, however, the CJ were original, v. 7a would be followed instead by "in the heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit [en to ourano, ho pater, ho logos, kai to hagion pneuma]," which, with two masculine singular nouns [ho pater, ho logos] and one neuter singular adjective and noun [to hagion pneuma], would appear to fit better grammatically in the context.
This point is made by Dabney and cited in the article:
First, if it be made, the masculine article, numeral, and particle…are made to agree directly with three neuters—an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun…where, according to a well known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them....
The same point is made by Hills and cited in the article:
In the third place, the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5.8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is “personalized,” and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore, since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.
This does indeed appear to represent a substantial internal argument in favor of the originality and authenticity of the CJ.
There was a bunch of blah blah by Denver McDaniel in the comments which I answered easily, albeit briefly.
Another poster anonymous linked to this weak page which has a jimcontra comment.
http://lhim.org/blog/2011/01/24/the-johannine-comma/
=============================================
Last edited: