This is an archive of past discussions about Johannine Comma. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The "Evidences" Section of the Article

The evidences section of the article is FALSE. Et hi tres unum sunt (and these three-ones one-thing they-are) is the Johannine Comma, and et tres unum sunt (and three-ones one-thing they-are) is 1 John 5:8. Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian nor Priscillian nor Augustine quotes et hi tres unum sunt. Tertullian says qui tres unum sunt (which three-ones one-thing they-are), which are his own words, which he says regarding something that he has just said in the preceding clause. Not only does Tertullian not quote et hi tres unum sunt, but also he does not even quote et tres unum sunt. Cyprian quotes et tres unum sunt (1 John 5:8), and he applies a Trinitarian symbolic interpretation to it. Priscillian does not quote either et hi tres unum sunt or et tres unum sunt. Priscillian says et haec tria in unum sunt (and those three-things for one-thing they-are) and et haec tria unum sunt (and those three-things one-thing they-are), which are his own words, which Priscillian falsely attributes to John, thus showing a willingness of some Trinitarians in the fourth and fifth century to rewrite the words of John to suit themselves. In Contra Maximinum (427/428 AD), Augustine quotes tres sunt testes spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt, that is, Three they-are, witnesses (spirit and water and blood), and three-ones one-thing they-are, which is a quotation of 1 John 5:7-8 in the Latin text (no Johannine Comma). We know that Augustine is quoting the Latin text instead of translating the Greek text into Latin, because the Latin preposition "in" (in, on, into, for) as a translation of the Greek preposition εις (into, for) does not appear in the last clause in 1 John 5:8. The absence of the preposition in the last clause in 1 John 5:8 is a peculiarity of the Latin text. We also know that the Latin text from which Augustine is quoting 1 John 5:7-8 does not contain the Johannine Comma, because the phrase "in terra" (on earth) does not appear in the quotation, which always immediately precedes the phrase "spiritus et aqua et sanguis" (spirit and water and blood) in any Latin text that contains the Johannine Comma. Therefore, we know that the Johannine Comma has not yet been added to the Latin text. Trinitarians speak of the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in and prior to 427/428 AD, but they do not actually quote the Johannine Comma, because there is nothing to quote, because the Johannine Comma has not yet been added to the Latin text. Augustine explains and endorses the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8, according to which "spirit" and "water" and "blood" in 1 John 5:8 are three sacraments that symbolize "God" (Father) in John 4:24 and "Word" (Son) in John 1:14 and "Spirit" (Spirit Holy) in John 7:38-39, hence the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of "spirit and water and blood" in 1 John 5:8 being "Father, Word and Spirit Holy" in John 4:24, 1:14 and 7:38-39. Once Augustine had explained and endorsed that Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8, the Johannine Comma (the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8) began to be added to the Latin text, first in the margin next to 1 John 5:7-8, then in 1 John 5:7-8 after spirit, water and blood, and finally in 1 John 5:7-8 before spirit, water and blood. That is why we do NOT see pater verbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt (Father, Word and Spirit Holy, and these three-ones one-thing they-are) quoted BEFORE 427/428 AD, but we DO see it quoted AFTER 427/428 AD. This proves that John did NOT write the Johannine Comma, but that it began to be ADDED to the Latin text by Trinitarians in the FIFTH CENTURY, and that the claims to the contrary in the "Evidences" section of the article are simply FALSE. 7Jim7 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jim, I'm really not sure what you consider false, the article takes no stance, it simply points out the long and fascinating scholarly debate over the centuries, which of course involves contrasting understandings of the same evidences. If there are factual errors in the article, please be specific and we can try to discuss and, is appropriate, correct.

Overall, it sounds like you want to return to a new variation on the Karl Künstle theory that Priscillian originated the Comma, which Brooke described as "the insertion of the comma into the text of the Epistle is due to Priscillian himself". (Künstle's article is in German and has not been translated to English, there is a link given in the post.)

Anyway, I do appreciate your point. Today I was thinking that the forgery theory really needs to be a given a clear section in the article, and I am giving that top priority. Suggestion, you could write up one article stating your theory of a Priscillian forgery, and I would think that it would be a fine url for the article, perhaps with a sentence or short footnote summarizing.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I placed in a new forgery section. However, if there is some scholarship from anybody, especially like a Carson, Metzger, White, Wallace, etc. that you think is a good modern representative (if a German I can try to get it translated) please share away. One of the considerations is that the earlier discussions, on all sides, often have more depth than the writings of the last century. So often you only get a little snippet like Wallace or Ehrman, or you simply get the boiler-plate textual rundown that reads like Metzger, who was equivocal and indefinite on the question of Comma origin. Any ideas appreciated. Even some names to check. The Conybeare quote is the closest so far to represent a lot of the recent thinking. I'll be doing some checking as well.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Horrific article

I have no clear idea what this article is about because it os a horrific mess of doctrinal argument, including a reference to original article author 'mistakes' in the introduction.

From what I can ascertain the comma is a fragment of text in the Bible whose 'authenticity' is disputed. This article does not describe the doctrinal battlefield but is THE battlefield. Both sides seem to be using the article to prove that they are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.73.41 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And I agree on some points. There is a need to describe the textual and doctrinal battlefields properly, in their own sections. This could include a historical review (many major writers have been involved) as well as an apologetic and argumentation review. Including arguments that were neglected (Cyprian and the Council of Carthage even at the time of Erasmus, and often given short shrift today) and major arguments disputed (the significance of the Vulgate Prologue and its discovery in Codex Fuldensis) and arguments that failed (e.g. the claim by proponents that Stephanus had many manuscripts with the verse, an assertion that lasted till about 1810 and is still seen on the net today.)

Also worthy of mention are alternative Bible textual theories that have differing views about the value of Greek, Latin and ECW (early church writer)and internal evidences, and differing theories of the likelihood of inclusion and omission, and differing theories of textual preservation within the Bible used by the church. This last group may take the sense of pointing to a couple of articles off-site, since these issues can get wordy, beyond the scope of a Wikipedia front page. The different viewpoints toward these issues goes a long way to understanding why opinions are so different.

However, the article was originally written as agitprop against the inclusion of the verse and I have been very slow to remove any material except clear factual errors. Maybe I will be more active in this regard in the future, however it would be helpful if there was a solid tier of Wikipedia editor involvement, with some balance. One reason is that the article received some sort of Wikipedia seal of approval even in its most 'horrific' unbalanced state. That puts a damper on some of the necessary cleanup.

There are many repetitive comments of POV, such as the theory of the verse being a late insertion or interpolation into the Vulgate. They should be in one spot only, with their scholarship references given. As you pointed out, "apparently" and "possibly" arguments should be used cautiously and explained carefully (and should be repetitive, I would add).

As for the general structure of the article, that also has major problems. I may address that separately, I did above a bit in the other talk sections.

There is one section which is circular 'scholarship'. The grammatical section as it stands now is largely Jim's assertions and interpretations, mostly with no historical scholarship backing. As an example, the claim that Frederick Nolan (Jim used to claim Dabney) invented the grammatical argument. Again, if there was a higher level of Wikipedia editor involvement (is there such a thing ?) this could get hashed out nicely short of a editing battleground, which I think we are all trying to avoid. Missing from the grammatical argument is the actual fascinating history, which includes about 10 and more major players in discussion, before a few moderns. However, I have placed my emphasis first on factual correction, second on style and form and balanced format. The most important omission originally were evidences misrepresented or not given. That has been largely corrected.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven. On page 257 in his 1815 book, in footnote 193, Nolan incorrectly claims that Eugenius was the first one to make the argument that Nolan makes on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book. Nolan appears to infer this (unless Nolan is intentionally lying) from the two small out-of-context excerpts that he (Nolan) presents in footnote 193. Unless Nolan is intentionally lying, he appears not to have actually read Eugenius' letter, because Eugenius makes it clear in his letter that he thinks that the masculine gender of each articular participle is determined by natural gender, NOT by the grammatical gender of any noun in the text, and NOT by gender attraction. In a footnote on page 181 in his 1830 book, Supplement to An Inquiry, Nolan quotes a couple of lines from one of those two out-of-context excerpts, and then he says, "By the introduction of the disputed verse, an attraction is formed, by which the construction is justified, as this learned Greek was OBVIOUSLY of opinion." That language implies an INFERENCE that Nolan is drawing from the two small out-of-context excerpts. Nolan is GUESSING (if not intentionally lying), because he has NOT actually read the letter to KNOW what Eugenius actually states in the letter in its full context. Unless Nolan is intentionally lying, it appears that someone handed those two small out-of-context excerpts to Nolan, and that Nolan then INFERRED whatever he wanted to infer from those excerpts, without ever actually READING the letter to KNOW what Eugenius actually wrote. Since Nolan does not attribute his own grammatical argument on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book to anyone else, it does appear that Nolan is in fact the FIRST one to come up with the grammatical argument that he presents on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book. The 1780 letter of Eugenius is linked in footnote 37 in the Comma Johanneum article. 7Jim7 (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I could contest this with you on 10 points, however the principle one here is simply that you are posting your own interpretations and understandings (which have changed and morphed over the years) as scholarship to be accepted by Wikipedia. As I understand, that is against the Wiki guidelines. This is why I suggest that some more experienced Wiki folks may be of assistance.

We can discuss the substance of the issues on places like the TC-Alternate forum if you like, at leisure. With possible forays to b-greek and other venues. Ultimately, if your POV becomes some sort of accepted scholarship (e.g. you get a level of agreement from any of the grammatical writers today) then it could have a place on Wiki. Since, as I understand, your argument as given here simply does not belong on Wiki, I do not feel it is the proper use of my time and energy to discuss the weaknesses here.

Have you ever looked at the Wiki guidelines about trying to post your own original research and interpretations as an article or section ? Good, bad, or in between ?

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Steven. You say, "I could contest this with you on 10 points." What are those 10 points? Jim 7Jim7 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven. In archive 2, the original internal evidence section was personally sanctioned by the moderators of wikipedia. This is what it said. "In the 19th century, Frederick Nolan and Robert Dabney separately published a grammatical justification for the Comma. The words “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood,” found outside the Comma, are grammatically neuter, but here in 1 John 5:8 they are immediately preceded by the masculine phrase “the ones bearing witness.” Nolan and Dabney suggested that this was the result of grammatical gender agreement with the masculine nouns "Father" and "Word" within the Comma. As Edward F. Hills states, "If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity." [Footnote] The argument has gained little support among scholars, who do not see it as outweighing the textual analysis described above. Nor is it seen as being well-based in terms of Greek grammar, as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns never occurs in the New Testament (Matthew 15:19-20 and 23:23, John 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21 and 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:5-7 and 3:12-14). Two other grammar-based explanations have been advanced: I. Howard Marshall suggests that the gender of the phrase “the ones bearing witness” may be masculine to acknowledge the personality of the “Spirit” in the phrase “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” [Footnote]; and Daniel B. Wallace suggests that it is agreeing with “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, with whom John is equating “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8."

Then you came along and basically doubled the size of the article with your additions. In your additions, you claimed that Tertullian, Cyprian and Priscillian quoted the Comma, which is false, because Tertullian quoted only John 16:14 and John 10:30, never going anywhere near 1 John 5:8, much less the Comma, and because Cyprian quoted the last clause in 1 John 5:8, which was the same thing (word for word) that Augustine quoted, except that Augustine also quoted the rest of 1 John 5:8 as well (no Comma), and because what Priscillian quoted was not the Comma, but something else, which was neuter instead of masculine, and which placed the earthly witnesses ahead of the heavenly witnesses, and which had different earthly witnesses than the Comma, and which added a phrase not present in the Comma. None of those people quoted the Comma. Not one of them. Yet you are claiming historical scholarship in saying that those people quoted the Comma.

So then I decided that if you were going to add all of that nonsense, which (that nonsense) was NOT true, then I might as well expand the internal evidence section to include more detail, all of which (the detail) IS true, and all of which is corroborated by links to the materials that show what all those people (mentioned in the grammar section) wrote. You do not understand Greek grammar, and you do not know what those people have written on the subject. Yet here you are making authoritarian claims about something that you neither know nor understand. Jim 7Jim7 (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Jim, you should start by at least getting the facts straight. I simply quote scholarship on various sides in the article, you don't like the scholarship (e.g. that Priscillian had the heavenly witnesses verse in his Bible) so you try to blame me, even where the scholars agree !

If you want to discuss more details, again, we can find a nice, fairly-moderated forum and discuss much more. Or set up our own venue. However, Paltalk "Talk" is not designed for that function, it really is designed for specifics of the article text, you are using it in a spam-mode, to repeat what you put on a dozen of your personal blog entries around the web. You can simply give a url to any one of those dozen, so as to keep 'Talk' crisp and to the point.

And if you can make suggestions for improvement, please go ahead. I have been looking for anybody in recent decades opposed to authenticity who takes a clear stand and explanation about how the verse became so widespread in the Latin Bibles in the 400s. If you can find a good quote from a modern scholar on that, it would be appreciated, and would make a fine text or footnote.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Today I tried to address the horrific concerns of "unsigned" (barely touching any actual text, other than to give the article more logic and form and structure and organization. In one place I deleted a repetitive sentence, which listed the same versions twice. A couple of new sections now are looking to be put into a type of proper presentations.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate and presumptuous

This part The words apparently crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Early Middle Ages, "[possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist. is not accurate and is presumptuous, this should be removed unless better evidence than "apparently" and "possibly" are given.

Proof

Proof That The Johannine Comma Was Added To The Latin Text In The Fifth Century, Which Was Subsequently Translated Into Greek

These are the facts.

In the Latin text, pater verbum et spiritus sanctus et HI tres unum sunt (Father, Word and Spirit Holy, and THESE three-ones one-thing they-are) is the Johannine Comma

In the Latin text, spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres in unum sunt (spirit and water and blood, and three-ones one-thing they-are) is 1 John 5:8.

Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian nor Priscillian nor Augustine quotes the Johannine Comma, because there is nothing to quote, because the Johannine Comma does not begin to be added to the Latin text until after Augustine explains and endorses the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in Contra Maximinum in 427/428 AD.

Tertullian (died in 225 AD) says qui tres unum sunt (which three-ones one-thing they are) in Praxeum (text 121, cap. 25). Those are Tertullian’s own words, which he expresses regarding something that he has already expressed in the immediately preceding clause.

Cyprian (died in 268 AD) says et tres unum sunt (and three-ones one-thing they-are) in De Unitate Ecclesiae (paragraph 6). That is a quotation of 1 John 5:8, to which Cyprian applies a Trinitarian symbolic interpretation.

Priscillian (died in 385 AD) says et haec tria in unum sunt (and those three-things for one-thing they-are) and et haec tria unum sunt (and those three-things one-thing they-are) in Liber Apologeticus. Those are Priscillian’s own words, which he falsely attributes to John, thus showing that some Trinitarians in his day were willing rewrite what John wrote to suit themselves. Like Cyprian, Priscillian applies a Trinitarian symbolic interpretation to 1 John 5:8, but unlike Cyprian, Priscillian misquotes 1 John 5:8.

Augustine (died in 430 AD) says tres sunt testes spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt (three they-are, witnesses, spirit and water and blood, and three-ones one-thing they-are) in Contra Maximinum (liber 2, section 22, paragraph 3) in 427/428 AD. That is a quotation of 1 John 5:7-8, in which there is no Johannine Comma, because the Johannine Comma has not yet been added to the Latin text.

We know that Augustine is quoting the Latin text instead of translating the Greek text into Latin, because the Latin preposition "in" (in, on, into for) as a translation of the Greek preposition εις (into, for) does not appear in the last clause in 1 John 5:8. The absence of the preposition in the last clause in 1 John 5:8 is a peculiarity of the Latin text.

We also know that the Latin text from which Augustine is quoting 1 John 5:7-8 does not contain the Johannine Comma, because the phrase "in terra" (on earth) does not appear in the quotation, which always immediately precedes the phrase "spiritus et aqua et sanguis" (spirit and water and blood) in any Latin text that contains the Johannine Comma.

Therefore, we know that the Johannine Comma has not yet been added to the Latin text in 427/428 AD. Trinitarians do speak of a Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 prior to 427/428 AD, but Trinitarians do not actually quote the Johannine Comma prior to 427/428 AD, because there is nothing to quote, because the Johannine Comma has not yet been added to the Latin text.

In Contra Maximinum (427/428 AD), Augustine explains and endorses the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8, according to which the nouns “spirit” and “water” and “blood” in 1 John 5:8 symbolize the nouns “God” and “Word” and “Spirit” in John 4:24, 1:14 and 7:38-39, hence the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of the phrase "spirit and water and blood" in 1 John 5:8 being the phrase "Father, Word and Spirit Holy” (the Johannine Comma).

Once Augustine has explained and endorsed the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 (the Johannine Comma) in Contra Maximinum in 427/428 AD, the Johannine Comma begins to be added to the Latin text, first in the margin next to 1 John 5:7-8, then in 1 John 5:7-8 after spirit, water and blood, and finally in 1 John 5:7-8 before spirit, water and blood.

That is why we do NOT see pater verbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt (Father, Word and Spirit Holy, and these three-ones one-thing they-are / the Johannine Comma) quoted BEFORE 427/428 AD, but we DO see it quoted AFTER 427/428 AD.

What has been explained above proves that John did NOT write the Johannine Comma, but that it began to be ADDED to the Latin text by Trinitarians in the FIFTH CENTURY.

Those are the facts.

Centuries later, the altered Latin text was translated into Greek in some Greek manuscripts.

There are currently two existing Greek manuscripts containing the Johannine Comma in the text (as opposed to having it written in the margin next to 1 John 5:7-8). They are (1) Minuscule 61 (Codex Montfortianus) and (2) Minuscule 631 (Codex Ottobanianus).

Both of those Greek manuscripts show 1 John 5:7-8 to have been translated from an altered Latin text that dates no further back than the thirteenth century, because they contain chapter divisions, and because they do not contain the last clause in 1 John 5:8, both features being characteristic of a Latin text that dates no further back than the thirteenth century.

In both of those Greek manuscripts, each of the appositional nouns expressing the heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, Spirit) and the earthly witnesses (spirit, water, blood) is not preceded by an article, which is how each of those nouns always appears in the altered Latin text, whereas each of the nouns expressing the witnesses (spirit, water, blood) in the Greek text is always preceded by an article.

Therefore, 1 John 5:7-8 in both of those two Greek manuscripts (Minuscule 61 and Minuscule 631) is a Greek translation of an altered Latin text dating no further back than the thirteenth century.

Erasmus adds the Johannine Comma to the 1522 third edition of his Greek New Testament on the basis of Minuscule 61 (Codex Montfortianus), adding the appropriate articles to the nouns and adding (from the Greek text) the missing last clause in 1 John 5:8, hence the presence of the Johannine Comma in the current Received Text.

In a letter that he writes in 1780, as a justification for retaining the Johannine Comma in the Received Text, Eugenius Bulgaris used the same Augustinian explanation and endorsement of the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 (the spirit, water and blood symbolizing the Father, Word and Spirit) that fifth century Trinitarians use to justify adding the Johannine Comma to the Latin text (not yet containing the Johannine Comma) in the first place.

Eugenius thus employs the circular argument that since the Johannine Comma is originally added to the Bible on the basis of that symbolic interpretation, it should therefore be retained in the Bible on the basis of that same symbolic interpretation, despite the fact that John obviously does not write the Johannine Comma, as proven by the fact that it is added to the Bible on the basis of that Trinitarian symbolic interpretation in the first place.

At the end of his 1780 letter, Eugenius admits that his argument for retaining the Johannine Comma in the Received Text is a minor point (a jug / a two gallon vessel) instead of a major point (an amphora / a nine gallon vessel), because it does not actually require John to have written the Johannine Comma (which John obviously did not write).

The masculine words in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text do not require John to have written the Johannine Comma, because there are other plausible explanations for the masculine words in 1 John 5:8.

The masculine words in 1 John 5:8 could be a reference to the men in the witness of the men in 1 John 5:9, to whom John is symbolically equating the spirit, water and blood in 1 John 5:8.

The Spirit, water and Blood in 1 I John 5:8 could be a person and two things (masculine natural gender) instead of three things (neuter natural gender), and the masculine words in 1 John 5:8 could be a reference to that person and two things (masculine natural gender) in that verse.

The masculine words in 1 John 5:8 could be a reference to three implied persons who are not explicitly stated anywhere in the text, to whom the spirit, water and blood are being symbolically equated. That is how the Johannine Comma is originally added to the Bible (in the Latin text) in the first place (in the fifth century).

The Johannine Comma is actually the result of an original MIS-translation of the last clause in 1 John 5:8 from Greek (και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν / and the three-ones FOR the one-thing they-are) to Latin (et tres unum sunt / and three-ones one-thing they-are).

The omission of the preposition in the last clause in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text (the Greek preposition εις, which is translated as the Latin preposition “in” everywhere else in John’s first epistle, is not translated in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text) results in a statement that John never writes: “and three-ones one-thing they-are.”

Trinitarians ASSUME that this statement (which was actually a MIS-translation) has to be a reference to the three persons in the Trinity, and consequently they further ASSUME that the spirit, water and blood have to be symbolic of those three persons.

The fifth century Trinitarians are so confident in their Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 (the Johannine Comma) that they decide to add it to the Latin text.

That is how this whole thing (the Johannine Comma) gets started. It starts with a MIS-translation (an omission of a preposition) of 1 John 5:8 from Greek to Latin.

In his 1815 book, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, on pages 257, 260 and 565, Frederick Nolan (died in 1864 AD) presents a new (and false) grammatical argument and falsely attributes it to Eugenius Bulgaris.

Whereas Eugenius says in his 1780 letter that the masculine words in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text are masculine because they refer to the three persons (masculine natural gender) who are symbolized by the spirit, water and blood (three sacraments / three things / neuter natural gender), and that those three persons are the Father, Word and Spirit in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text, and whereas Eugenius admits at the end of his 1780 letter that this is a minor point, because there are other plausible explanations for the masculine words in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text, Nolan says on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book that the masculine words in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text are masculine because they agree with the masculine grammatical gender of the noun “Father” in that verse, and that the masculine words in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text are masculine because they are attracted in gender to the masculine words in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text (instead of the words in 1 John 5:8 being neuter in agreement with the neuter grammatical gender of the noun “Spirit” in that verse), and that this proves that John wrote 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text.

In footnote 193 on page 257 in his 1815 book, Nolan falsely attributes his grammatical argument to what Eugenius writes in his 1780 letter, when in fact what Eugenius writes in his 1780 letter (agreement with the natural gender [masculine] of the idea being expressed [three persons], not agreement with the grammatical gender of any noun in the text, and not gender attraction) is the opposite of what Nolan writes on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book (agreement with the grammatical gender [masculine] of a noun [Father] in the text and gender attraction, not agreement with the natural gender of the idea being expressed).

Nolan selectively quotes the part of Eugenius’ 1780 letter in which Eugenius questions why the gender is masculine instead of neuter in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text, and he selectively omits the part of Eugenius’ 1780 letter in which Eugenius explains why the gender is masculine instead of neuter in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (agreement with the natural gender [masculine] of the idea being expressed [three persons] / the personification of the spirit, water and blood), even though the explanatory part of Eugenius’ 1780 letter begins in the very next sentence after the part of Eugenius’ 1780 letter that Nolan selectively quotes.

The elements of Nolan’s (not an expert in the Greek language) grammatical argument (agreement with the grammatical gender of the noun and gender attraction) are grammatically impossible, whereas the element of Eugenius’ (an expert in the Greek language) grammatical argument (agreement with the natural gender of the idea being expressed) is grammatically correct.

A participle is a verbal adjective. Whatever is true of an adjective is also true of a participle. An articular (preceded by an article) adjective or articular participle can be either adjectival (functioning as an adjective) or substantival (functioning as a substantive).

In order for the articular participle to agree with the grammatical gender of the first subsequent noun in either of those two verses (1 John 5:7 or 1 John 5:8), the articular participle would have to function as an adjective modifying the three subsequent nouns in each of those two verses.

However, in order for that to occur, (1) the three subsequent nouns would have to be anarthrous (not preceded by an article) instead of articular in each of those two verses, and (2) the articular participle would have to agree in case, number and gender (all three) with the first subsequent noun in each of those two verses, as in Titus 2:13 (compare Revelation 6:14), neither of which occurs in either of those two verses (1 John 5:7 or 1 John 5:8).

Therefore, Nolan’s claim that the articular participle agrees with the masculine grammatical gender of the first subsequent noun (Father) in 1 John 5:7, and that the articular participle should (but does not) agree with the neuter grammatical gender of the first subsequent noun (Spirit) in 1 John 5:8, is grammatically impossible.

Also, what Nolan claims to be gender attraction in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text (an adjective modifying one group in verse 5:8 being attracted in gender to an adjective modifying a different group in verse 5:7, resulting in the wrong gender of the adjective in verse 5:8) is grammatically impossible.

As a rule, the only time that a substantive that is not a noun (such as a pronoun or a substantival article or a substantival articular adjective or a substantival articular participle) agrees with the grammatical gender of a noun in the text is when the noun in the text is a single preceding antecedent noun, as in John 2:10, John 5:39, John 6:33, John 16:13 (the noun is in verse 16:7) and 1 John 5:6.

The only exception to that rule is that a relative pronoun or demonstrative pronoun can agree in gender with a subsequent single noun to which it is connected by a linking verb, as in Ephesians 6:2 and 1 John 5:14. This is called gender attraction.

Whenever gender attraction occurs in the Greek New Testament, (1) the two words in the gender attraction are two substantives (a pronoun and a noun), NOT two adjectives (as alleged by Nolan), and (2) the two words are located in the same clause, where they are connected to each other by a linking verb, NOT in two different verses (as alleged by Nolan), and (3) the direction of the gender attraction is from the preceding word (the pronoun) to the subsequent word (the noun), NOT from the subsequent word to the preceding word (as alleged by Nolan), and (4) the two words refer to the same person, thing or group, hence the agreement in gender, NOT to two different groups (as alleged by Nolan), and (5) the gender of the attracted word (the pronoun) is the correct gender, NOT the wrong gender (as alleged by Nolan).

Since what Nolan alleges to be gender attraction in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text is the OPPOSITE of gender attraction in EVERY way (in ALL 5 ways), and since the OPPOSITE of a thing CANNOT be the thing, what Nolan alleges to be gender attraction in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text, which is the OPPOSITE of gender attraction in EVERY way, CANNOT be gender attraction.

That is why John Oxlee (died in 1854), a linguist renowned in his day for being familiar with over 100 languages, including Greek, says on page 138 in the 1822 (volume 4) edition of the Christian Remembrancer journal, “If we may not be permitted to personify the spirit, the water and the blood when the seventh verse is omitted, how, I ask, shall we be any more at liberty to do so when it is actually thrust in? I am aware that the learned Bishop of Saint David’s [Thomas Burgess at that time] has said, by an attraction, but to that I may reply in one word, that the Greek tongue acknowledges NO SUCH ATTRACTIONS AS THIS, nor any other tongue whatever with which I am in the least acquainted.”

That is also why Eugenius (an expert in the Greek language) says nothing either about agreement with the grammatical gender of a noun or about gender attraction in his 1780 letter. Eugenius does not mention either of those two things in regard to 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text, because both of those two things are grammatically impossible in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text.

Since the three subsequent nouns are articular instead of anarthrous in 1 John 5:7 and 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text, the articular participle has to be a substantival articular participle in each of those two verses.

Since the substantival articular participle is not preceded by a single antecedent noun in either of those two verses, it is required to agree with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed in each of those two verses, which is exactly what occurs in each of those two verses.

The substantival articular participle in 1 John 5:7 is plural masculine for persons because the Father, Word and Spirit in that verse are three persons (masculine natural gender).

The substantival articular participle in 1 John 5:8 is plural masculine for a person and things because the Spirit, water and Blood in that verse are a person and two things (masculine natural gender).

OR

The substantival articular participle in 1 John 5:8 is plural masculine for persons because the Spirit, water and Blood in that verse symbolize (are figuratively equated to) three persons (masculine natural gender).

The three persons symbolized by the Spirit, water and Blood (personification) in 1 John 5:8 could be the men in the witness of the men in 1 John 5:9 (Johann Bengel), or the Father, Word and Spirit in 1 John 5:7 (Eugenius Bulgaris), or three persons implied (but not explicitly stated) anywhere in the text.

An articular noun (or nouns) that is added as a modifier to a substantive (either a noun or a word or phrase that is used in place of a noun, such as a pronoun or a substantival article or a substantival articular adjective or a substantival articular participle) to provide additional information is called an appositional noun.

An appositional articular noun (or nouns) is required to agree in grammatical case with the preceding substantive to which it is added, but it is not required to agree in number with it, and it cannot agree in gender with it, because the gender of a noun (the appositional articular noun) is predetermined by the grammatical gender of the noun, which never changes.

Since the direction of modification and agreement in an appositional construction is from the appositional articular noun (or nouns) to the preceding substantive to which it is added, the grammatical gender of the appositional articular noun (or nouns) is irrelevant to the gender of the preceding substantive to which it is added, as in Matthew 23:23, John 16:13, 1 John 2:16, 1 John 5:7 and 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text.

The only thing that Nolan proves on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book is (1) that he does not know the difference in grammatical structure between an adjectival articular participle (subsequent anarthrous nouns) and a substantival articular participle (subsequent articular nouns), and (2) that he does not know what appositional articular nouns are, and (3) that he does not know what gender attraction is, and (4) that he does not know what Eugenius says in his 1780 letter.

Either that, or Nolan is intentionally lying about the grammar and about Eugenius.

7Jim7 (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Jim, I think you do not understand how to use the talk page on Wikipedia. It is not designed for your POV and long screeds, or new proposed original analysis, or to try to "prove" one POV. It is designed for discussion, and how to write a good encylopedia-style article. As for discussion of your views, I previously recommended various forums where such a discussion could be held.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Steven. You say in the Horrific Article section, "I could contest this with you on 10 points." What are those 10 points? Jim. 7Jim7 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Steven. You say, "I previously recommended various forums where such a discussion could be held." The TC-Alternative Forum discusses manuscripts. However, the evidence regarding how the Comma came to be added to the Latin text is not a manuscript issue, because all of that occurred prior the oldest manuscripts. Rather, it's an issue regarding what the clergy wrote about it from the beginning of the third century to the end of the fifth century. The only thing to say about the two Greek manuscripts containing the Comma has already been stated. One guy at the TC-Alternate Forum mentioned that the Comma was brought into the Greek text from the altered Latin text, which is a fact. They appear to understand this as a fact over there in that forum, and correctly so. B-greek is not an option for me, because they require me to display my full name and email address on the Internet, which I am unwilling to do. Besides, they dealt with the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 at b-greek many years ago, concluding that the articular participle was substantival, and that the three subsequent articular nouns were appositional, which says it all. It's a grammatical fact that the grammatical gender of an appositional noun (or nouns) has no bearing on the gender of any word preceding or following the appositional clause. That fact by itself refutes Nolan's argument. Is there another discussion forum in which you wish to discuss this? Also, what are those 10 points? Jim 7Jim7 (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Longest Article

Hi Steven,

There isn't a day that goes by in which you do not add something to this article. Are you going for a record (the longest article in wikipedia)?

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My goal has been simply to make it a helpful article, with good supporting documentation. The length is mostly in the notes, the main section is kept relatively trim. If you have some Wiki guidelines on length, share away. And if you see any errors in the various quotes and references, please share away.

Thanks.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussions

This problem has arisen before, and I would like to make this clear to Jim. A notice with a url was placed at the top of the Portuguese Comma Johanneum talk section leading to a Wikipedia instruction page (I was doing a little general research into an article by a scholar named Jaubert and it took me to the site.) Google translate worked surprisingly well in this case, although we probably can find the same in English directly.

WP: FORUM

Main article: Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a forum for discussions Please remember that Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia. Do not demand changes in their country, society and the world through Wikipedia, or seek medical attention in an article related to medicine. Keep in mind that the discussion pages of articles serve to discuss possible improvements to the articles themselves, ie are not pages of general discussion on the topic of the articles, nor serve to obtain personal assistance, directions or assistance. Your misuse of the discussion pages can be seen as abuse of public space.

Jim, you have been baiting me to try to get into involved discussions here. I told you it is not the place. I referenced possible alternatives, which you simply ignored. Let us allow that you did not know and understand the Wikipedia policies, and move on from there. And please do not spam the Talk section any more with your long interpretations (of material which it is my opinion that you simply do not understand). In fact, if it is appropriate to Wiki policies, my request is that you remove them from this Talk section. Feel free to give a url in Talk to one of your blogs with that text. Thanks.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven,

That example that you provided said that the MAIN ARTICLE is not a forum for discussion. It didn’t say anything about the TALK PAGE of the article not being a forum for discussion.

If you look at the archived content of this talk page, you will discover that a few years ago, I discussed Greek grammar in depth on this talk page, discussing it with the Wikipedia moderators themselves on this talk page, and they (the moderators) though that it was perfectly acceptable for me to do so.

Therefore I am NOT deleting anything from this talk page. If you delete the Proof section of this talk page, I will complain to the moderators, and they (the moderators) will decide what can and cannot be discussed on this talk page.

This is what I said on this talk page for this article.

Hi, Steven. You say in the Horrific Article section, "I could contest this with you on 10 points." What are those 10 points? Jim. 7Jim7 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Steven. You say, "I previously recommended various forums where such a discussion could be held." The TC-Alternative Forum discusses manuscripts. … B-greek is not an option for me, because they require me to display my full name and email address on the Internet, which I am unwilling to do. … Is there another discussion forum in which you wish to discuss this? Also, what are those 10 points? Jim 7Jim7 (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to what YOU said on THIS talk page. YOU are the one who referred to the 10 points and to the TC-Alternative and b-greek forums as places for a discussion.

Since you don’t want to discuss your 10 points here on this talk page, and since I don’t want to discuss your 10 points either at TC-Alternative or at b-greek (for the reasons that I gave above), then I suggest that you and I discuss your 10 points at the KJV Only Forum in the Forums section of Carm.org. Do you agree?

Alternatively, we could discuss it at my talk page here at Wikipedia (linked below).

Jim 7Jim7 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Keep in mind that the discussion pages of articles serve to discuss possible improvements to the articles themselves, ie are not pages of general discussion on the topic of the articles, nor serve to obtain personal assistance, directions or assistance."

That is a reference to these talk pages, not the main page. Please read carefully. You are using the Talk page to spam again and again your same "original" material that you have on a dozen blog pages. By spamming that material into here, you are baiting me to get involved in a discussion here. All I will do here is give a one-sentence opinion of the material, and then move on. Unless I feel that a specific sentence or paragraph in the Main Page article is to be changed that relates to your POV. Then your supporting writing may be relevant and it could be picked up off any of the dozen blog posts.

TC-Alternate is not at all limited to manuscripts, we could likely, cordially, have a discussion there, say one post every two days (or five days, the goal is quality, not pressure, we can also limit, say 500 words per post) alternating, if Ben (the owner) approves. There are a few other pro forma mods there, including myself, but that is only to upload files, not to watch or approve posts. Moderation is very light, and basically for tone. The forum is quiet right now, and mixed in viewpoint and has many posts on the heavenly witnesses over the years. I also have a forum that could be woken up for this purpose.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven,

As I said, if you examine the archived content of this talk page, you will discover that a few years ago, I discussed Greek grammar in detail, which (Greek grammar) had not yet been included in the main article, and the moderators, with whom I was discussing the Greek grammar, had no problem at all with that discussion on this talk page of this article.

What I said back then on this talk page was NOT a violation of Wikipedia rules regarding talk pages, and what I have said now on this talk page likewise is NOT a violation of Wikipedia rules regarding talk pages.

“There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page

I have already told you that I don’t want to discuss your 10 points either at TC-Alternative or at b-greek, and I have suggested that you and I discuss your 10 points either at the CARM discussion forum or at my personal talk page here at Wikipedia. But you don’t want to do that.

That tells me is that you don’t really want to discuss it. I’m very curious to know what your 10 points are. If you don’t want to discuss it, then you can simply list your 10 points, and leave it at that. That way, my curiosity will be satisfied, and you won’t have to discuss it.

In the Proof section of this talk page, all I do is state the facts. I state the actual Latin text of the Johannine Comma, and I state the actual Latin text of 1 John 5:8. Then I state what is actually stated in Latin by Tertullian and by Cyprian and by Priscillian and by Augustine. The Latin words themselves PROVE that the Johannine Comma (in Latin) is NOT quoted by any of those four persons.

Then I concede that the Johannine Comma IS quoted (in Latin) AFTER Augustine’s explanation and endorsement of the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 (the interpretation that the spirit, water and blood symbolize the Father, Word and Spirit) in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD.

The quoting of all of those various things that are stated in Latin PROVES that the Johannine Comma is NOT quoted (in Latin) by anyone until AFTER Augustine, which in turn PROVES that the Johannine Comma was NOT in the Latin text until AFTER Augustine, which PROVES that the Johannine Comma began to be ADDED to the Latin text in the 5TH CENTURY. That is NOT my opinion. That is a FACT.

But instead of calling attention to the FACT of the Latin words themselves in the main article, you carefully avoid those Latin words, and you instead state in the main article that some people say that the Johannine Comma was in the Latin text before Augustine, and that other people say that it was not. That way, by AVOIDING the actual Latin words, you are able to maintain a level of UNCERTAINTY in the mind of the reader in regard to whether or not the Johannine Comma was in the Latin text before Augustine.

In contrast, if you actually quoted all of the Latin words, allowing the reader to see what was actually quoted in Latin before Augustine, and what was actually quoted in Latin by Augustine, and what was actually quoted in Latin after Augustine, then the reader would EASILY see that the Johannine Comma was NOT actually quoted in Latin until AFTER Augustine, which would invariably lead the reader to conclude that the Johannine Comma was ADDED to the Latin text AFTER Augustine.

But you won’t do that, will you, because doing so would not leave the reader with the impression that you want the reader to have.

There is nothing objective or factual about what you have chosen to do in the main article, namely, keeping from the reader the actual facts regarding what was actually quoted in Latin BEFORE Augustine (no Johannine Comma), versus what was actually quoted in Latin BY Augustine (no Johannine Comma), versus what was actually quoted in Latin AFTER Augustine (the Johannine Comma).

So you can criticize what I have written in the Proof section of this talk page all you want. I know that what I have stated in that section is factual, and I know that you have carefully avoided those facts in what you have said in the main article, because those facts refute the idea that you want to the reader to have.

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You simply do not know the difference between a research encyclopedia article, and your attempt to use Wikipedia as a tool to spin your private theories about the text and find a public forum greater than your blog pages. You got away with this a few years ago, mostly because of the lack of background of most readers and editors, and the fact that (except for manuscript listing courtesy of Leszek, and arguably Erasmus) the article suffered from scholarship vacancy and lack of organization. Then you made your grammatical section a lot worse, recently, even though it had raised red flags years back.

Here, let us take one simple question. You have de facto accused Frederick Nolan of being a liar. Simply because he understands Eugenius in the same way as many other writers, but different than your construct.

So I want you to list the scholars who have accused Nolan of being a liar, or even grossly wrong in representing Eugenius. The list of actual scholars, not your spin POV. Their quotes accusing Nolan, not how you think a and b and c should be interpreted.

Remember, for the first years that you accused Nolan, you did not even know of Eugenius. You used to accuse Dabney and Nolan of having invented the grammatical issue, which is rather a :). Actually you first accused Dabney (c.1875) and Edward Freer Hills (c 1950) and did not even know of Nolan ! When you read Nolan, Dabney was no longer the culprit, you went to Plan B, which included dropping Hills.

And remember I told you that the grammar even comes up in Erasmus, and you obviously never checked anything about Wolfius, or read Knittel, Middleton and others 50 years and more before Dabney. So you got boxed in by your earlier railing accusations, made in gross ignorance. When you finally learned about Eugenius, you had to come up with a Plan C, which is your Wiki-spam above, which should be orphaned out to your dozen blogs.

Let us read your list of scholars and quotes accusing Nolan.

Similarly you can list your scholars who do not think the heavenly witnesses was in the Bible of Priscililan, the Jim theory.

Try to understand, Jim. The basic issue is not whether all your theories and accusations about Nolan and Dabney and Eugenius and others are right or wrong (I believe you are grossly in error in many places, again and again. A while back I showed some instances on a forum, such as your not even knowing the order of verses of Bengel. And your theories of three men in verse nine effecting the verse, which may still be part of your POV "research" !

The basic issue is that you are abusing Wikipedia, using Wiki as a place to post your own original "research" and conclusions. This is simply wrong. Then you try to cover this charade by long spam posts. You are posting very errant individual analysis and conclusions as Wiki fact, and this is a dishonor to the nature of Wikipedia. Even if your analysis were breakthrough research of great import, this is not the right place and manner.

Currently I am not posting on CARM and it is a poor venue. And I do not consider your Talk pages appropriate. Since you refuse everything else, I will use this one simple example above.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven,

Are your 10 points included in what you just said above? If not, please list them.

I don't remember what I may have said about Bengel in the past. All I know is that he chose to place 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text between 1 John 5:6 and 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text.

I don't know what others may have said about Nolan. I only know what anyone who knows anything about Greek grammar knows, which is that each articular participle in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text is a substantive (the verb's subject), not an adjective, and that it is required to agree with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed, and that the three subsequent articular nouns in each verse are appositional nouns that have been added as modifiers to the substantival articular participle to provide additional information, and that the grammatical gender of an appositional noun (or nouns) never has any bearing on the gender of any word that precedes or follows the appositional clause, and that gender attraction in the Greek New Testament is limited to a relative pronoun or demonstrative pronoun agreeing with the grammatical gender of a single subsequent postcedent noun to which it is connected by a linking verb, all of which is the opposite of what Nolan says.

What is stated about the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 by Bengel and by Eugenius and by Wallace is consistent with what I have said above. All of them (Bengel, Eugenius and Wallace) understand that each articular participle in 1 john 5:7-8 agrees with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed, and that the grammatical gender of each appositional articular noun is irrelevant to the gender of each word preceding or following the appositional clause, and that there is no gender attraction in1 John 5:7-8.

I can provide numerous corroborating examples from the Greek New Testament in support of everything that I say, whereas Nolan could not (and did not) provide any corroborating example from the Greek New Testament in support of anything that he said, because there is no such corroborating example, because everything that Nolan says about the Grammar is incorrect.

Either Nolan did not understand Greek grammar, yet he pretended to understand it, in which case he was intentionally lying about his knowledge of Greek grammar, or Nolan was intentionally lying about the grammar. Which of those two things is true of Nolan is uncertain. The only thing that is certain is that everything that Nolan says about the grammar is incorrect.

No one with an understanding Greek grammar ever agreed with Nolan. Each person who ever agreed with Nolan did so because he or she was as ignorant of Greek grammar as Nolan was. Each person who agreed with Nolan simply parroted Nolan without understanding what he or she was saying.

Please list your 10 points, if you have not already done so.

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Erasmus misplaced, duplication

There is a great deal of the Erasmus section that has little or no direct bearing on 1 John 5:7, and duplicates what is either in the Desiderius_Erasmus or Textus Receptus articles, both of which are reasonsable, with strengths and a few weaknesses. I suggest we carefully combine the sections, shortening this Erasmus section, bringing anything over to those articles that is missing, and giving proper Wiki-urls to the appropriate sections.

And I would not modify anyone's writing in the talk page (exceptions, stuff like vulgarity and islamic vandalism, which has not occurred on the Talk page) I am just suggesting that you might want to adhere to Wiki specifications.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the venue to present original research and interpretation

Thank you for confirming that you have not one single scholar to offer for your two theories. Attacking Frederick Nolan's understanding of Eugenius or Priscillian not having the heavenly witnesses in his Bible.

See right below, let's add requesting any scholar accusing Edward Hills, (Phd from Harvard), of pretending to understand Greek, your published accusation. (In one post in 2005 you wrote only contra Hills, you may not have been aware of his background and credentials.)

Since this is not a discussion forum, I simply chose those two as examples. You simply make a mockery of Wikipedia by spamming your new, flawed and unusual theories into the body of the Wikipedia article. And wasting time in the Talk section by repeating the same arguments that exist in your dozen blogs.

The rest can continue if you ever dialog on a scholarly forum, or even offer your interpretations and accusations in such a venue. This has never been done, and your excuse that you insist on anonymity is not very helpful. And the flim-flam history of how you continually changed your accusations can be a point of humor.

For documentation, here is your earlier 2007 attempt, attacking Dabney and Edward Freer Hills, Harvard PhD, when you obviously had read nothing on the topic, and understood less "Dabney and Hills pretended to have an understanding of the Greek language that they obviously didn't have." - Jim's Blog: The Johannine Comma (Note: I have saved the page, in case you try to make an update). You were accusing without knowing one iota even of the Eramsus reference, Wolfius, Knittel, the Eugenius letter published by Matthaei, Nolan, William Carpenter, William Craig Brownlee and many, many others. All of whom preceded Dabney and Hills. In fact, in your ignorance, you used phrases like "hack" to describe the scholars with whom you disagreed.

Look, I can not prevent you from absurd interpretations that you keep hidden from scholarly study through anonymity. I can make some efforts to be sure that the Wikipedia contributors and editors are informed of the game.

As I said above, even if your understanding was a scholarly breakthrough, it would have no place in the Wikipedia article, based on Wikipedia guidelines and procedures, since it would simply be your own new and original interpretations. Technically, even providing a link to such new unexamined "scholarship" would be very dubious, although personally I could see it, if done in an informative manner ("one anonymous internet poster , 'Jim', has theorized that the grammatical argument was manufactured by Greek hacks and that Priscillian should not be considered as having the heavenly witnesses in his Bible..."). This would give recognition to your efforts in setting up a dozen blogs and lots of turgid forum posts to propagate the theories. You could, at least, using a pseudonym if you like, try to make a Journal submission to JBL or Evangelical Quarterly, or .... something.

Note: If any Wikipedia editor requests a more detailed historical and analytical study, I will be quite happy to go into far more detail. My goal in going into this depth above is not to convince Jim, I have too much experience with his writing for that. The goal is simply to make clear to the Wikipedia community what occurred on the Comma Johanneum page.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven,

I refer you back to what I said above (00:58, 2 November 2012). Bengel, Eugenius and Wallace, people who actually understand Greek grammar, agree with what I say. The others listed by you either do not understand Greek grammar or are intentionally lying about the grammar. I provide numerous corroborating examples from the Greek New Testament in support of what I say about the grammar, which I can do because what I say about the grammar is correct. Neither Nolan nor Dabney nor any of the others that you mention provides any corroborating example from the Greek New Testament in support of what he says about the grammar, because he cannot provide it, because there is no such corroborating example, because what he says about the grammar is incorrect. Just as you avoid the actual Latin words written by Tertullian, Cyprian Priscillian and Augustine, because those Latin words reveal the truth regarding how the Father, Word and Spirit came to be added to the Latin text in the 5th century (after Augustine), which you avoid, likewise you avoid examples from the Greek New Testament, because those examples reveal the truth regarding Greek grammar, which you avoid.

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You refused to address my questions, (such as one scholar who claims the heavenly witnesses were not in the Bible of Priscillian or that A, B, C like Nolan were lying or grossly ignorant of Greek grammar) and simply spam repeat your own assertions that dozens of writers are ignorant or lying and you have the great wisdom. To support this you use your own blog spam that has never been published, discussed or accepted by any scholars.

Again, if you feel you have better insight into this question than dozens of solid scholars, I implore you to take your new insights and understandings, never before expressed, into a paper of some sort, so that you may be able then to legitimately quote these ideas on Wikipedia.

I have no intention of debating these issues with you here on Wikipedia, since it is against the Wiki purpose for Talk. Especially after your many historical blunders and having seen that you are set in stone in error. And knowing that the foundational issue is not your logical and historical errors, but the Wiki guidelines on research. Any Wikipedia editor who is researching the question is welcome to ask me for more details on any aspect of the issues.

And the scholars I quote frequently discuss the actual Latin words of Tertullian, Cyprian, Priscillian and Augustine, you can find lots of discussion in the text and links supplied. In your anonymous state you simply are not involved in textual discussions in any scholarship circles and do not even understand how textual analysis of church writer quotes and allusions work.

At the moment, there is lots to improve in the article other than being concerned with the grammatical sinkhole.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I refer you back to what I said above (00:58, 2 November 2012, and 08:43, 2 November 2012). Bengel, Eugenius and Wallace, people who actually understand Greek grammar, agree with what I say. Wallace also agrees with what I say about the Comma not being quoted in the Latin until after Augustine. My scholars are real scholars. Eugenius, Nolan's own expert, the person whom Nolan names in an attempt to steal credibility for himself, refutes what Nolan says. Yet you side with Nolan instead of siding with Eugenius (the real scholar). 7Jim7 (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This Is How Greek Grammar Works

Hi Steven,

In the verses quoted below (from the Received Text), the three letters in [brackets] express the case, number and gender (in that order) of the preceding word. The first letter is either “n” for nominative or “a” for accusative or “g” for genitive or “d” for dative. The second letter is either “s” for singular or “p” for plural. The third letter is either “n” for neuter or “m” for masculine or “f” for feminine.

A participle is a verbal adjective. Whatever is true of an adjective is also true of a participle.

An articular (preceded by an article) adjective or articular participle can be either adjectival (functioning as an adjective) or substantival (functioning as a substantive).

A substantive is either a noun or a word or phrase that functions in place of a noun, such as a pronoun or a substantival article or a substantival articular adjective or a substantival articular participle.

In order for an articular adjective or articular participle to agree with the grammatical gender of a subsequent noun, the articular adjective or articular participle must function as an adjective modifying a subsequent noun or nouns.

In order for an articular adjective or articular participle function as an adjective modifying a subsequent single noun, the subsequent single noun must be anarthrous (not preceded by an article) instead of articular, and the articular adjective or articular participle must agree in case, number and gender (all three) with the subsequent single anarthrous noun.

(Received Text) John 6:57 … ο ζων πατηρ …

6:57 … the living [nsm] Father [nsm] …

(Received Text) 1 Timothy 1:11 … του μακαριου θεου …

1:11 … of-the blessed [gsm] God [gsm] …

In order for an articular adjective or articular participle to function as an adjective modifying subsequent multiple nouns, the subsequent multiple nouns must be anarthrous instead of articular, and the articular adjective or articular participle must agree in case, number and gender (all three) with the first subsequent anarthrous noun.

(Received Text) Titus 2:13 … την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν …

2:13 … the blessed [asf] hope [asf] and appearance [asf] …

Compare Revelation 6:14.

(Received Text) Revelation 6:14 … και παν ορος και νησος …

6:14 … and every [nsn] mountain [nsn] and island [nsf] …

If the subsequent nouns are articular instead of anarthrous, or if the articular adjective or articular participle does not agree in case, number and gender (all three) with the first subsequent noun, then the articular adjective or articular participle cannot function as an adjective, in which case it has to function as a substantive.

In Matthew 23:23 and 1 John 5:7 and 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text, the subsequent nouns are articular instead of anarthrous, and the articular adjective or articular participle does not agree in case, number and gender (all three) with the first subsequent noun. Therefore, the articular adjective or articular participle in each of those three verses cannot function as an adjective, in which case it has to function as a substantive.

A substantival articular adjective or substantival articular participle that is not preceded by a single antecedent noun has to agree with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed.

(Received Text) Matthew 15:19 … διαλογισμοι … φονοι μοιχειαι πορνειαι κλοπαι ψευδομαρτυριαι βλασφημιαι 20 ταυτα εστιν τα κοινουντα τον ανθρωπον …

15:19 … thoughts [npm] … murders [npm], adulteries [npf], fornications [npf], thefts [npf], false-witnesses [npf], blasphemies [npf]. 20 These-things it-is [verb] the-things defiling [npn for things because thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false-witnesses and blasphemies are things] the man …

(Received Text) John 3:6 το γεγεννημενον εκ της σαρκος σαρξ εστιν …

3:6 The-thing having-been-born [nsn for a thing because flesh is a thing] out-of the flesh, flesh [nsf] it-is [verb] …

(Received Text) 1 Corinthians 1:27 … ινα τους σοφους καταισχυνη …

1:27 … so-that the wise-ones [apm for persons] he-would-shame [verb] …

(Received Text) 1 John 5:5 τις εστιν ο νικων τον κοσμον ει μη ο πιστευων οτι ιησους εστιν ο υιος του θεου

5:5 Who is-he [verb], the-one conquering [nsm for a person] the world, if not the-one believing [nsm for a person] that Jesus he-is [verb] the Son of-the God?

A substantival articular adjective or substantival articular participle that is preceded by a single antecedent noun agrees in number and gender with the single preceding antecedent noun (instead of agreeing with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed).

(Received Text) John 2:10 … πρωτον τον καλον οινον τιθησιν και οταν μεθυσθωσιν τοτε τον ελασσω …

2:10 … first the excellent wine [asm] he-would-place [verb], and whenever they-would-be-drunk [verb], then the worse [asm] …

(Received Text) John 5:39 … τας γραφας … εκειναι εισιν αι μαρτυρουσαι περι εμου …

5:39 … the Scriptures [apf] … those-things they-are [verb] the-things bearing-witness [npf] regarding me.

(Received Text) 1 John 5:6 … και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν …

5:6 … And the Spirit [nsn] it-is [verb] the-thing bearing-witness [nsn] …

Since the substantival articular adjective or substantival articular participle in Matthew 23:23 and in 1 John 5:7 and in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is not preceded by a single antecedent noun, it has to agree with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed.

(Received Text) Matthew 23:23 … και αφηκατε τα βαρυτερα του νομου ΤΗΝ κρισιν και ΤΟΝ ελεον και ΤΗΝ πιστιν ταυτα εδει ποιησαι …

… and you-dismissed the weightier-things [neuter for things because judgment, mercy and faith are three things] of-the Law—THE judgment [feminine] and THE mercy [masculine] and THE faith [feminine]. These-things [neuter for things] it-was-necessary to-do …

(Received Text) 1 John 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω Ο πατηρ Ο λογος και ΤΟ αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

5:7 Because three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness [masculine for persons because the Father, Word and Spirit are three persons] in the heaven—THE Father [masculine], THE Word [masculine] and THE Holy Spirit [neuter]—and these the three-ones [masculine for persons] one-thing they-are.

(Received Text) 1 John 5:8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη ΤΟ πνευμα και ΤΟ υδωρ και ΤΟ αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

5:8 And three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness [masculine for a person and things because the Spirit, water and Blood are a person and two things] on the earth—THE Spirit [neuter] and THE water [neuter] and THE Blood [neuter]—and the three-ones [masculine for a person and things] for the one-thing they-are.

OR

(Received Text) 1 John 5:8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη ΤΟ πνευμα και ΤΟ υδωρ και ΤΟ αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν 9 … την :μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων λαμβανομεν …

5:8 And three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness [masculine for persons because the Spirit, water and Blood symbolize (are figuratively equated to) three persons (personification), the three persons most likely being the MEN in the witness of the MEN] on the earth—THE Spirit [neuter] and THE water [neuter] and THE Blood [neuter]—and the three-ones [masculine for persons] for the one-thing they-are. 9 … the witness of-the MEN we-accept …

If the substantival articular adjective or substantival articular participle has to agree with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed in Matthew 23:23 and in 1 John 5:7 and in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (quoted above), the same as in Matthew 15:19-20 and in John 3:6 and in 1 Corinthians 1:27 and in 1 John 5:5 in the Received Text (quoted above), then what are those three articular nouns following each substantival articular adjective or substantival articular participle in Matthew 23:23 and in 1 John 5:7 and in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text?

Those are appositional articular nouns.

An articular noun (or nouns) that is added as a modifier (as if it were an adjective) to a substantive (either a noun or a word or phrase that functions in place of a noun, such as a pronoun or a substantival article or a substantival articular adjective or a substantival articular participle) to provide additional information is called an appositional noun (or nouns).

An appositional (added) articular noun (or nouns) is required to agree in grammatical case with the preceding substantive to which it is added, but it is not required to agree in number with it, and it cannot agree in gender with it, because the gender of a noun (the appositional noun) is predetermined by the grammatical gender of the noun, which never changes.

Since the direction of modification and agreement in an appositional construction is from the appositional articular noun (or nouns) to the preceding substantive to which it is added, the preceding substantive does not agree in any way with the subsequent appositional (added) articular noun (or nouns). Therefore, the grammatical gender of an appositional (added) articular noun (or nouns) has no bearing on the gender of any word that precedes or follows the appositional (added) clause, which is exactly what we see in Matthew 23:23 and in 1 John 5:7 and in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (quoted above).

A fourth example of this is found in 1 John 2:16 in the Received Text. The only difference is that the preceding substantive is a substantival article instead of being a substantival articular adjective or substantival articular participle.

(Received Text) 1 John 2:16 οτι παν το εν τω κοσμω Η επιθυμια της σαρκος και Η επιθυμια των οφθαλμων και Η αλαζονεια του βιου ουκ εστιν εκ του πατρος αλλ εκ του κοσμου εστιν

2:16 Because every the-thing [nsn (collective singular) for things because lust, lust and pride are three things] in the world—THE lust [nsf] of-the flesh and THE lust [nsf] of-the eyes and THE pride [nsf] of-the life—not it-is [verb] out-of the Father, but out-of the world it-is [verb].

Nolan says that the PLURAL articular participle (the-ones bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text functions as an adjective modifying the three subsequent SINGULAR ARTICULAR nouns, and that it therefore agrees with the grammatical gender (masculine) of the first subsequent ARTICULAR noun (the Father).

That is grammatically impossible, because the three subsequent nouns are ARTICULAR instead of anarthrous, and because the PLURAL articular participle does NOT agree in case, number and gender (all three) with the first subsequent SINGULAR noun.

Nolan says that the PLURAL articular participle (the-ones bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text functions as an adjective modifying the three subsequent SINGULAR ARTICULAR nouns, and that it therefore should (but does not) agree with the grammatical gender (neuter) of the first subsequent ARTICULAR noun (the Spirit).

That is grammatically impossible, because the three subsequent nouns are ARTICULAR instead of anarthrous, and because the PLURAL articular participle would NOT agree in case, number and gender (all three) with the first subsequent SINGULAR noun even if the articular participle were neuter instead of masculine.

The only thing that Nolan’s grammatical argument proves is that Nolan does not understand Greek grammar.

It proves (1) that Nolan does NOT know the difference between an ADJECTIVAL articular participle (subsequent ANARTHROUS nouns) and a SUBSTANTIVAL articular participle (subsequent ARTICULAR nouns), and it proves (2) that Nolan does NOT know what APPOSITIONAL (added) articular nouns are.

Either that, or Nolan is intentionally lying about the grammar.

The truth is that the SUBSTANTIVAL articular participle (because the subsequent nouns are articular instead of anarthrous), which is NOT preceded by a single antecedent noun, is REQUIRED to agree with the NATURAL number and gender of the idea being expressed in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text and in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text, and that the three subsequent ARTICULAR nouns in each of those two verses are APPOSITIONAL (added) articular nouns, whose grammatical genders have NO BEARING on the gender of any word preceding or following the APPOSITIONAL clause, as Bengel and Eugenius and Wallace (and I) have stated.

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

More private "scholarship" off of the Jim blog. Discussion relevant to "Wikipedia is not the venue.."

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The numerous corroborating New Testament examples prove the grammar. There is nothing private about those examples. 7Jim7 (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Further Proof That Nolan Does Not Understand Greek Grammar

Frederick Nolan (1784-1864), Supplement to An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (1830), Pages 183-185 (the language in [brackets] is added by me for clarification):

… These arguments [Nolan’s grammatical argument], it must be granted, have little effect if … a new assailant [John Oxlee] … be entitled to any attention. By this polemic, we are gravely assured … that the neuter substantives are not taken in concordance with the masculine adjectives, but depend upon them by an ellipsis of κατα. … in which the three nouns, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα, are not considered as being of the nominative, but of the accusative case, and as severally governed by κατα, understood [accusatives of reference]. … the first principles of the language are unfortunately violated by his expedient for removing the difficulties of the construction. … active participles, as possessed of a verbal force, require the case of their verbs, and μαρτυρεω [bear-witness], by luckless chance and [by] the usage of Greek, requires the dative, while μαρτυρουντες [bearing-witness] is, in the proposed construction, prefixed to the accusative … we are, I trust, exonerated from the humiliating task of pursuing these observations further … all such objections, when they are proposed, the author of this exposition is, in his own estimation at least, fully competent to dissipate …

Since the nominative and accusative cases are spelled the same in the neuter gender, Oxlee suggests that the three articular nouns (the spirit and the water and the blood) are accusative instead of nominative. If that is true, then the nominative articular participle cannot be functioning as an adjective modifying the three subsequent accusative nouns, in which case Nolan’s grammatical argument cannot be valid, as Nolan admits.

Nolan claims to refute Oxlee’s suggestion by saying that any active voice form of the verb μαρτυρεω (bear-witness) requires a dative direct object instead of an accusative direct object, and then Nolan calls himself a genius and Oxlee a fool. But Nolan is wrong in two ways.

1. Oxlee is not talking about an accusative direct object, but about an accusative of reference ("[in reference to] the spirit and the water and the blood"), which can be used in any sentence, regardless of what the verb or participle is.

2. An accusative direct object can in fact be (and is) used with an active voice substantival articular participial form of the verb μαρτυρεω (bear-witness), as in Revelation 22:20, where John says, ο μαρτυρων ταυτα, which means, “the-one bearing-witness [active-voice] these-things [accusative].” Paul also uses an accusative direct object with an articular participial form of the verb μαρτυρεω (bear-witness) in 1 Timothy 6:13. The only author who uses a dative word with an articular participial form of the verb μαρτυρεω (bear-witness) is Luke in Acts 14:3.

Nolan assumes that if the three subsequent articular nouns are nominative, then the nominative articular participle has to be functioning as an adjective modifying the three subsequent articular nouns.

In assuming this, Nolan shows that he does not know the difference between an adjectival articular participle (subsequent anarthrous nouns) and a substantival articular participle (subsequent articular nouns), and he shows that he does not know what appositional (added) articular nouns are.

7Jim7 (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

When Oxlee refers to an accusative substantive (or substantives) with the preposition κατα (according-to) understood (implied), he is referring to an accusative of reference, in which the idea “in reference to” is understood (implied).

Compare Ephesians 4:15 (accusative of reference / κατα implied) and Hebrews 2:17 (explicit κατα with accusative object).

(Received Text) Ephesians 4:15 … αυξησωμεν εις αυτον τα παντα …

4:15 … we-would-grow into him [according-to / κατα implied / in reference to] the all-things [apn] …

(Received Text) Hebrews 2:17 … ωφειλεν κατα παντα τοις αδελφοις ομοιωθηναι …

2:17 … he-was-owing according-to [explicit κατα] all-things [apn] to-the brothers to-be-likened …

Both the accusative of reference τα παντα ([in reference to] the all-things) in Ephesians 4:15 and the prepositional phrase κατα παντα (according-to all-things) in Hebrews 2:17 express the same idea.

Oxlee is saying that the three subsequent articular nouns το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα (the spirit and the water and the blood) in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Majority Text could be accusative instead of nominative (because both the nominative case and the accusative case are spelled the same in the neuter gender), and that they could be objects of the preposition κατα (according-to), which could be understood (implied). Oxlee is saying that the nouns could be accusatives of reference, and that John could be saying, “Because three they-are [verb], the-ones bearing-witness [nominative / subject], [in reference to] the spirit and the water and the blood [accusatives of reference].”

Nolan claims to refute Oxlee’s suggestion by stating that John would never use an accusative substantive with any active voice form of the verb μαρτυρεω (bear-witness). But as shown above, Nolan’s claim is a false claim.

Nolan admits that if the articular participle is a substantive instead of an adjective modifying the three subsequent articular nouns, then his grammatical argument is NOT a valid argument. Nolan admits it.

Then Nolan tries to dismiss the possibility that the nouns could be accusative instead of nominative, which would mean that the articular participle was a substantive instead of an adjective, which in turn would mean that Nolan's grammatical argument was NOT a valid argument. Nolan tries to dismiss that possibility by claiming (falsely) that John would never use accusative nouns with that articular participle. Nolan's claim is of course refuted by what John writes in Revelation 22:20 (quoted above).

But even if the three subsequent articular nouns are nominative instead of accusative, what Nolan does not know is that the articular participle still cannot be an adjective modifying the three subsequent articular nouns, because in order for that to occur, the subsequent nouns would have to be anarthrous (not preceded by an article) instead of articular (preceded by an article). That means that the articular participle has to be a substantive instead of an adjective modifying the three subsequent articular nouns, regardless of whether the nouns are nominative or accusative.

That means that Nolan's grammatical argument CANNOT be valid, as Nolan himself admits (without knowing that the articles of the three subsequent nouns PRECLUDE the articular participle from being an adjective modifying the three subsequent nouns).

7Jim7 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A FALSE Statement in the Main Article

Hi Steven,

In the main article, you says this.

Priscillian and the Expositio Fidei

The earliest quotation which ALL scholars agree is a DIRECT REFERENCE to the heavenly witnesses FROM THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN is from the Spaniard Priscillian c. 380.

That is a FALSE statement.

The truth is that SOME people think that Priscillian is QUOTING 1 John 5:7-8 in a Latin text that CONTAINS the Johannine Comma. Those people are INCORRECT.

1 John 5:7-8 in a Latin text that contains the Johannine Comma says this:

quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo pater verbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

Because three they-are, which-ones witness they-give in heaven, Father, Word and Spirit Holy, and these three-ones one-thing they-are. And three they-are, which-ones witness they-give on earth, spirit and water and blood, and three-ones one-thing they-are.

Priscillian says this:

sicut ioannes ait tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo pater verbum et spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in christo iesu

As John he-says, Three they-are, which-things witness they-give on earth, water, flesh and blood, and these three-things for one-thing they-are. And three they-are, which-things witness they-give in heaven, Father, Word and Spirit, and these three-things one-thing they-are in Christ Jesus.

That is NOT a quotation of 1 John 5:7-8 in a Latin text that contains the Johannine Comma. Not even close. That is not my opinion. It is a FACT.

(1) The words are neuter instead of masculine, and (2) the heavenly witnesses follow the earthly witnesses instead of preceding them, and (3) the phrase “in Christ Jesus” is added, and (4) the earthly witnesses are wrong (water, flesh and blood instead of spirit and water and blood), and (5) the clause following the earthly witnesses contains the preposition, which does NOT occur in the Latin text.

That is a Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of a misquotation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text. Those are Priscillian’s OWN words, which he has FALSELY attributed to John.

Not only is anyone who thinks that this is a quotation of 1 John 5:7-8 in a Latin text that contains the Johannine Comma NOT a scholar, but also such a person is NOT even literate (he can’t read).

NO ONE whom I consider to be a scholar thinks that Priscillian is quoting 1 John 5:7-8 in a Latin text that contains the Johannine Comma. Yet you say, “ALL scholars.” That is a FALSE statement.

A TRUE statement would be that SOME people (who either cannot read or are unwilling to be honest with themselves) think that Priscillian is quoting 1 John 5:7-8 in a Latin text that contains the Johannine Comma.

At the Council of Carthage in 484 AD, this is written (book 3, paragraph 6):

VI. Tres personae in uno nomine.. … Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum sanctum doceamus, Joannis evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: TRES SUNT QUI TESTIMONIUM PERHIBENT IN COELO, PATER, VERBUM, ET SPIRITUS SANCTUS, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT (I JOAN. V, 7). Nunquid, ait, tres in differenti aequalitate sejuncti, aut quibus libet diversitatum gradibus longo separationis intervallo divisi? sed tres, inquit, unum sunt.

Section 6. Three persons in one name. … And so-that to-this in-light clearer of-one divinity to-be with Father and Son, Spirit Holy we-would-teach, John, evangelist, witness it-is-confirmed. he-says, For, THREE THEY-ARE WHICH-ONES WITNESS THEY-GIVE IN HEAVEN, FATHER, WORD AND SPIRIT HOLY, AND THESE THREE-ONES ONE-THING THEY-ARE (1 JOHN 5:7). Surely-not, he-says, three-ones in different status having-been-separated, or in-anything he-would-suggest of-difference in-degree long, of-separation in-distance having-been-divided? But three-ones, he-says, one-thing they-are.

Now THAT is a quotation of the Johannine Comma. It is the earliest that I’ve seen the Johannine Comma actually quoted. That quotation is made 57 years AFTER Augustine explains and endorses the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD, where Augustine quotes 1 John 5:7-8 in the Latin text to say, tres sunt testes, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt, which means, “Three they-are, witnesses, spirit and water and blood, and three-ones one-thing they-are.”

We know that Augustine is quoting the Latin text instead of translating the Greek text into Latin, because the preposition is missing from the last clause in 1 john 5:8 (a peculiarity of the Latin text), and we know that the Johannine Comma has not yet been added to the Latin text, because the phrase “in terra” (on earth), which always immediately precedes the phrase “spiritus et aqua et sanguis” (spirit and water and blood) in every Latin text that contains the Johannine Comma, is missing in Augustine’s quotation of 1 John 5:7-8 in the Latin text.

In Contra Maximinum, Augustine explains and endorses the interpretation that the noun “spirit” in 1 John 5:7 in the Latin text corresponds to the noun “God” in John 4:24 in the Latin text, and that the noun “blood” in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text corresponds to the noun “Word” in John 1:14 in the Latin text, and that the noun “water” in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text corresponds to the noun “Spirit” in John 7:38-39 in the Latin text, hence the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of the phrase “spirit and water and blood” in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text being the phrase “Father, Word and Spirit Holy” (the Johannine Comma).

Once Augustine explained and endorsed this Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin Text in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD, other Trinitarians began to add the Johannine Comma (Father, Word and Spirit Holy) to 1 John 5:7-8 in the Latin text, first in the margin next to 1 John 5:8, then in the text after 1 John 5:8, and finally in the text before 1 John 5:8.

Therefore, 57 years after Augustine explains and endorses the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin Text in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD, we see the Johannine Comma actually quoted at the Council of Carthage in 484 AD.

Ait namque: TRES SUNT QUI TESTIMONIUM PERHIBENT IN COELO, PATER, VERBUM, ET SPIRITUS SANCTUS, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT.

he-says, For, THREE THEY-ARE WHICH-ONES WITNESS THEY-GIVE IN HEAVEN, FATHER, WORD AND SPIRIT HOLY, AND THESE THREE-ONES ONE-THING THEY-ARE.

If Augustine had not explained and endorsed the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD, then the Johannine Comma would not have been added to the Latin text, and we would not see the Johannine Comma quoted at the Council of Carthage in 484 AD.

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Minuscule 61 (Codex Montfortianus)

1 John 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

5:7 Because three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness in the heaven, Father, Word and Spirit Holy, and these the three-ones one-thing they-are.

1 John 5:8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη πνευμα υδωρ και αιμα

5:8 And three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness on the earth, spirit, water and blood

Some of the words written above are abbreviated in Codex Montfortianus.

The appositional nouns (πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον in 1 John 5:7 and πνευμα υδωρ και αιμα in 1 John 5:8) are anarthrous (not preceded by article), the same as in the Latin text (Latin does not have articles), instead of articular (preceded by an article), and the adjective αγιον follows the noun πνευμα in 1 John 5:7, the same as in the Latin text, instead of preceding it, and the last clause in 1 John 5:8 is missing, the same as in the Latin text of Latin manuscripts in the 13th century, and the epistle is divided into chapters, which did not occur in Latin manuscripts until the 13th century.

Therefore, what is shown above is a Greek translation of 1 John 5:7-8 in the Latin text of a Latin manuscript dating no earlier than the 13th century.

Erasmus used this Greek manuscript (Minuscule 61 / Codex Montfortianus), in which 1 John 5:7-8 is a Greek translation of the Latin text in a Latin manuscript dating no earlier than the 13th century, as the basis for adding the Johannine Comma to the 1522 third edition of his Greek New Testament. Erasmus added articles to the appositional nouns, and he added the last clause in verse 5:8 from the previous editions of his Greek New Testament.

The only other existing pre-1522 Greek manuscript containing the Johannine Comma in the body of the text (instead of being in the margin) is Minuscule 629 (Codex Ottobanianus). The words in 1 John 5:7-8 in Codex Ottobanianus are same as the words in 1 John 5:7-8 in Codex Montfortianus, except that in Codex Ottobanianus, the Latin text and the Greek translation of the Latin text are displayed side by side.

Therefore, the Johannine Comma has no actual Greek origin. The Johannine Comma was added to the Latin text in the latter half of the fifth century, and the altered Latin text was then translated into Greek about eight centuries later, and one of those Greek translations of the altered Latin text was then used by Erasmus to add the Johannine Comma to the 1522 third edition of his Greek New Testament.

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven,

Never mind. I corrected the false statement ("all scholars agree") myself. It now says, "some scholars think."

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)\

Jim, who are the scholars who do not agree ?

Names and quotes please. If there are none, clearly it would be correct to revert your edit. If you have some, that would be a great addition to the article.

And please, do not waste more of our time referencing your own thinking.

Simply the scholarly references, from any quarter, who do not see Priscillian as referencing the heavenly witnesses from John's epistle. The scholar would have to be after about 1883, once the reference was known.

And I believe some scholars are quoted in the article. If you would like a more complete review (e.g. Brooke, Metzger, Brown) say so. The goal is simply to have the article accurate. And again, if you want to discuss your original "research" and POV .. this is not the place. Simply share with us scholarly references. Even if they are a bit oddball, like an article by Ehrman or a Unitarian magazine, they would count for this purpose, and the article would properly need some change to be more accurate than it was, in which case the word "all" should be changed, e.g. to "consensus" or "most". And more specifics could be added in a footnote quoting both sides. I definitely agree that the word "all" should not be used if there are exceptions. I have seen none, so far, but maybe you can find one ?

Thanks.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven,

1 John 5:7-8 in a Latin text that contains the Johannine Comma says, “… IN CAELO pater verbum et spiritus sanctus ET HI TRES UNUM sunt … IN TERRA spiritus et aqua et sanguis ET TRES UNUM sunt,” whereas the words that Priscillian falsely attributes to John in the Latin text say, “… IN TERRA aqua CARO et sanguis ET HAEC TRIA IN UNUM sunt … IN CAELO pater verbum et spiritus ET HAEC TRIA UNUM sunt IN CHRISTO IESU.”

1. The words are neuter (HAEC TRIA and HAEC TRIA) instead of masculine (HI TRES and TRES).

2. The heavenly witnesses (IN CAELO) follow the earthly witnesses (IN TERRA) instead of preceding them.

3. The phrase “in Christ Jesus” (IN CHRISTO IESU) is added.

4. The earthly witnesses are wrong (water, FLESH and blood [aqua CARO et sanguis] instead of spirit and water and blood [spiritus et aqua et sanguis]).

5. The clause following the earthly witnesses contains the preposition (IN UNUM sunt / FOR ONE-THING they-are), which does NOT occur in the Latin text (UNUM sunt / ONE-THING they-are).

Both Cyprian and Augustine correctly quote 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text to say, “ET TRES UNUM sunt.”

Augustine correctly quotes 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text to say, “spiritus et aqua et sanguis ET TRES UNUM sunt / spirit and water and blood, AND THREE-ONES ONE-THING they-are.”

In contrast, Priscillian FALSELY claims the words “aqua CARO et sanguis ET HAEC TRIA IN UNUM sunt / water, FLESH and blood, AND THESE THREE-THINGS FOR ONE-THING they-are” to be the words of John (sicut ioannes ait / as John he-says) in the Latin text.

The words of the Johannine Comma (IN COELO, pater, verbum, et spiritus sanctus, ET HI TRES UNUM sunt / IN HEAVEN, Father, Word and Spirit Holy, AND THESE THREE-0NES ONE-THING they-are) are NOT quoted UNTIL AFTER Augustine. They are quoted at the Council of Carthage in 484 AD.

THAT is the Johannine Comma.

Priscillian FALSELY claims John to say, “IN CAELO pater verbum et spiritus ET HAEC TRIA UNUM sunt IN CHRISTO IESU / IN HEAVEN, Father, Word and Spirit, AND THESE THREE-THINGS ONE-THING they-are IN CHRIST JESUS.”

THAT is NOT the Johannine Comma.

Those are PRISCILLIAN’S OWN WORDS.

Not only did Priscillian NOT quote the Johannine Comma, but also he did NOT even quote 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text. ALL of those words that Priscillian FALSELY attributes to John are PRISCILLIAN’S OWN WORDS. He did NOT quote ANYTHING.

Wallace correctly says that the words “et tres unum sunt / and three-ones one-thing they-are,” quoted by Cyprian and by Augustine, are 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text, NOT the Johannine Comma (et HI tres unum sunt / and THESE three-ones one-thing they-are). If Wallace distinguishes 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text (et tres unum sunt) from the Johannine Comma (et hi tres unum sunt) because of one word (hi / these), then he would certainly distinguish the words of Priscillian (et haec tria unum sunt in christo iesu) from the Johannine Comma (et hi tres unum sunt) because of five words (haec tria … in christo iesu).

The words that Priscillian FALSELY attributes to John are so different than the words in 1 John 5:7-8 in ANY Latin text, whether it contains the Johannine Comma or not, that NO legitimate scholar would EVER consider the words of Priscillian to be a QUOTATION of ANYTHING.

The ONLY people who think that Priscillian is quoting the Johannine Comma, which is he is NOT, are the people who think that Cyprian is quoting the Johannine Comma, which he is NOT. I do not consider any such people to be legitimate scholars. ANYONE who thinks that the words “et haec tria unum sunt in christo iesu” are a quotation of the words “et hi tres unum sunt” is NO scholar.

Wallace is NOT included in any group that thinks that the words “et tres unum sunt” (Cyprian quoting 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text) are a quotation of the words “et hi tres unum sunt” (the Johannine Comma).

Wallace is all the more NOT included in any group that thinks that the words “et haec tria unum sunt in christo iesu” (Priscillian not quoting anything) are a quotation of the words “et hi tres unum sunt” (the Johannine Comma).

When you say, “The earliest quotation which ALL scholars AGREE is a DIRECT REFERENCE to the heavenly witnesses FROM THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN,” you are including Wallace in that group, which is FALSE. According to your FALSE statement, ALL scholars (including Wallace) think that the Johannine Comma was already in the Latin text BEFORE Augustine, which is simply NOT true.

What you really mean is that ALL of YOUR scholars AGREE that the words of Priscillian are FROM THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. Now THAT would be a TRUE statement.

Wallace is certainly NOT one of YOUR scholars.

You had already stated in your main article (that is what it has become) that Porson thought that by the time that the Council of Carthage occurred in 484 AD (AFTER Augustine), the Johannine Comma had been added only to the margin of the Latin text.

According to your main article, Westcott thought (on the page to which you provided a link) that the words of Priscillian (the late fourth century) were full of variations, and that the Johannine Comma did not appear to be added to the Latin text until the late fifth century (AFTER Augustine).

None of those scholars thought that Priscillian was quoting anything from John’s epistle, and with good reason, because the words of Priscillian are not a quotation of anything. They are Priscillian’s own words, which Priscillian falsely attributed to John.

Therefore, when you say, “The earliest quotation which ALL scholars AGREE is a DIRECT REFERENCE to the heavenly witnesses FROM THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN,” not only are you contradicting what I know to be true of Wallace, but also you are contradicting your own earlier statements regarding Porson and Westcott in your own main article.

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Westcott wrote his "complete the gloss" quote before the Priscillian citation was found, in the publication of 1883 where Priscillian is not mentioned. You can see that here: http://books.google.com/books?id=uBQVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA194 In the later editions Westcott awkwardly kept the phrase even though it contradicted what he said about Priscillian. However note what Westcott writes directly about Priscillian:

"The gloss which had thus become an established interpretation of St John's words is first quoted as part of the Epistle in a tract of Priscillian (c. 385) who quotes the passage with remarkable variations." (Westcott, 1892)

Westcoot says that Priscillian **quotes** the "gloss" (Westcott's repeated term for the heavenly witnesses) *** as part of John's epistle ***. Clear enough. This fits the view that all scholars agree that Priscillian is the first quote of the heavenly witnesses from 1 John (do you want to claim there is ambiguity between 1 John and 2-3John, a very strange position ?). Afaik, no scholar argues that variations, (like "in Jesus Christ") changes the basic dynamic of quoting the verse, or gloss, as from the Johannine epistle. Especially since some Latin mss have that same variation, a point gone over by gentlemen like Berger and Chapman.

Changing the front page to the consensus of scholarship would be milder and fine, since the word "all" is always a bit charged. Who knows, there might be one scholar in Romania or Singapore who takes another view, and then "all" will be falsified. So I accept it is fine to change. Clearly there are many scholars who agree and none who disagree with what you weirdly call a "false" statement :) If you do not find one scholar who actually takes your position, then "the consensus of scholarship" is the proper phrase. Perhaps Wikipedia would find it acceptable to have a footnote to your blog page (carefully referenced as your individual blog page) as holding an alternate view. It would be a good question for an admin type, I would have no objection personally as long as it is labeled as a view without any known support in scholarly journals or books.

So .. do you have even one scholar who disagrees ? Who says that Priscillian did not reference the heavenly witnesses, the "gloss", in Liber Apologeticus, from his Latin Bible ?

Here is a tact you could take. You could say that those scholars who a century ago accused Priscillian of inserting the verse, making him the chief member of the rogue's gallery, count as him not having the verse in his Bible. Since, in that view, he, or a friend, put it there in the Latin Bible. A view now discarded. However, that would be a possible position against "all", since all includes scholars a century back. Another reason why I accept that "all" should be changed to "the scholarship consensus" which is a term used for current scholarship and allows for a dissenter or three in Mongolia or Peru :).

And please .. stop spamming the forum with your same "research" and POV over and over. You have it on a dozen blogs, and it is never published in any scholarly venue. It works only to make this "Talk" section difficult for its actual purpose, such as this Westcott-Priscillian discussion, which is quite legitimate.

Pumping your own original "research" and POV is against Wikipedia protocols. It is an abuse of Wikipedia to try to use this as an alternate site for new "scholarship" and POV that has received no study, review or publication in scholarship circles. And it becomes worse with each repetition in the talk section, which is not designed for any such purpose.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven,

Apparently, you didn't read what I said the first time. So I'll say it again.

As your main article states, Porson states that Cyprian and Augustine quote 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text (no Johannine Comma), and they present a Trinitarian symbolic interpretation (gloss) of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text. Cyprian alludes to the interpretation (gloss), stating that the words "and three-ones one-thing they-are" in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text refer to "Father, Son and Spirit Holy," and about 180 years later, Augustine explains the interpretation (gloss) in detail and endorses it in 427 AD.

Augustine explains that the nouns "spirit " and "water" and "blood" in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text symbolically refer to the nouns "God" and "Word" and "Spirit" in John 4:24, 1:14 and 7:38-39 in the Latin text, hence the phrase "Father, Word and Spirit Holy" being the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of the phrase "spirit and water and blood" in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text.

Porson states that we do not see the Johannine Comma (the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation [gloss] of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text) quoted (Father, Word and Spirit Holy, and these three-ones one-thing they-are) until the late fifth century (the council of Carthage in 484 AD), because it is not added to the Latin text until AFTER Augustine explains and endorses it in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD.

What part of that is too difficult to understand?

As your main article states, Westcott states essentially the same thing that Porson states.

The only difference is that Westcott also has access to the words of Priscillian, which predate the words of Augustine in 427 AD by about 50 years. Priscillian correlates the phrase "water, flesh and blood" (as opposed to spirit and water and blood), which John does NOT say in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text, with the phrase "Father, Word and Spirit" (as opposed to Father, Word and Spirit Holy), which John likewise does NOT say in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Latin text.

How do we know what John does and does not say in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Latin text? We know because Augustine quotes 1 John 5:7-8 in the Latin text in 427 AD to say, "Three they-are, witnesses, spirit and water and blood, and three-ones one-thing they-are." Do you see any part of the Johannine Comma in what Augustine quotes 1 John 5:7-8 in the Latin text to say? I don't. Therefore we know that the Johannine Comma has not yet been added to the Latin text.

Therefore, we know that the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text is at least 180 years old (since Cyprian) by the time that Augustine explains and endorses it in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD, and we know that the phrase "Father, Word and Spirit / Father, Word and Spirit Holy" as the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of the phrase "spirit and water and blood" in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text is at least 50 years old (since Priscillian) by the time that Augustine explains and endorses it in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD.

The Johannine Comma (Father, Word and Spirit Holy, and these three-ones one-thing they-are) still has not yet been quoted as of 427 AD. It is not quoted until the late fifth century (the council of Carthage in 484 AD), because it is not added to the Latin text until AFTER Augustine explains and endorses it in Contra Maximinum in 427 AD.

What part of that is too difficult to understand?

The fact that Augustine explains and endorses the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text in 427 AD does not mean that he is the one who invented it. The fact that the Johannine Comma (Father, Word and Spirit Holy, and these three-ones one-thing they-are) is not quoted until AFTER Augustine explains and endorses the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text does mean, however, that Augustine is highly respected, and that the explanation and endorsement of the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text by someone of Augustine's stature is necessary before the Johannine Comma (the Trinitarian symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin text) can actually be added to the Latin text.

Wallace says the same thing that Porson and Westcott say.

Therefore, only SOME scholars think that the words of Priscillian are a DIRECT REFERENCE to the heavenly witnesses FROM THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

Neither Porson nor Westcott nor Wallace thinks any such thing.

The words “in caelo pater verbum et spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu” (Priscillian) are NOT a quotation of the words “in caelo pater verbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt” (the Johannine Comma).

The words “aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt” (Priscillian) are NOT a quotation of the words “spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt” (1 John 5:8 in the Latin text).

The words “in caelo pater verbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt” (the council of Carthage in 484 AD) ARE a quotation of the words “in caelo pater verbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt” (the Johannine Comma).

The Johannine Comma is NEVER quoted until AFTER Augustine (427 AD), because the Johannine Comma is NOT added to the Latin text until AFTER Augustine (427 AD).

It is just that simple.

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This article has been ruined, and reflects very little of scholarly consensus.

The Johannine Comma is a very late gloss into the text, derived from an early homily on 1 John 5. It appears that someone with a rather obsessive POV and is attempting to prove the authenticity of the comma, despite the fact that NO serious scholar believes it to be authentic. This used to be a decent article, but with all of the Trinitarian apologies in it, it's now completely nonsensical. How did one user come to dominate this article and skew it to his/her minority POV? --XKV8R (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

XKV8R, the article used to be just a POV article, like your POV above "The Johannine Comma is a very late gloss..". (Whatever you mean by "very late", perhaps you agree with the Porson or "medieval forgery" views. And by who and when was this "early homily", or is that just a phantom conjecture ?)

In the earlier article, to make this POV look good, it was important to give minimal actual scholarly information and history. (One problem is that the people who had written the article did not seem particularly familiar with the topic.) Please go back and look at the earlier article carefully .. lots of polemic against "Trinitarian interpolation", and virtually no actually scholarly references or explanation. And the very little that was there was skewed to match POV.

Now, the article has a good base of actual scholarly information, on many of the issues, questions and history. Some of the largest sections are where the opponents of authenticity are quoted, with links to their books and articles so it can be checked, giving their explanation of accidental origin of the verse, or alternately by whom the forgery was created and implemented. The other large section is simply the one that goes through the actual quotes from antiquity, the evidences, and responses from many scholars, always looking to represent fairly. Cyprian, Priscillian, Fulgentius, etc.

And if you actually read the article, and the links given, you would see that the article now properly includes the viewpoints that do not see the Comma as "Trinitarian". (Although granted, the article still does not do much in explaining the basic question of oneness of nature/essence or of one testimony/agreement, such as in Calvin's commentary.) And I really have no idea where you see "Trinitarian apologies" (which could be a real quagmire unrelated to the substance of the discussion). Perhaps in the titles of a couple of the books referenced ? Yet one of the books "The Divine Trinity" is by by opponent of the verse authenticity (Joseph Pohle) and there are two others with similar titles buried in the note sections.

If there are specific improvements you would suggest, that would be helpful.

I do agree, though, that the grammatical and internal sections are mostly POV. There is virtually no real scholarship there, it is original unpublished, anonymous conjecture and thinking (not very sound) by one individual.

The grammar section is factual, not conjectural or personal. Eugenius, Marshall and Wallace, two of whom (Eugenius and Wallace) are experts in the Greek language, do in fact state what they are reported in the grammar section to have stated, as the links to their respective published materials prove, and what Eugenius, Marshall and Wallace state about the grammar (that the genders of the participles are based on the natural genders of the ideas being expressed, not on the grammatical gender of any of the nouns in the text, and not on gender attraction) does in fact refute what Nolan and Dabney, neither of whom is an expert in the Greek language, state about the grammar (that the genders of the participles are based, not on the natural genders of the ideas being expressed, but on the grammatical gender of one of the nouns in the text and on gender attraction). The quotations of the four appositional constructions in the Received Text are just that, quotations of four appositional constructions in the Received Text, which show how the grammar functions in an appositional construction in the Received Text (that the grammatical gender of the appositional noun or nouns in an appositional construction has no bearing on the gender of any word preceding or following the appositional clause), and those quoted appositional constructions in the Received Text confirm that the grammatical view held by Eugenius, Marshall and Wallace (that the genders of the participles are based on the natural genders of the ideas being expressed, not on the grammatical gender of any of the nouns in the text, and not on gender attraction) is correct, and that the grammatical view held Nolan and Dabney (that the genders of the participles are based, not on the natural genders of the ideas being expressed, but on the grammatical gender of one of the nouns in the text and on gender attraction) is incorrect. The statement, "grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns never occurs in the New Testament," was specifically accepted by the administrators of wikipedia in the original grammar section back in 2008. The administrators themselves did not consider that statement to be a violation of the rule against personal research in the main article. The four quoted appositional constructions in the current grammar section no more constitute personal research in the main article than the originally accepted (by the administrators) statement did. In fact, the four quoted appositional constructions are better than the original statement, because they are actual quotations of published material (the Received Text). The four quotations of the published material (the Received Text) prove that Eugenius and Wallace (EXPERTS in the Greek language) actually DO understand Greek grammar, and they prove that Nolan and Dabney (NOT experts in the Greek language) actually do NOT understand Greek grammar. 7Jim7 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: section on Scholarly Consensus

Incidentally, if you could put together a number of quotes explaining carefully and fully what you consider the current scholarly consensus, that might make a good help to the article. And I would be happy to help you in that regard. I just did something like that tonight in regard to the consensus that Priscillian is the one fully agreed upon reference from 1 John. (Agreed by all sides and views, except the POV poster here.) Suggestion: the section could be called "The Current Scholarly Consensus" and it could be given a top-level spot.

One difficulty is that there has not been very much actual scholarship the last century, so often the consensus will just be very short summaries taken from Metzger. Another possible difficulty is that many writers are vague, making a meaningful "consensus" exposition difficult. However, it might be possible to do a reasonable labour that would be helpful to the reader.

Thanks.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

C. R. Vaughan (died in 1911)

Discussions Theological and Evangelical (1890)

(This 1890 book is a compilation of the previous writings of Dabney, and Vaughan is the editor of the book.)

Page xviii

… He [Dabney] has been charged with upholding as certain truth the authority of the disputed passage in 1 John 5:7 against THE GENERAL CONSENT OF SCHOLARS THAT IT IS SPURIOUS. …

Edward Hills (died in 1981)

The King James Version Defended (1956)

Page 168

… how did the Johannine Comma originate if it be not genuine, and how did it come to be interpolated into the Latin New Testament text? To this question MODERN SCHOLARS have a ready answer. IT AROSE, THEY SAY, AS A TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION OF I JOHN 5:8 …

Both Vaughan (Dabney's own editor) and Hills concede that the consensus among scholars is that the Johannine Comma is a spurious (false) addition to the New Testament.

7Jim7 (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

When consensus is elusive

Here is the type of problem you have in trying to assert a "scholarly consensus" from the scholars of the last century or decades. Let us say that you wanted to claim a "scholarly consensus" that the Comma was a late interpolation. Ehrman says not before the Trinitarian controversies, so it would be 4th century. Let us say 300-400 AD is supposed to be the consensus (one writer for this page aggressively claims even later, apart from any scholarly support) for the creation and/or textual addition of the gloss. Thus, in this proposed "consensus", the verse was definitely not in the Bible of Tertullian and Cyprian at 200 AD.

Conceptually, if it were in their Bibles, this would be major game-changer to the late gloss-interpolation theory. Since, if the verse was in Cyprian's Bible, the theory then have to account for and try to describe unknown writers doing commentary-to-margin-to-text even before the major Trinitarian controversies, in a very small window of time, and accepted in the Bibles of major church leaders like Tertullian and Cyprian. And consider whether such a theory of c.60 AD to 200 AD textual insertion and even local dominance is likely and sensible, or simply one difficult conjecture. Remember too that Tertullian and Cyprian had Greek skills. I have looked for a writer who actually takes this position and explains it carefully, so far I have not found any.

Then you look at the writings of modern Cyprian and church writer experts, the gentlemen really familiar with the writings,and you see that they do not at all go with this proposed "consensus" of a late interpolation. Look at the Ezio Gallicet commentary that is linked in this wiki page (a full translation by an Italian-English translator would be nice, however his position is 100% clear) and Gallicet is a true world-class Cyprian expert. Check Joel C. Elowsky in the ACCS series (Ancient Christian Commentary of Scripture). Elowsky writes "Cyprian seems to be quoting the so-called Comma Johanneum text of 1 Jn 5:7" and then goes on to reference for the reader both sides of the equation, Michael Maynard and Daniel Wallace. Walter Thiele is one of the foremost Latin Bible scholars in the world, and he has written in favor of Cyprian having the Comma in his Bible. Including the possibility that the Comma came to the Old Latin from the Greek. Already we have very strong opposition to any idea of a "late interpolation" consensus. And we have not discussed Büschel, Pieper and de Jonge, all very top scholars. You have raised an interesting issue, so I will do a spot more checking on the question.

Overall, if you are going to claim that there is a "scholarly consensus" that the Comma is a "very late gloss", which appears to be what you would like to article to state, and impose upon the reader as true, singular POV truth ... then that claim should be examined very carefully. And the textual forums (Yahoogroups - textualcriticism and TC-Alternate) would likely be very open to considering the claim.

And please feel free to state the specific supports for that position here, with quotes. We can look at the scholar quotes, who makes them, what is stated definitely and what is equivocal or conjecture, etc. As a simple example, James White (a major public figure in this discussion, against authenticity) is very equivocal with lots of maybes and possiblies when discussing the Bible of Cyprian.

I have focused here on Cyprian, I will point out that similar questions arise even with other evidences, such as the widespread use in and around the Council of Carthage of 484 AD, a phenomenon that is very hard to reconcile with "very late" gloss and interpolation theories and theories that claim minimal Old Latin and Vulgate verse penetration. There is similarly no "consensus" as to how this occurred, and many writers, following Metzger, simply do not mention the Council !

Please understand, I am not claiming here that the verse was in the Bible of Cyprian's or in the Epistle of John, or was dominant in the 5th century Latin Bibles. That type of question is POV and not related to Wikipedia activities. Simply that claims of "scholarly consensus" have to be made very carefully. I am not a Wikipedia expert, I can guess that this consensus issue comes up frequently, especially by people who feel the experts have spoken and closed the issue, and they like the position of those particular experts.

Wondering about this, I just checked the Creation ex nihilo page and at a glance and it looks like an informative article, one that does not close the door by "consensus" claims. As often happens in the public dialogue attempts. The pattern of explanation looks similar to what we have now on the Comma Johanneum page, although the depth there is limited.

Thanks.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Current Scholarship, Georg Strecker and others

In order to be sure not to slight current scholarship, added to the body of the article (not footnotes) are four quotes from Georg Strecker, and they also touch on the 'Trinitarian apologetics' issue raised above. The Strecker quotes are in Tertullian, Augustine, Priscillian and a summary of a number of Latin evidences in the article. If there are any other modern scholars who can similarly contribute, that would be excellent. In English, it might be good to re-read Raymond Brown for that purpose, and there are some German 20th century writings, untranslated, of note, like Schackenberg and Thiele, Heide and Wachtel, and earlier Bludau and Riggenbach and Fickermann. Any ideas you can share to add insight to the wiki article are appreciated.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

TOO LONG

Editor

Please constrain contributions. This is now way too long. Please protect this article against being turned into a never ending theological debate and accommodate or refer the main contributors to the talk page.

Peter van der Merwe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:E00F:4004:12:0:0:0:35 (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, the debate is actually a historical debate, by far the largest historical debate on a Bible verse in history, with dozens, even hundreds, of books and articles written, including a good number even in the last few years. Thus, a good article about the Johannine Comma must be an article that, to a large extent, is about the debate. And the highlights of the debate (and principle evidences analyzed in the debate, although numerous significant aspects are not covered) is documented in the Wikipedia article, in a way that simply quotes the various sides.

And it is impossible to follow the Talk section, since this section allows POV spamming. Just read above (or try to read above). Argument by repetition of non-scholarly nonsense is acceptable in Talk.

If you feel that there is any specific material in the Main Page article that is not scholarly and relevant to the Comma Johanneum issues (putting aside the grammatical section, which I personally ignore as nonsensical and not wanting to get into an editing battle) then please be specific. If your concern is simply length, then that is understood, in a certain sense it is impossible for any single article to properly cover the subject. The basics of the debate and history are now in the article, and can be enhanced and added to in external commentary locales. Any emphasis on the Main Page can be on tweaking for clarity rather than addition.

Incidentally, I asked Leszek to place in the two Greek manuscripts that are not in NA-27. Only important for accuracy (not a major evidentiary point). I would rather he tweak the manuscript section, with which he is most familiar.

Thanks for your thoughts.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Peter's right: this article is junk at the moment. Its subject may be controversial, but presumably not more so than the Israel-Palestine conflict; yet that article is highly informative whereas this one is just useless. I know this, because I'd never heard of "Comma Johanneum" before tonight and came here hoping to gleam a basic understanding of the issue. Quick, ask me what "Comma Johanneum" is! Because I still have no fucking idea.

I'm pretty passionate about Wikipedia, and it saddens me to see pages like this one which were plainly borne of conflict rather than consensus. I urge any editors who feel passionately about this issue to GTFO so that boring, dispassionate, disinterested editors can return and rebuild. Wikipedia is not the platform for your proselytism.

In the mean time, for the love of God, don't make excuses for this article. It's one of the most abysmal collection of words I've ever had the misfortune to lay eyes on. If there are legitimate, scholarly debates about its subject, don't reenact them, just summarize the nature of the contention. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal; analyzing the issue directly is beyond its purview. If the article is too long – and it definitely is – it's not because the issue is too complex to be explained with any greater degree of brevity. Cold Fusion is pretty complex too, but that article wraps up shortly after its 9,000th word while this one shambles on for more than 18,000.

So c'mon guys. Write me a better article. I'll check back in a month or two.--Xiaphias (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Xiaphias, your request for shorter is understood. I have some ideas for keeping technically excellent areas yet severely shortening other sections. I plan to make good changes within a week or two. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a Personal Point of View, but a Fact

Section: This article has been ruined, and reflects very little of scholarly consensus.

I do agree, though, that the grammatical and internal sections are mostly POV. There is virtually no real scholarship there, it is ORIGINAL UNPUBLISHED, anonymous conjecture and thinking (not very sound) by one individual. [comment by Steven Avery]

Section: Too Long

If you feel that there is any specific material in the Main Page article that is not scholarly and relevant to the Comma Johanneum issues (putting aside the grammatical section, which I personally ignore as NONSENSICAL and not wanting to get into an editing battle) then please be specific. [comment by Steven Avery]

In a letter that he wrote in 1780, Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806), the Archbishop of Cherson (1775-1779), and an expert in the Greek language, says (a word-for-word English translation of the original Latin and Greek), “not plainly consistent, unless with violence some of-diction and through solecism obvious. When indeed, the spirit and the water and the blood, nouns of-neuter gender they-are, by-what reasoning would-they-agree with that which immediately it-precedes, three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness, and which then it-follows, and these the three-ones, and the rest? … But not, I-ask, diction natural this, and particularly better it-would-be, three they-are, the-things bearing-witness on the earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three-things for the one-thing they-are? But that nevertheless it-is written, not this. Whatever therefore other reason of-occurring, that inconsistency … to-be-conveyed it-is-able, unless … preceding verse seven expression … through this immediately following verse eight symbolically it-is-explained … the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit … same themselves witnesses … on earth … through three these symbols in-verse eight. … the Father, the Word and the Spirit … they-are also on the earth, through which to-us symbols they-have-been-revealed. … the symbols they-are, the spirit, though which he-is-indicated, the Father, the blood, through which, the Son, the water, through which, the Spirit the Holy. … the three-ones these … in the heaven bearing-witness they-are-presented … on the earth … symbolically being-taken-on-again … But alas! Jug I-have-instituted, not amphora.”

On pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) says, “three masculine adjectives, τρεις οι μαρτυρουντες, are forced into union with three neuter substantives, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα, a grosser solecism than can be ascribed to any writer, sacred or profane. … 193. This objection was first started by the learned Archbishop Eugenius, who has translated the Georgics into Greek, and may be seen in a letter prefixed by M. Matthaei to his Greek Testament, Tom. XI, page ix. … [a word-for-word English translation of the original Latin and Greek] … not plainly consistent, unless with violence some of-diction and through solecism obvious. When indeed, the spirit and the water and the blood, nouns of-neuter gender they-are, by-what reasoning would-they-agree with that which immediately it-precedes, three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness, and which there it-follows, and these the three-ones, and the rest? … But not, I-ask, diction natural this, and particularly better it-would-be, three they-are, the-things bearing-witness on the earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three-things for the one-thing they-are? But that nevertheless it-is written, not this. … the language is filled up in the Received Text, and ο πατηρ ο λογος being inserted, the masculine adjectives, τρεις οι μαρτυρουντες, are ascribed suitable substantives, and by the figure attraction, which is so prevalent in Greek, every objection is removed to the structure of the text. ... furnishing the first adjectives, τρεις οι μαρτυρουντες, with substantives, which is effectually done by the insertion of ο πατηρ ο λογος in the disputed passage. The subsequent τρεις οι μαρτυρουντες are thence attracted to the foregoing adjectives instead of being governed by the subsequent το πνευμα και το υδωρ.”

On page 221 in his 1871 article, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, which is originally presented on pages 191-234 in the 1871 (volume 22) edition of the Southern Presbyterian Review journal, and which is subsequently presented on pages 350-390 in his 1890 book, Discussions Theological and Evangelical, Robert Dabney (1820-1898) says, “The critics all agree in exscinding from the common reading the words which we include within parenthesis. οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες [εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη] το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. The internal evidence against this excision then is in the following strong points. First, if it be made, the masculine numeral, article and participle, τρεις οι μαρτυρουντες, are made to agree directly with three neuters, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα, 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, ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα, where according to a well known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them. Then the occurrence of the masculines, τρεις οι μαρτυρουντες, in the eighth verse, agreeing with the neuters, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα, may be accounted for by the power of attraction, so well known in Greek syntax, and by the fact that the πνευμα, the leading noun of this second group, and next to the adjectives, has just had a species of masculineness superinduced upon it by its previous position in the masculine group.”

The 1871 article, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, is in part a review of Nolan’s 1815 book, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. The 1871 article refers to Nolan by name at least eleven times. On pages 195 and 230, the 1871 article refers to Nolan’s 1815 book by name twice. On pages 228-230, the 1871 article quotes pages 432-433 and 506-509 in Nolan’s 1815 book. On page 221, the 1871 article presents the grammatical argument that Nolan originally presents on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book.

On pages 235 and 237, and in footnote 20 on page 237, in his 1978 book, The Epistles of John, Ian Howard Marshall (1934- ) says, “So far John has spoken of one witness, the Spirit. Now he introduces a corrective. There are in fact three witnesses. These are identified in the next verse as the Spirit, the water and the blood. … John then writes now of three witnesses; he personifies the water and the blood, placing them too as witnesses alongside the Spirit … 20 … although Spirit, water and blood are all neuter in Greek, they are introduced by a clause expressed in the masculine plural: τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες. … he clearly regards the Spirit as personal, and this leads to the personification of the water and the blood.”

On page 332, and in footnote 44 on page 332, in his 1996 book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace (1952- ) says, “Indeed, it is difficult to find any text in which πνευμα is grammatically referred to with the masculine gender. … 44 … First John 5:7 is perhaps the most plausible … The masculine participle in τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες refers to το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα (verse 8), all neuter nouns. Some see this as an oblique reference to the Spirit’s personality (so I. H. Marshall, The Epistles of John … page 237, note 20), but the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender. This interpretation also has in its behalf the allusion to Deuteronomy 19:15 (the necessity of two or three witnesses), for in the Old Testament, the testimony only of males was acceptable. Thus, the elder may be subtly indicating (via the masculine participle) that the Spirit, water and blood are all valid witnesses.”

The issue being addressed by everyone above is why the articular (preceded by an article) participle οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) preceding the three subsequent articular nouns το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα (the spirit and the water and the blood) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text) is masculine.

Nolan and Dabney, neither of whom is an expert in the Greek language, say that the articular participle οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is supposed to agree with the neuter GRAMMATICAL gender of the first subsequent articular noun το πνευμα (the spirit) in that verse, and that the reason that it is masculine instead of neuter is gender attraction to what is written in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text, which in turn agrees with the masculine GRAMMATICAL gender of the first subsequent articular noun ο πατηρ (the Father) in that verse.

In contrast, Eugenius, Marshall and Wallace, two (Eugenius and Wallace) of whom are experts in the Greek language, do NOT say that the articular participle οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text) is supposed to agree with the neuter GRAMMATICAL gender of the first subsequent articular noun το πνευμα (the spirit) in that verse, but that it is supposed to agree (and does agree) with the NATURAL gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (either a person and two things [Marshall] or the three persons [personification] who are symbolized by the spirit, water and blood [Eugenius and Wallace]).

The grammatical construction being discussed (a word or phrase that is followed by three articular nouns [in the same grammatical case in which the preceding word or phrase is] to provide additional information regarding the meaning of the preceding word or phrase) occurs exactly four times in the Greek New Testament (Received Text). The same thing always occurs in all four instances. The preceding word or phrase ALWAYS agrees with the NATURAL gender of the idea being expressed, and the GRAMMATICAL genders of the three subsequent articular nouns are ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.

(Received Text) Matthew 23:23 … και αφηκατε τα βαρυτερα του νομου ΤΗΝ κρισιν και ΤΟΝ ελεον και ΤΗΝ πιστιν …

23:23 … and you-dismissed the weightier-things [NEUTER for things because judgment, mercy and faith are three things] of-the Law (THE judgment [FEMININE] and THE mercy [MASCULINE] and THE faith [FEMININE]). …

(Received Text) 1 John 2:16 οτι παν το εν τω κοσμω Η επιθυμια της σαρκος και Η επιθυμια των οφθαλμων και Η αλαζονεια του βιου … εκ του κοσμου εστιν

2:16 Because every the-thing [NEUTER for things because lust, lust and pride are three things] in the world (THE lust [FEMININE] of-the flesh and THE lust [FEMININE] of-the eyes and THE pride [FEMININE] of-the life) … out-of the world it-is.

(Received Text) 1 John 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω Ο πατηρ Ο λογος και ΤΟ αγιον πνευμα …

5:7 Because three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness [MASCULINE for persons because the Father, Word and Spirit are three persons] in the heaven (THE Father [MASCULINE], THE Word [MASCULINE] and THE Holy Spirit [NEUTER]) …

(Received Text) 1 John 5:8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη ΤΟ πνευμα και ΤΟ υδωρ και ΤΟ αιμα …

5:8 And three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness [MASCULINE for a person and things because the Spirit, water and Blood are a person and two things] on the earth (THE Spirit [NEUTER] and THE water [NEUTER] and THE Blood [NEUTER]) ...

OR

(Received Text) 1 John 5:8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη ΤΟ πνευμα και ΤΟ υδωρ και ΤΟ αιμα … 9 … την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων λαμβανομεν

5:8 And three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness [MASCULINE for persons because the Spirit, water and Blood symbolize three persons (personification)] on the earth (THE Spirit [NEUTER] and THE water [NEUTER] and THE Blood [NEUTER]) ... 9 … the witness of-the MEN we-accept …

The two EXPERTS in the Greek language (Eugenius and Wallace) say (natural gender, not grammatical gender and not gender attraction) the OPPOSITE of what the two NON-experts (Nolan and Dabney) say (grammatical gender and gender attraction, not natural gender), and the four examples of the grammatical construction being discussed (agreement with the NATURAL gender) CORROBORATE what the two EXPERTS (Eugenius and Wallace) say and REFUTE what the two NON-experts (Nolan and Dabney) say.

There is only one possible conclusion to reach. The two EXPERTS in the Greek language (Eugenius and Wallace) UNDERSTAND the grammatical construction being discussed and are therefore CORRECT, whereas the two NON-experts (Nolan and Dabney) do NOT understand the grammatical construction being discussed and are therefore INCORRECT.

How is what has been shown above merely a personal point of view?

It is a FACT that what Eugenius, Marshall and Wallace say is the OPPOSITE of what Nolan and Dabney say, and it is a FACT that Eugenius and Wallace are EXPERTS and that Nolan and Dabney are NOT experts, and it is a FACT that the four instances of the grammatical construction being discussed CORROBORATE what the EXPERTS say and REFUTE what the NON-experts say.

I have not invented anything. I have quoted what Eugenius, Marshall and Wallace have said as opposed to what Nolan and Dabney have said, and I have shown that the four instances of the grammatical construction being discussed are consistent with what Eugenius, Marshall and Wallace have said and are contrary to what Nolan and Dabney have said.

In the main article, in the grammar section, instead of quoting what Eugenius, Nolan, Dabney, Marshall and Wallace have written in their respective published materials, as I have above, I have simply stated (for the sake of brevity) what they have written, and I have created links to their respective published materials (in the footnotes) so that the readers can read for themselves what they have written. That is the only difference between what is written in the grammar section in the main article and what is written above in this talk section.

I have used the four examples (in the Received Text) of the grammatical construction that is being discussed by Eugenius, Nolan, Dabney, Marshall and Wallace to show that what THEY (Eugenius, Marshall and Wallace) have said (NATURAL gender agreement) is CORRECT and to show that what THEY (Nolan and Dabney) have said (GRAMMATICAL gender agreement and gender ATTRACTION) is INCORRECT.

My personal view is NOT being discussed at all.

7Jim7 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the same spam once again. Your POV is welcome to be shared on b-greek, textualcriticism or any actual forum where people informed discuss the grammar, history etc.

You refuse to do so, because you want to claim anonymity, and put forth the same spam, your research, easily refuted, once again. Once you present this on a scholarly forum, it will be addressed. Wikipedia Talk is not the place for original research POV.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't handle the truth, Steven. Eugenius and Wallace, experts in the Greek language, say that the articular participle agrees with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed (the grammatical genders of the appositional articular nouns being irrelevant), and all four instances of that grammatical construction in the Greek New Testament (Received Text) support what they say, and you can't handle it. Nothing is keeping you from posting what I have said here on the b-greek forum. But you won't do it, because you know that they will agree with Eugenius and Wallace and those four examples and disagree with you. I already know what they will say at b-greek, because they already said it there a long time ago (1995). What did they say? They said the same thing that I have said, that the three articular nouns are appositional, and that their grammatical genders therefore have no bearing on the gender of any word preceding or following the appositional clause, and that the substantival articular participle must agree with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed. That is what Eugenius and Wallace have said, and that is what the four examples confirm, and that is what b-greek has said. You can't handle the truth, Steven. That's why you keep denying it. 7Jim7 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (1815) Page 257

… three masculine ADJECTIVES, τρεις οι μαρτυρουντες, are forced into union with three neuter SUBSTANTIVES, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα, a grosser solecism than can be ascribed to any writer, sacred or profane. …

http://www.archive.org/stream/inquiryintointeg00nola#page/256/mode/2up

Note. Nolan INCORRECTLY says that the articular participle οι μαρτυρουντες (the-ones bearing-witness) is an ADJECTIVE that is MODIFYING the three subsequent articular nouns (SUBSTANTIVES) το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα (the Spirit and the water and the Blood), and that this alleged ADJECTIVE must therefore agree with the neuter GRAMMATICAL gender of the first subsequent articular noun (SUBSTANTIVE) το πνευμα (the Spirit) that it MODIFIES, and that the fact that it does not do so is “a grosser solecism than can be ascribed to any writer.”

Nolan is WRONG. In order for that to be true, (1) the three subsequent nouns would have to be ANARTHROUS (not preceded by an article) instead of articular (preceded by an article), and (2) the articular participle (PLURAL) would have to agree in case, number and gender (ALL THREE) with the FIRST subsequent noun (SINGULAR), NEITHER of which occurs in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text) even if the articular participle is neuter instead of masculine.

It would have to be written this way: το μαρτυρουν πνευμα και υδωρ και αιμα (the bearing-witness [nsn] spirit [nsn] and water and blood).

Compare Titus 2:13: την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν (the blessed [substantival articular adjective / asf] hope [asf] and appearance [asf]).

The articular adjective (την μακαριαν / the blessed) functions as an adjective modifying the two subsequent ANARTHROUS (not preceded by an article) nouns (ελπιδα και επιφανειαν / hope and appearance), and it agrees in case, number and gender (ALL THREE / nominative singular feminine) with the FIRST subsequent ANARTHROUS noun (ελπιδα / hope).

Compare Revelation 6:14.

(Received Text) Revelation 6:14 … και παν ορος και νησος …

6:14 … and every [adjective / nsn] mountain [nsn] and island [nsf] …

If the articular participle were changed from neuter to masculine, it would be written this way: ο μαρτυρων πνευμα και υδωρ και αιμα (the bearing-witness [nsm] spirit [nsn] and water and blood).

But that does NOT occur. Instead, it is written this way: οι μαρτυρουντες το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα (the-ones bearing-witness [npm], THE spirit [nsn] and THE water and THE blood). That is a nominative plural masculine (npm) substantival articular participle to which three subsequent appositional articular nouns are added as modifiers (as if they were adjectives) to provide additional information.

The articular participle is NOT an adjective modifying the three subsequent articular nouns.

Rather, the articular participle is a substantive, to which three subsequent appositional articular nouns are added as modifiers to provide additional information.

Since the substantival articular participle is NOT preceded by a single antecedent noun, it MUST agree with the NATURAL number and gender (plural masculine) of the idea being expressed (either a person and two things or the three persons who are symbolized by the spirit and the water and the blood).

The three subsequent appositional (added) articular nouns are required to agree in grammatical case with the preceding substantive to which they are added, which they do (nominative) , but they are not required to agree in number with it, which they do not (a plural preceding substantive and three singular appositional articular nouns), and they cannot agree in gender with it, because the gender of a noun (the appositional nouns) is predetermined by the grammatical gender of the noun, which never changes.

Eugenius and Wallace (experts in the Greek language) confirm this, and the four examples (Matthew 23:23, 1 John 2:16, 1 John 5:7, 1 John 5:8) in the Greek New Testament (Received Text) confirm this, and B-Greek confirms this (below), and sections 916, 976, 979, 981, 1018 and 1019 in Smyth’s 1920 book, A Greek Grammar for Colleges, confirm this (below).

B-Greek

From: Carl W Conrad Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 Subject: Re: Johannine Comma

… First of all, I would quite agree with you on the matter of TO PNEUMA KAI TO UDWR KAI TO AIMA standing in SIMPLE APPOSITION to OI MARTUROUNTES … . Perhaps the objection is that OI MARTUROUNTES is masculine, while THE THREE APPOSITIVES are all neuter, so that it is supposed that the participial phrase ought to take the form TA MARTUROUNTA. This would certainly be grammatically acceptable, but I can't see any reason why OI MARTUROUNTES shouldn't be understood as personalized: "There are three who bear witness." …

Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg01040.html

Herbert W. Smyth (1857-1937) A Greek Grammar for Colleges (1920)

916. Appositive. An appositive is a noun added to another noun or to a pronoun to describe or define it: Μιλτιάδης ὁ στρατηγός [Miltades, the General] … ὑμεῖς οἱ ἱερεῖς [You, the priests] … τοῦτο ὃ σὺ εἶπες ἀεὶ πάρεστι σχολή [This-thing (neuter), which you you-said always it-is-present, leisure (feminine)] …

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.9:6:1:10.NewPerseusMonographs

976. Concord. An appositive (916) agrees in case with the word it describes: κόλακι δεινῷ θηρίῳ καὶ μεγίστῃ βλάβῃ [to-flatterer, terrible beast and great injurer / all dative case] …

979. Agreement in number between the appositive and its noun is unnecessary and often impossible: Θῆβαι πόλις ἀστυγείτων [Thebes (plural), city (singular) neighboring] … γάμος χρυσῆς Ἀφροδίτης δῶρα [Marriage (singular), golden Aphrodite’s gifts (plural)] …

981. Partitive Apposition (σχῆμα καθ' ὅλον καὶ μέρος, construction of the whole and part). The parts are represented by the appositives, which stand in the same case as the whole, which is placed first to show the subject or object of the sentence: τὼ ὁδώ ἡ μὲν εἰς μακάρων νήσους, ἡ δ' εἰς τάρταρον [The two-ways (feminine), the-one (feminine) truly into Of-Blessings Islands, and the-one (feminine) into Tartarus] …

1018. Adjectives modify substantives …

1019. The equivalents of an adjective are … a noun in apposition … Δημοσθένης ὁ ῥήτωρ [Demosthenes, the orator] … Δημοσθένης ὁ στρατηγός [Demosthenes, the General] …

Notice the third example in section 916. The preceding substantive (τοῦτο / this-thing / demonstrative pronoun) is neuter for a thing because leisure is a thing, and the subsequent appositional (added) noun (σχολή / leisure) is grammatically feminine.

The preceding substantive (a pronoun) agrees with the natural number and gender (singular neuter) of the idea being expressed, and the appositional (added) noun agrees with the preceding substantive in grammatical case (nominative), as it must, and it happens to be the same number (singular) that the preceding substantive is, although it does not have to be, and it cannot agree in gender with the preceding substantive, because the gender of a noun (the appositional noun) is predetermined by the grammatical gender of the noun, which never changes.

Notice the example in section 981. The appositional substantives (ἡ and ἡ / the-one and the-one / feminine) are NOT nouns, but substantival articles. Therefore, not only do they agree in grammatical case (nominative) with the preceding substantive (τὼ ὁδώ / the two-ways / a nominative dual feminine articular noun), but also they are able to agree in gender (feminine) with it, because, unlike a noun, the gender of a substantival article is not predetermined.

If the appositional substantive IS a noun, then it agrees in grammatical case with the single preceding substantive to which it is added, but it CANNOT agree in gender with it, as in the third example in section 916, whereas if the appositional substantive (or substantives) is NOT a noun, then it agrees in grammatical case with the single preceding substantive to which it is added, and it CAN (and does) agree in gender with it, as in the example in section 981.

The direction of modification and agreement in an appositional construction is from the appositional (added) substantive to the preceding substantive, NOT from the preceding substantive to the appositional (added) substantive, as explained in sections 916, 976, 979, 981, 1018 and 1019.

Nolan INCORRECTLY claims that the articular participle is an adjective, when in fact it is a substantive, and he INCORRECTLY claims that the direction of modification and agreement is from the preceding articular participle to the three subsequent articular nouns, when in fact it is from the three subsequent appositional (added) articular nouns to the preceding substantival articular participle, and he INCORRECTLY claims that the articular participle is supposed to agree with the first subsequent articular noun, when in fact it is supposed to (and does) agree with the NATURAL number and gender of the idea being expressed, as Eugenius and Wallace and the four examples in the Greek New Testament (Received Text) and B-Greek and Smyth ALL confirm.

7Jim7 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the grammatical gender of an appositional noun (or nouns) has no bearing on the gender of any word preceding or following the appositional clause is discussed at the following B-Greek thread: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1605

7Jim7 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Conrad’s (of B-Greek) analysis of the grammar in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text) can be seen in two B-Greek threads dealing with an APPOSITIONAL noun or nouns.

In a thread (Gender of EKEINOS in John 16:13) in 2012, the author of the first message says, “In John 16:13, it reads: Ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. πνεῦμα is in APPOSITION to ἐκεῖνος, but why does the gender (masculine - neuter) not agree?”

Dr. Conrad says in the second message, “If you'll look closely at the preceding verses in the context (verses 7-11), you'll note the reference to ὁ παράκλητος is spoken of and referred to thereafter as ἐκεῖνος. It would appear that the noun παράκλητος governs the author's choice of the masculine pronoun.”

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1605

In a thread (Re: Johannine Comma) in 1995, the author of a preceding message in that thread says, “The brunt of their argument is that the three neuter nouns, pneuma, udwr and aima, are referred to by the masculine subject, oi marturountes. This, they say, is a grammatical impossibility. Supposedly the insertion of the JC [Johannine Comma] somehow fixes this, though for the life of me I can't see why, as the same sentence exists either way, but they say that the PRECEDING sentence is essential to the construction of the latter one. Isn't the phrase to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima an APPOSITION? And isn't it COMMON THAT THERE BE A LACK OF CONCORD in words used in APPOSITION? I would appreciate any scholarly input, and please indicate whether I may or may not quote you.”

Dr. Conrad says in response in that thread, “First of all, I WOULD QUITE AGREE WITH YOU on the matter of TO PNEUMA KAI TO UDWR KAI TO AIMA standing in simple APPOSITION to OI MARTUROUNTES. Perhaps the objection is that OI MARTUROUNTES is masculine, while the three APPOSITIVES are all neuter, so that it is supposed that the participial phrase ought to take the form TA MARTUROUNTA. This would certainly be grammatically acceptable, but I can't see any reason why OI MARTUROUNTES shouldn't be understood as personalized: There are three who bear witness."

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg01040.html

It is established in those two threads that the articular noun το πνευμα (the Spirit) in John 16:13 is an APPOSITIONAL articular noun, which requires the preceding word (εκεινος / that-one / a demonstrative pronoun) to be a SUBSTANTIVE, not an adjective, and that the articular nouns το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα (the spirit and the water and the blood) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text) are APPOSITIONAL articular nouns, which require the preceding phrase (οι μαρτυρουντες / the-ones bearing-witness / an articular participle) to be a SUBSTANTIVE, not an adjective.

In John 16:13, the SUBSTANTIVE (to which the appositional articular noun is added to provide additional information) does what a SUBSTANTIVE (that is not a noun) does. Since it IS preceded by a single antecedent noun (παρακλητος / Comforter / in verse 16:7), it therefore agrees in number and gender (singular masculine) with the single preceding antecedent noun (instead of agreeing with the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed). The GRAMMATICAL gender of the APPOSITIONAL articular noun has NO bearing on the gender of any word preceding or following the APPOSITIONAL clause.

In 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text), the SUBSTANTIVE (to which the three appositional articular nouns are added to provide additional information) does what a SUBSTANTIVE (that is not a noun) does. Since it is NOT preceded by a single antecedent noun, it therefore must agree with the NATURAL number and gender (plural masculine) of the idea being expressed (either a person and things because the Spirit and the water and the Blood are a person and two things, or persons because the Spirit and the water and the Blood [or the spirit and the water and the blood] symbolize three persons [personification / personalization]). The GRAMMATICAL genders of the APPOSITIONAL articular nouns have NO bearing on the gender of any word preceding or following the APPOSITIONAL clause.

7Jim7 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The above is the same spam that has is POV that is repeated again and again by Jim. Anytime he is willing to bring it over to any scholarly venue (some allow anonymity) I will be very happy to discuss it in depth, as will others. For now the argument exists in Jim's writing's, usually on his blogs, and here, and in no scholarly venue. The main problem with this spam here is not the weakness of the arguments (that is easy to show, when there is a scholarly forum discussion) it is the simple fact that it has largely made the Talk section unusable for its actual purpose.

You said, "Anytime he is willing to bring it over to any scholarly venue, I will be very happy to discuss it in depth, as will others." Why don't you bring it over to B-Greek and discuss it with Dr. Conrad? Ask Dr. Conrad (1) whether the masculine articular participle in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text is an adjective modifying the three subsequent articular nouns and therefore should (but incorrectly does not) agree with the grammatical gender (neuter) of the first subsequent articular noun, as Nolan says, or (2) whether the masculine articular participle is a substantive being modified by the three subsequent appositional articular nouns and therefore agrees (correctly) with the natural number and gender (plural masculine) of the idea being expressed (either a person and things because the Spirit and the water and the Blood are a person and two things / or persons because the Spirit and the water and the Blood symbolize three persons [personification]), as Bengel and Eugenius and Oxlee and he (Dr. Conrad) and Wallace say. Do you not think that Dr. Conrad is scholarly enough? 7Jim7 (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)