User:7Jim7

The Johannine Comma (The Grammatical Argument)

The bold parenthetical portion of the text below, which is included in the Textus Receptus Greek Text but not in the Majority Text Greek Text, is called the Johannine Comma. Its proponents say that it was deleted from the manuscripts which do not have it (most manuscripts), whereas its opponents say that it was added to the manuscripts which have it (a small minority of manuscripts).

(The Majority Text) 1 John 5:6 This One is the One having come through water and Blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water only but in the water and the Blood. 7 And the Spirit is the thing bearing witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 Because three are the ones bearing witness, ...

(in the heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit—and these Ones, the three Ones, one thing they are—and three are the ones bearing witness on the earth, [The Textus Receptus])

... the Spirit and the water and the Blood, and the three ones for the one thing they are. 9 If the witness of the men we accept, the witness of the God greater it is, because this is the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him.

Among the Comma’s proponents, Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) and Robert Dabney (1820-1898) are the earliest known proponents of a grammatical argument favoring the Comma’s inclusion in the text, in which it is asserted that the grammar of the Greek text requires the Comma’s inclusion. This argument has been subsequently perpetuated by people such as Edward Hills and Thomas Holland and Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman and Thomas Strouse.

Nolan discusses this in chapters 4 and 6 in his book titled “An Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament,” and Dabney discusses this in a section titled “The Doctrinal Various Reading of the New Testament Greek” on pages 350-390 in the first volume of his four-volume collection titled “Discussions by Robert L. Dabney.”

According to this grammatical argument, the gender of the substantival (functioning as a noun) participle “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 (all verse references in this article refer to the verses identified in the Majority Text presented above) should be neuter in agreement with the neuter grammatical gender of the nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood” in the same verse, and the fact that this substantival participle is masculine instead of neuter indicates that something has been deleted from most manuscripts, namely, the Comma.

Both Nolan and Dabney assert that the indirect source of the masculine gender of the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 is the masculine grammatical gender of the nouns “Father” and “Word” in the Comma, but they differ from one another in their explanations of how this occurs.

Nolan asserts that the gender of the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in the Comma is masculine in agreement with the masculine grammatical gender of the nouns “Father” and “Word” in the Comma, and that the gender of the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 is masculine as a result of being “attracted” to the masculine substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in the Comma.

... three masculine adjectives, “treiV oi marturounteV,” are forced into union with three neuter substantives, “to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima,” a grosser solecism than can be ascribed to any writer ... the manifest rent in the Corrected Text, which appears from the solecism in the language, is filled up in the Received Text, and, “o pathr o logoV” being inserted, the masculine adjectives, “treiV oi marturounteV,” are ascribed suitable substantives; and by the figure attraction, which is so prevalent in Greek, every objection is removed to the structure of the context. ... (chapter 4). ... furnishing the first adjectives, “treiV oi marturounteV,” with substantives, which is effectually done by the insertion of “o pathr o logoV” in the disputed passage. The subsequent “treiV oi marturounteV” are thence attracted to the foregoing adjectives instead of being governed by the subsequent “to pneuma kai to udwr” ... (chapter 6) (Nolan)

In contrast, Dabney asserts that the gender of the grammatically neuter noun “Spirit” in the Comma becomes masculine as a result of being “attracted” to the masculine grammatical gender of the nouns “Father” and “Word” in the Comma, and that the grammatically neuter nouns “water” and “Blood” in verse 5:8 become masculine as a result of being “attracted” to the now-masculine gender of the noun “Spirit” in the same verse, and that the gender of the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in this verse is masculine in agreement with the now-masculine gender of the nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood” in this verse.

... the masculine article, numeral, and particle ... are made to agree directly with three neuters, an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun ... where, according to a well known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them. ... Then the occurrence of the masculines ... in verse 8 agreeing with the neuters ... may be accounted for by the power of attraction ... the pneuma, the leading noun of this second group, and next to the adjectives, has just had a species of masculiness superinduced upon it by its previous position in the masculine group ... (Dabney) Thus, whereas both Nolan and Dabney assert that the gender of the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 should be neuter in agreement with the neuter grammatical gender of the nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood” in the same verse, and whereas both of them assert that the indirect source of the masculine gender of the substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 is the masculine grammatical gender of the nouns “Father” and “Word” in the Comma, Nolan explains this as being the result of gender “attraction” between substantival participles, whereas Dabney explains it as being the result of gender “attraction” between nouns.

The problem with this grammatical argument favoring the inclusion of the Comma is that none of its assertions is true. The truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement with multiple nouns. It never happens anywhere in the Greek text of the New Testament. Neither is there any such thing as gender attraction between participles. It never happens anywhere in the Greek text of the New Testament. Neither is there any such thing as gender attraction between nouns. It never happens anywhere in the Greek text of the New Testament. The truth of the matter is that these assertions by Nolan and Dabney bear no resemblance to what is consistently observed to actually occur in the Greek language throughout the New Testament.

Thus, the grammatical argument favoring the Comma is an exercise in circular reasoning. Nolan and Dabney started with the assumption that the Comma belonged in the text, and then they invented grammatical rationales to prove it, and then the presented their invented grammatical rationales as if they were factual when in reality their grammatical rationales bore no resemblance to what actually occurs in the Greek language throughout the New Testament.

The only instance of attraction which is observed to actually occur in the Greek language throughout the New Testament is when the grammatical case of a relative pronoun conforms to the grammatical case of its antecedent noun (the preceding noun in the text to which the relative pronoun refers) instead of conforming to the grammatical case which is dictated by its (the relative pronoun’s) own function in its own clause.

There are only eight instances in the New Testament (the Majority Text) in which the referent (the idea to which a word refers) of a pronoun or a substantival (functioning as a noun) participle is represented in the text by multiple nouns (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), and grammatical gender agreement does not occur in any of them, even when all of the referent nouns have the same grammatical gender (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:22-23), the reason being that grammatical gender agreement can occur only with a single referent noun.

1 Corinthians 13:13 is not included in this list because it is not a pronoun or substantival participle but a substantival adjective whose referent is represented in the text by multiple nouns in this verse. Likewise, 1 John 5:8 is not included in this list because, as discussed below, the referent of the substantival participle in this verse is not represented in the text by the three nouns in this verse.

If the referent of the pronoun or substantival participle is represented in the text by a single noun, grammatical gender agreement is not a requirement, but merely a frequently used option. Otherwise, whether the author simply chooses not to use grammatical gender agreement with a single referent noun, or whether the referent of the pronoun or substantival participle is represented in the text either by no noun or by multiple nouns, the gender of the pronoun or substantival participle is always determined by the natural gender (the nature) of the referent (the idea to which the pronoun or substantival participle refers), either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons.

Thus, there would be no expectation of grammatical gender agreement between the masculine substantival participle “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 and the three grammatically neuter nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood” in the same verse if the referent of this substantival participle were represented in the text by these three nouns, which it isn’t.

In Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15, Moses prescribed two or three witnesses (men) to establish the truth of a matter. This Mosaic tradition is cited in Matthew 18:16 and John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (MT).

In 2 Corinthians 13:1 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (MT), the two or three things that bear witness to the truth of a matter are comparatively (this is like that) equated to the two or three witnesses (men) of the Mosaic tradition for establishing the truth of a matter.

Just as in 2 Corinthians 13:1 Paul comparatively (this is like that) equates three things (his three visits to Corinth) to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15, and just as in Hebrews 10:28-29 the author of Hebrew comparatively (this is like that) equates three things (trampling the Son of God and considering His Blood to be ordinary blood and insulting the Spirit) to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter, likewise in 1 John 5:8-9 (MT) John comparatively (this is like that) equates three things (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter, hence the masculine gender of “the ones bearing witness” and “the three ones” in verse 5:8 (MT) in reference to the “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9.

This is what John says in 1 John 5:6-9 (Majority Text):

5:6 This One is the One having come through water and Blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water only but in the water and the Blood. 7 And the Spirit is the thing bearing witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 Because three are the ones bearing witness, THE SPIRIT AND THE WATER AND THE BLOOD, and the three ones for THE ONE THING they are. 9 If the witness of the men we accept, THE WITNESS OF THE GOD greater it is, because this is THE WITNESS OF THE GOD WHICH HE HAS BORN WITNESS REGARDING THE SON OF HIM. John comparatively (this is like that) equates “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8, which comprise “the witness of the God / the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him” in verse 5:9, to “the ones bearing witness / the three ones” in verse 5:8, who comprise the “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender in verse 5:8.

The gender of “the thing bearing witness” in verse 5:7 (MT) is neuter either (1) because it refers to a thing (the Spirit), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the single referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse, or (3) both.

The gender of “the ones bearing witness” in verse 5:8 (MT) is masculine either (1) because it refers to persons (men), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the single referent noun “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, or (3) both. Thus, everything is written as it should be written without the Comma.

Notice also that throughout Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 and Matthew 18:16 and John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (MT), the number of witnesses is always two or three, never more.

In contrast, the number of witnesses is five (the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit ... and the water and the Blood) when the Comma is added to the text in contradiction to the two or three witness (men) Mosaic tradition to which John is comparatively equating the witness of God regarding His Son. The number of witnesses is incorrect when the Comma is added to the text.

So there is no grammatical requirement for the Johannine Comma. Everything is written as it should be written without the Comma. Also, the number of witnesses presented in conformity to the two-or-three-witness Mosaic tradition indicates that John did not write the Comma.