Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:13 pm
Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Greetings, Steven Avery here, from Hyde Park, NY. In Bible research, occasionally I run into interesting question on Latin and Greek issues. I have found that look to be excellent writings (e.g. Prudent Maran and Johann Albert Fabricius in the 1700s) have never been translated.
Here is a Latin sentence from the 1500s that could use translation.
Miror etiam, quamobrem Ioannes tribus neutris masculina & postposuerit, & praeposuerit, irata Grammatica, nisi fortasis scriptura est deprauata
Luther scholar Thomas Naeogeorgus in 1544 gave this grammatical comment (taken from a secondary source) in regard to the short version of 1 John 5:7-8 with three witnesses, rather than 3 heavenly and three earthly witnesses. (This was a major controversy at the time, and has continued.)
And I would very much appreciate a good solid translation of the sentence above!
Any help appreciated.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Here is a Latin sentence from the 1500s that could use translation.
Miror etiam, quamobrem Ioannes tribus neutris masculina & postposuerit, & praeposuerit, irata Grammatica, nisi fortasis scriptura est deprauata
Luther scholar Thomas Naeogeorgus in 1544 gave this grammatical comment (taken from a secondary source) in regard to the short version of 1 John 5:7-8 with three witnesses, rather than 3 heavenly and three earthly witnesses. (This was a major controversy at the time, and has continued.)
And I would very much appreciate a good solid translation of the sentence above!
Any help appreciated.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Miror etiam, quamobrem Ioannes tribus neutris masculina & postposuerit, & praeposuerit, irata Grammatica, nisi fortasis scriptura est deprauata
looks to be saying something like: "I also wonder how John came to put masculine [words, scil. "tres...tres"] after and before neuter things, to the annoyance of Grammar, unless perhaps the writing is corrupt."
looks to be saying something like: "I also wonder how John came to put masculine [words, scil. "tres...tres"] after and before neuter things, to the annoyance of Grammar, unless perhaps the writing is corrupt."
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5038
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Or “why John put masculines both after and before three neuters” (or “the three neuters”). (We would say “both before and after”.) Preceding the three neuters (το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα) is τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες (masc.), following them is και οι τρεις … (also masc.). I’m assuming the reference is to the Greek text (already known to Luther), but it shouldn’t make any difference if it’s to the Latin.
EDIT. Delete this stupid last bit ("but ... Latin"). The comment must apply to the Greek text, not the Latin.
Little seems to have changed since the 16th century. 21st-century NT exegetes still get hung up on such trifling gender discrepancies, and invest them with theological import.
EDIT. Delete this stupid last bit ("but ... Latin"). The comment must apply to the Greek text, not the Latin.
Little seems to have changed since the 16th century. 21st-century NT exegetes still get hung up on such trifling gender discrepancies, and invest them with theological import.
Last edited by mwh on Mon May 30, 2016 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:13 pm
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Thanks, guys, good help on the translation.
Additional thoughts.
Overall, it is rather amazing that a Greek difficulty would be fixed in the Latin (although if the Greek had the full text when it was translated to Latin, and later dropped the heavenly witnesses, the difficulty is explained.)
Actually, the 18th century world-class Greek scholar, Eugenius Bulgaris, spoke very directly about the short Greek text as a solecism without the heavenly witnesses.
Eugenius was blunter about the problem than Naeogeorgus or Erasmus. Erasmus also noted the short text difficulty (he favored the short text when he omitted the heavenly witnesses in his first two editions, albeit with lots of nuance, such as his usage/commentary in the Paraphrase and the Ratio Verae.)
Erasmus referred to the ""torquebit grammaticos", those squirming grammarians, a phrase with irony, although he gave them a constructio ad sensum out.
So I would at least begin with the Eugenius understanding and exposition of Bible and Greek as the norm over modern seminary teaching. Which is saddled with the Critical Text grammatical corruptions as normative and limited proficiency and fluency.
However, that might have to be another thread over in the Greek section, since what Eugenius wrote hinges on his understanding and explanation of the Greek grammar.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
Additional thoughts.
My understanding is that the Latin short text does not have a grammatical problem, because you do not have three neuter nouns in the Latin. I think spiritus is masculine, aqua is feminine and sanguis is masculine.mwh wrote: I’m assuming the reference is to the Greek text (already known to Luther), but it shouldn’t make any difference if it’s to the Latin.
Overall, it is rather amazing that a Greek difficulty would be fixed in the Latin (although if the Greek had the full text when it was translated to Latin, and later dropped the heavenly witnesses, the difficulty is explained.)
mwh wrote:Little seems to have changed since the 16th century. 21st-century NT exegetes still get hung up on such trifling gender discrepancies, and invest them with theological import.
Actually, the 18th century world-class Greek scholar, Eugenius Bulgaris, spoke very directly about the short Greek text as a solecism without the heavenly witnesses.
Eugenius was blunter about the problem than Naeogeorgus or Erasmus. Erasmus also noted the short text difficulty (he favored the short text when he omitted the heavenly witnesses in his first two editions, albeit with lots of nuance, such as his usage/commentary in the Paraphrase and the Ratio Verae.)
Erasmus referred to the ""torquebit grammaticos", those squirming grammarians, a phrase with irony, although he gave them a constructio ad sensum out.
So I would at least begin with the Eugenius understanding and exposition of Bible and Greek as the norm over modern seminary teaching. Which is saddled with the Critical Text grammatical corruptions as normative and limited proficiency and fluency.
However, that might have to be another thread over in the Greek section, since what Eugenius wrote hinges on his understanding and explanation of the Greek grammar.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
- jeidsath
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5476
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
- Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
So the Greek version in our best texts is this more or less:
Τίς δέ ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν τὸν κόσμον εἰ μὴ ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ το αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
And the Latin version of what is suggested to have dropped out:
in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum, et spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt
A proposed Greek version for this Latin (by Erasmus? I don't recall the history of this exactly):
εν τω ουρανω πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη πνευμα υδωρ και αιμα
I suppose that the claim is being made that the following would be how John the Grammarian would have really said it the version at the top:
καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρία ἐστὶν τὰ μαρτυροῦντα, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ το αἷμα, καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἕν ἐστιν.
However, I don't believe that either the neuter or masculine version is incorrect Greek. To me, it seems to read a little muddier in the neuter version because of all the collective neuter verbs.
Τίς δέ ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν τὸν κόσμον εἰ μὴ ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ το αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
And the Latin version of what is suggested to have dropped out:
in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum, et spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt
A proposed Greek version for this Latin (by Erasmus? I don't recall the history of this exactly):
εν τω ουρανω πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη πνευμα υδωρ και αιμα
I suppose that the claim is being made that the following would be how John the Grammarian would have really said it the version at the top:
καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρία ἐστὶν τὰ μαρτυροῦντα, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ το αἷμα, καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἕν ἐστιν.
However, I don't believe that either the neuter or masculine version is incorrect Greek. To me, it seems to read a little muddier in the neuter version because of all the collective neuter verbs.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Don't take mwh's opening "Or" as an indication that my translation is as valid as his. I carelessly left tribus out of the translation entirely, and talking simply of "masculines" and neuters" is clearly closer in sense to what the Latin actually says.Steven Avery wrote:Thanks, guys, good help on the translation.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:13 pm
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Thanks, Victor for the translation tweak.
jeidsath, I would be curious as to why you would consider
ὅτι τρία ἐστὶν τὰ μαρτυροῦντα, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ το αἷμα, καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἕν ἐστιν.
To be less muddy if masculine grammar.
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν
What would impel the grammar discord?
And could you explain the reference to the "collective neuter verbs."
Thanks!
Steven Avery
jeidsath, I would be curious as to why you would consider
ὅτι τρία ἐστὶν τὰ μαρτυροῦντα, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ το αἷμα, καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἕν ἐστιν.
To be less muddy if masculine grammar.
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν
What would impel the grammar discord?
And could you explain the reference to the "collective neuter verbs."
Thanks!
Steven Avery
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Personification. The three substances are engaging in a human activity, namely, bearing witness, as if they were human--men, specifically. It's not really a "grammatical discord at all," it's a figure of speech.What would impel the grammar discord?
Bill Walderman
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:13 pm
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Are you aware of the papers by Naselli and Gons, and also by Daniel Wallace, that are specifically based on the question of whether πνεῦμα is ever grammatically personalized (i.e. masculine grammar) in the New Testament?Hylander wrote:Personification. The three substances are engaging in a human activity, namely, bearing witness, as if they were human--men, specifically. It's not really a "grammatical discord at all," it's a figure of speech.What would impel the grammar discord?
And do you have examples in the New Testament, or the Greek corpus, where there was a gender shift based on the action being that of witnessing? (This, presumably, would be anything that bears witness, such as a phone log, tire tracks and a bloody glove.)
To what extent is your preference supported by the Greek writers? And how often is this "figure of speech" used in a manner that leaves the connected neuter nouns grammatically orphaned away from their participle and grammar?
Basically, I am asking .. can you show Eugenius Bulgaris, a world-class Greek scholar, to be wrong? However, for that maybe I should start a different thread

Steven Avery
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Take a look at the entry for μαρτυρέω in LSJ:
The meaning of this word is literally to "act as a witness," "to give testimony as a witness in court," "to testify." It can be applied metaphorically in various meanings (e.g., "confirm"), and the subject can be a fact, as a opposed to a person, but I don't see any instances cited in LSJ where μαρτυρει is applied, not to a person, but to a physical thing, such as breath, blood or water (or, in your examples, a phone log, tire tracks or a bloody glove). It's possible to speak of things bearing witness, i.e., providing evidence," in English, but the Greek verb μαρτυρειν doesn't seem to lend itself to such a usage--it is generally used of human individuals. Using μαρτυρειν of blood, water and breath, as in this text, is a metaphor, a deliberately striking metaphor, which involves metaphorically attributing the capacity to bear witness or give testimony, i.e., human personality--in fact, male human personality--to these things. The inanimate things are portrayed here as human beings standing under oath on the witness stand. So the gender of the participle is masculine, and not neuter. There is no question here of "the connected neuter nouns" being "grammatically orphaned away from their participle and grammar." This is just an unusual metaphorical usage of μαρτυρειν that is intended to be dramatic and striking, in a text that is known for its colorful expressions. This is rhetoric, not grammar.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... arture%2FwA.“μαρτυρηθήσομαι” Is.8.13, D.19.40; μαρτυρήσομαι in pass. sense, X. (v.infr. 9), D. 57.37: aor. ἐμαρτυρήθην: pf. “μεμαρτύρημαι” Antipho 6.16, used in act. sense, LXX Ge.43.3:—bear witness, give evidence:—Constr.:
1. abs., Simon. 4.7, Pi.I.5(4).48; “μαρτυροῦντι πιστεύειν” Antipho 2.2.7; “ἐξέστω καὶ τοῖς δούλοις μαρτυρεῖν” PLille29.20 (iii B.C.), cf.SIG953.19 (Calymna, ii B.C.), etc.
2. c. dat. pers., bear witness to or in favour of another, confirm what he says, A.Eu.594, Hdt. 8.94, etc.; μαρτυρέει μοι τῇ γνώμῃ, ὅτι . . bears witness to my opinion, that . . , Id.2.18, cf. 4.29; “μαρτυρεῖς σαυτῷ” E.Ion 532; esp. bear favourable witness to, give a good report of a person, IG22.657 (iii B.C.), etc.; “πάντες ἐμαρτύρουν αὐτῷ” Eu. Luc.4.22. b. c. dat. rei, “μ. τῇ διαθήκῃ” POxy.494.33 (ii A.D.), etc.
3. c. acc. rei, testify to a thing, Alc. 102, Pi.O.13.108, S.Ant.515, Pl.Phdr.244d; “μ. τινί τι” Pi.O.6.21, A.Supp.797 (lyr.).
4. “μ. περί τινος” Pl.Ap. 21a; “ὑπέρ τινος” D.29.54.
5. c. inf., testify that a thing is, Heraclit. 34, S.OC1265, etc.; τίς σοι μαρτυρήσει ταῦτ᾽ ἐμοῦ κλύειν; that he heard . . ? Id.Tr.422, cf. E.Hipp.977; “ὁ κληθεὶς μαρτυρείτω ἀληθῆ μαρτυρεῖν” PHal.1.225 (iii B.C.): rarely c. part., “μαρτυρεῖτέ [μοι] . . ῥινηλατούσῃ” A.Ag.1184; “μ. τισὶ παραγινομέναις” D.H. 8.46.
6. μ. τινὶ ὡς . . A.Ag. 494, cf. Pl.Grg.523c; “σώματα . . ὡς ἔστιν, αὐτὴ ἡ αἴσθησις . . μ.” Epicur. Ep.1p.6U.; μ. ὅτι . . X.Vect.4.25.
7. μ. τινὶ τῆς συμμαχίας testify to, acknowledge the value of his alliance, J.AJ13.5.3.
8. c. acc. cogn., “μαρτυρίαν μ.” Is. 11.25, Pl.Erx.399b; μ. ἀκοήν give hearsay evidence, D.57.4; μ. ψεῦδος, ψεύδη, bear false witness, Amips. 13, Diph. 32.16; “τὰ ψευδῆ” Lys. 19.4; “τἀληθῆ” Aeschin. 1.46:—Pass., “μαρτυρίαι μαρτυρηθεῖσαι” D. 47.1; “μεμαρτύρηταί τι περί τινος” Antipho 6.16, cf. Lys. 13.66.
9. impers. in Pass., παρ᾽ ἄλλου ποιητοῦ μαρτυρεῖται testimony is borne by . . , Pl.Prt.344d; οἶδα . . μαρτυρήσεσθαί μοι ὅτι . . X.Mem.4.8.10, cf.Ap.26; μεμαρτύρηται ὑμῖν testimony has been given before you, Lys. 19.55, Is.9.5.
10. Pass., μαρτυρεῖταί μοι σοφία is ascribed to me, D.H. 2.26; μαρτυροῦμαι ἐμπειρίαν I have it ascribed to me, Plu. 2.58a, cf. Luc.Sacr.10; “καλοκἀγαθίαν μαρτυρούμενος” J.AJ 15.10.5; μαρτυροῦμαι ἐπί τινι I bear a character for . . , Ath. 1.25 f; ἄνδρας μαρτυρουμένους men whose character is approved by testimony, Act.Ap.6.3; “τεχνίτας . . μαρτυρηθέντας ὑπό τινος” SIG799.28 (Cyzicus, i A.D.); “δι᾽ ὅλης οἰκουμένης μαρτυρούμενον θεόν” Sammelb.1070 (Abydos).
II. Astrol., to be in aspect with, c. dat., Ptol.Tetr.123; “μ. τὴν μοῖραν” Cat.Cod.Astr.7.226:—Pass., Nech. ap. Vett.Val. 279.23.
The meaning of this word is literally to "act as a witness," "to give testimony as a witness in court," "to testify." It can be applied metaphorically in various meanings (e.g., "confirm"), and the subject can be a fact, as a opposed to a person, but I don't see any instances cited in LSJ where μαρτυρει is applied, not to a person, but to a physical thing, such as breath, blood or water (or, in your examples, a phone log, tire tracks or a bloody glove). It's possible to speak of things bearing witness, i.e., providing evidence," in English, but the Greek verb μαρτυρειν doesn't seem to lend itself to such a usage--it is generally used of human individuals. Using μαρτυρειν of blood, water and breath, as in this text, is a metaphor, a deliberately striking metaphor, which involves metaphorically attributing the capacity to bear witness or give testimony, i.e., human personality--in fact, male human personality--to these things. The inanimate things are portrayed here as human beings standing under oath on the witness stand. So the gender of the participle is masculine, and not neuter. There is no question here of "the connected neuter nouns" being "grammatically orphaned away from their participle and grammar." This is just an unusual metaphorical usage of μαρτυρειν that is intended to be dramatic and striking, in a text that is known for its colorful expressions. This is rhetoric, not grammar.
Last edited by Hylander on Tue May 31, 2016 6:13 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Bill Walderman
- jeidsath
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5476
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
- Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
The Koine forum is a good suggestion, and since it has also been made by the original poster, I'll move this thread over to that forum.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5038
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
I'll take the other Steven Avery any day of the week.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:13 pm
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Hylander wrote: This is rhetoric, not grammar.
So this is a way of saying that you "feel" the masculine grammar has a rhetorical base, but there are not any grammatical precedents or analogies for this type of relationship of a masculine participle with neuter nouns?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2545
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
You asked for an explanation; I gave you the obvious one. If you don't like it, go find another one.
Your tone is rude and importunate, and you've misrepresented what I wrote. I'm sorry I stepped in. This will teach me a lesson: not to try to engage with those who are blinkered by theological preconceptions.
Your tone is rude and importunate, and you've misrepresented what I wrote. I'm sorry I stepped in. This will teach me a lesson: not to try to engage with those who are blinkered by theological preconceptions.
Little seems to have changed since the 16th century. 21st-century NT exegetes still get hung up on such trifling gender discrepancies, and invest them with theological import.
Bill Walderman
- Paul Derouda
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2310
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
This is not exactly the same construction, but shows that a participle may be in the masculine plural according to the sense of a collective noun it refers to.
Smyth's Greek grammar §1044:
A circumstantial participle (2054) referring to a collective noun (996) may be plural: τὸ στράτευμα ἐπορίζετο σῖτον κόπτοντες τοὺς βοῦς the army provided itself with provisions by killing the cattle X. A. 2.1.6. So after οὐδείς, as οὐδεὶς ἐκοιμήθη ( = πάντες ἐν ἀγρυπνίᾳ ἦσαν) τοὺς ἀπολωλότας πενθοῦντες no one slept because they were all bewailing the dead X. H. 2.2.3. Cp. 950.
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... Monographs
But I agree with Hylander that this is different, this case isn't grammar but metaphor. It would be difficult to find an exactly similar case, but I could come up with this:
Demosthenes 18.162
οὓς σὺ ζῶντας μέν, ὦ κίναδος, κολακεύων παρηκολούθεις, τεθνεώτων δ’ οὐκ αἰσθάνει κατηγορῶν·
Demosthenes calls Aeschines κίναδος, a neuter noun. That doesn't change the fact that κολακεύων is in the masculine, because Aeschines is a man.
Smyth's Greek grammar §1044:
A circumstantial participle (2054) referring to a collective noun (996) may be plural: τὸ στράτευμα ἐπορίζετο σῖτον κόπτοντες τοὺς βοῦς the army provided itself with provisions by killing the cattle X. A. 2.1.6. So after οὐδείς, as οὐδεὶς ἐκοιμήθη ( = πάντες ἐν ἀγρυπνίᾳ ἦσαν) τοὺς ἀπολωλότας πενθοῦντες no one slept because they were all bewailing the dead X. H. 2.2.3. Cp. 950.
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... Monographs
But I agree with Hylander that this is different, this case isn't grammar but metaphor. It would be difficult to find an exactly similar case, but I could come up with this:
Demosthenes 18.162
οὓς σὺ ζῶντας μέν, ὦ κίναδος, κολακεύων παρηκολούθεις, τεθνεώτων δ’ οὐκ αἰσθάνει κατηγορῶν·
Demosthenes calls Aeschines κίναδος, a neuter noun. That doesn't change the fact that κολακεύων is in the masculine, because Aeschines is a man.
- jeidsath
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5476
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
- Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
If you want examples, Smyth's Greek Grammar has several under the heading "Peculiarities in the Use of Gender." Daniel Wallace's Exegetical Syntax collects a number of examples of gender non-agreement in the New Testament. In fact, Wallace points out that there is likely an allusion to Deut. 19:15 in 1 John 5:7, which would further explain the personification if you don't buy Hylander's argument.
If you don't want to take anybody else's word for it though, your best option at this point is to learn Greek. It's a lot of fun. Until you learn Greek, you are at the mercy of people that can speak it. And I don't know if all of the ones here are feeling especially merciful just now.
If you don't want to take anybody else's word for it though, your best option at this point is to learn Greek. It's a lot of fun. Until you learn Greek, you are at the mercy of people that can speak it. And I don't know if all of the ones here are feeling especially merciful just now.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5038
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
It’s not in the least amazing unless you see difficulty with the Greek. But the alleged grammatical difficulty is imaginary. And the three heavenly witnesses, the notorious Comma Johanneum, are self-evidently a later addition, as the transmissional evidence definitively confirms (and as Erasmus well recognized, even though he included it in his later editions, caving in to the virulent attacks on his omission of it by ignorant churchmen). The issue was settled long since, and recent attempts to unsettle it are badly retrogressive.Steven Avery wrote:Overall, it is rather amazing that a Greek difficulty would be fixed in the Latin (although if the Greek had the full text when it was translated to Latin, and later dropped the heavenly witnesses, the difficulty is explained.)
You will want to contest this (in the grating manner of the poisonous bible forums), but I have no interest in prolonging this thread. Victor and I obliged your original request, and I suggest you be content with that.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:27 am
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
@Steven Avery What @Hylander is saying, if I understand correctly, is that, as the word μαρτυρέω means "to bear witness," so it is reasonable to assume that the putting of "οἱ μαρτυροῦντες" in the masculine gender is nothing more than the Evangelist's way of making his construction bolder and more vigorous: for by giving that gender to the participle describing τὸ πνεῦμα, τὸ ὕδωρ, and τὸ αἷμα, he appears to be personifying these non-human things as if they could actually testify with their own tongues like living, breathing men. It is a very beautiful interpretation in my view, and, I think, the correct one.
You were right to wish to know whether or not there are analogous uses of this supposed rhetorical device in other Greek writers, in order to put the matter absolutely to the proof: but I think what nettled @Hylander was that you appeared unjustifiably to cast an imputation upon him which placed him in a bad light. If you had done nothing more than thank him for his reply, and then follow up with the simple question, "Do you know whether there are any analogous uses of this kind of personification in other Greek writers?" I do not believe that he would have taken offence at your words. But you appeared to imply that he knew that there were no analogous uses when he gave his opinion that this construction was rhetorical, which implication seemed uncharitably to imply, in its own turn, that he was being duplicitous at worst, slipshod in his scholarship at best; whereas the actual fact is that he did not state whether there were, or whether he knew there were, analogous uses in other writers one way or the other, and did nothing more or less than venture to give his personal opinion about how the construction functioned. This is probably not, however, what you wished to imply at all; and if that is so, I am sorry that the vials of wrath have been so profusely poured upon your head!
You were right to wish to know whether or not there are analogous uses of this supposed rhetorical device in other Greek writers, in order to put the matter absolutely to the proof: but I think what nettled @Hylander was that you appeared unjustifiably to cast an imputation upon him which placed him in a bad light. If you had done nothing more than thank him for his reply, and then follow up with the simple question, "Do you know whether there are any analogous uses of this kind of personification in other Greek writers?" I do not believe that he would have taken offence at your words. But you appeared to imply that he knew that there were no analogous uses when he gave his opinion that this construction was rhetorical, which implication seemed uncharitably to imply, in its own turn, that he was being duplicitous at worst, slipshod in his scholarship at best; whereas the actual fact is that he did not state whether there were, or whether he knew there were, analogous uses in other writers one way or the other, and did nothing more or less than venture to give his personal opinion about how the construction functioned. This is probably not, however, what you wished to imply at all; and if that is so, I am sorry that the vials of wrath have been so profusely poured upon your head!
- seneca2008
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2033
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
- Location: Londinium
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
Has Dan Brown written a book about this? Intrigued by all the hot air I looked at the Wikipedia article which despite its enormous repetitive length fails to throw any meaningful light on this issue.
I am usually respectful of other people's sincerely held beliefs, even if they seem to me to be entirely implausible. But I don't really have any respect for posters who set out to state particular positions under the guise of asking seemingly innocuous questions. That seems a rhetorical strategy to be deprecated. I am not the least bit surprised that Hylander expresses his displeasure in such trenchant terms.
I am usually respectful of other people's sincerely held beliefs, even if they seem to me to be entirely implausible. But I don't really have any respect for posters who set out to state particular positions under the guise of asking seemingly innocuous questions. That seems a rhetorical strategy to be deprecated. I am not the least bit surprised that Hylander expresses his displeasure in such trenchant terms.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:13 pm
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
First, my thanks to Paul Derouda, who really did offer substance to the question at hand. He did not simply ascribe this to rhetoric or metaphor, or weird attacks on Bible forums, he worked directly with the question. Appreciated.
Also, thanks to MarkAntony198337, who addresses the question of tone and offense. Your point is understood and well taken.
Well spoken. This is an issue that is in fact currently being searched out, whether there are any real solid analogies in the Greek corpus to the modern claims about the grammar. (The Bible scholars who raised these issues were classical scholars, at a time when that meant a high degree of fluency and proficiency.) And no, I definitely had no pre-thought as to whether Hylander felt he had specific analogous uses.
mwh, may I suggest you actually study the heavenly witnesses evidences and debate.
====
The Wikipedia article is a particularly poor source on the grammar. The grammatical section there (only) was done by a fellow named Jim who has unusual ideas. (This is documented on CARM.) It is not even in the ballpark of a real discussion. The rest of the article is not about the grammar.
The thread began with my request for the translation of Thomas Naeogeorgus. The purpose of this post was straightforward, and received an excellent response. Naeogeorgus joins Erasmus as 1500s writers who specifically and clearly noted the grammar question. I found out about Naeogeorgus because he was referenced in a recent dissertation "The Ghost of Arius", however his Latin needed an English translation.
And I was requested to explain the verse that was being examined, and you seem to be upset that I actually answered the request and then followed up when the explanations provided had some difficulties. And I noted that it probably should have been on another thread, since the topic had changed.
It is clear that some of the posters here are not really desiring to understand and search out the issues. The issue is not a vague concept of gender discord, it is a very specific discord, a question of neuter nouns taking masculine grammar. This distinction was specifically addressed by Eugenius Bulgaris, a world-class Greek scholar, in 1782. Eugenius specifically pointed out the non-symmetry of the issue. If anyone on this forum is still interested in the substance of the matter, it can be continued on this thread, or a new thread.
If not, no harm, no foul, and I thank you for the Naeogeorgus translation! That was helpful and appreciated.
===============
And I can be found by individuals on Facebook, where we discuss such issues on a number of forums, my name or the group purebible should be sufficient. Some forums are truly excellent (others, less so.)
===============
One point to be added. Bible believers do approach some of these issues differently that geek-grammer done from a secular and skeptic and atheistic perspective. Here are two quotes on the question.
"Gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable oversights in the texture of the sense, cannot be ascribed to the inspired writers. If of any two given readings one be exposed to such objections, there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentic." - Frederick Nolan
Erasmus... his work was meant for the better understanding [than Jerome's Vulgate]. To the cry of his opponents that "solecisms are not offensive to God." Erasmus replied, "true, but neither are they pleasing to Him" (non offenditur deus soloecismis. at idem non delectatur). - Bernhard Pick on Erasmus
So discussing these questions in a forum where Bible belief is mocked may lead to a type of oil and water discussion.
Nonetheless, the Eugenius Bulgaris quote is interesting, and could spark some grammatical study and research by ... anyone.
==================
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
Also, thanks to MarkAntony198337, who addresses the question of tone and offense. Your point is understood and well taken.
MarkAntony198337 wrote:You were right to wish to know whether or not there are analogous uses of this supposed rhetorical device in other Greek writers, in order to put the matter absolutely to the proof: but I think what nettled @Hylander was that you appeared unjustifiably to cast an imputation upon him which placed him in a bad light....This is probably not, however, what you wished to imply at all; and if that is so, I am sorry ...
Well spoken. This is an issue that is in fact currently being searched out, whether there are any real solid analogies in the Greek corpus to the modern claims about the grammar. (The Bible scholars who raised these issues were classical scholars, at a time when that meant a high degree of fluency and proficiency.) And no, I definitely had no pre-thought as to whether Hylander felt he had specific analogous uses.
mwh, may I suggest you actually study the heavenly witnesses evidences and debate.
====
seneca2008 wrote:Intrigued by all the hot air I looked at the Wikipedia article which despite its enormous repetitive length fails to throw any meaningful light on this issue..
The Wikipedia article is a particularly poor source on the grammar. The grammatical section there (only) was done by a fellow named Jim who has unusual ideas. (This is documented on CARM.) It is not even in the ballpark of a real discussion. The rest of the article is not about the grammar.
The thread began with my request for the translation of Thomas Naeogeorgus. The purpose of this post was straightforward, and received an excellent response. Naeogeorgus joins Erasmus as 1500s writers who specifically and clearly noted the grammar question. I found out about Naeogeorgus because he was referenced in a recent dissertation "The Ghost of Arius", however his Latin needed an English translation.
And I was requested to explain the verse that was being examined, and you seem to be upset that I actually answered the request and then followed up when the explanations provided had some difficulties. And I noted that it probably should have been on another thread, since the topic had changed.
It is clear that some of the posters here are not really desiring to understand and search out the issues. The issue is not a vague concept of gender discord, it is a very specific discord, a question of neuter nouns taking masculine grammar. This distinction was specifically addressed by Eugenius Bulgaris, a world-class Greek scholar, in 1782. Eugenius specifically pointed out the non-symmetry of the issue. If anyone on this forum is still interested in the substance of the matter, it can be continued on this thread, or a new thread.
If not, no harm, no foul, and I thank you for the Naeogeorgus translation! That was helpful and appreciated.
===============
And I can be found by individuals on Facebook, where we discuss such issues on a number of forums, my name or the group purebible should be sufficient. Some forums are truly excellent (others, less so.)
===============
One point to be added. Bible believers do approach some of these issues differently that geek-grammer done from a secular and skeptic and atheistic perspective. Here are two quotes on the question.
"Gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable oversights in the texture of the sense, cannot be ascribed to the inspired writers. If of any two given readings one be exposed to such objections, there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentic." - Frederick Nolan
Erasmus... his work was meant for the better understanding [than Jerome's Vulgate]. To the cry of his opponents that "solecisms are not offensive to God." Erasmus replied, "true, but neither are they pleasing to Him" (non offenditur deus soloecismis. at idem non delectatur). - Bernhard Pick on Erasmus
So discussing these questions in a forum where Bible belief is mocked may lead to a type of oil and water discussion.
Nonetheless, the Eugenius Bulgaris quote is interesting, and could spark some grammatical study and research by ... anyone.
==================
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
Last edited by Steven Avery on Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:20 am, edited 3 times in total.
- jeidsath
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5476
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
- Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
One thread is more than enough, I would hope.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
- seneca2008
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2033
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
- Location: Londinium
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
I dont see anyone here mocking "Bible belief". I also see no note of apology for the offensive tone you have taken.So discussing these questions in a forum where Bible belief is mocked may lead to a type of oil and water discussion.
People on this forum come from a wide variety of backgrounds. Many are graduates or postgraduates in classics, some work professionally in the field. All are interested in generously sharing their knowledge. Although things can get heated posters are at least respectful of others' opinions. I happen to know that several posters here hold sincerely held and expressed Christian beliefs.
When you seek to rubbish contemporary scholarship by stating that " The Bible scholars who raised these issues were classical scholars, at a time when that meant a high degree of fluency and proficiency " this can be taken in no other way than as a covert attack.
I join with Joel in urging you to learn Greek and Latin so that you can have some context in which to ask your questions without having to depend on authorities which you dont have the means to question.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:13 pm
Eugenius Bulgaris on the grammar of 1John 5
Here are three extracts from Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806).
Eugenius
1) "a false alteration which had crept into that place, that verse eight, which follows, would not stand, unless verse seven were to proceed it"
2) "some violence of language, and through a most manifest grammatical solecism."
3) "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to τὰ πράγματα, are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns."
The third one is the one that is straight grammar, ie. a statement not simply based on his feel and fluency.
==========================
Eugenius seems to emphasize a point that is not understood in some circles today. e.g. Daniel Wallace notes the lack of such male-grammar-for-neuter constuctio ad sensum in a major grammar book, and thus just conjectured that there must be so many that the grammar book author simply did not bother.
==========================
The translation was mostly from the latindiscussion forum, τὰ πράγματα [ta pragmata], was left untranslated, perhaps as being a bit idiomatic
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/ ... ina.11586/
SS[ancti] apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae (1782)
Christian Frederick Matthaei (1744–1811)
https://books.google.com/books?id=AjJOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR60
#3 is the one that negates thinking and analysis that is done in terms of the general concept of "gender discord" as the issue. The issue raised by Eugenius is clear and distinct.
==========================
Steven Avery
Eugenius
1) "a false alteration which had crept into that place, that verse eight, which follows, would not stand, unless verse seven were to proceed it"
2) "some violence of language, and through a most manifest grammatical solecism."
3) "That it is certainly a peculiar virtue of our language that masculine and feminine nouns, in reference to τὰ πράγματα, are constructed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, is well known to all who are practised in the language. But no one would say that conversely neuter nouns substantive are also indicated by masculine and feminine adjectives or pronouns."
The third one is the one that is straight grammar, ie. a statement not simply based on his feel and fluency.
==========================
Eugenius seems to emphasize a point that is not understood in some circles today. e.g. Daniel Wallace notes the lack of such male-grammar-for-neuter constuctio ad sensum in a major grammar book, and thus just conjectured that there must be so many that the grammar book author simply did not bother.
==========================
The translation was mostly from the latindiscussion forum, τὰ πράγματα [ta pragmata], was left untranslated, perhaps as being a bit idiomatic
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/ ... ina.11586/
SS[ancti] apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae (1782)
Christian Frederick Matthaei (1744–1811)
https://books.google.com/books?id=AjJOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR60
#3 is the one that negates thinking and analysis that is done in terms of the general concept of "gender discord" as the issue. The issue raised by Eugenius is clear and distinct.
==========================
Steven Avery
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:13 pm
are classical scholarship skill levels a valid topic?
Hi,
As for my pointing out that the emphasis on classical scholarship in the educational systems has declined rather radically in Europe and the USA, compared to the 1600s and 1800s, that is simply a recognized fact. Granted, those studying in the seminaries and other language venues may not want to consider this point in evaluating commentary.
An important exception: read Professor Daniel Streett about the current skill level, along with the attempts to bring ulpan into the language field so that the students attain a degree of fluency.
And similarly my pointing out that Eugenius Bulgaris especially, and men like Frederick Nolan and William Craig Brownlee, were strong linguists and/or classical scholars is simply a valid note. This counters the tendency to curt dismissal. Thus an "appeal to authority" that involves such men is not a fallacious appeal (although of course their skill level does not demonstrate that they are correct on a specific point.)
Thus I will say this again:
"The Bible scholars who raised these issues were classical scholars, at a time when that meant a high degree of fluency and proficiency."
Not all such Bible scholars over all time, however. As an example, Robert Lewis Dabney in the 1800s raised the issues in a secondary, derivative manner. His classical skill language level is unclear. Similar question with Edward Freer Hills, whose education was in the 1900s. However, the key players fit the description above.
On the contra-authenticity side, the person with the greatest skill level in classical Greek was likely Richard Porson, a key figure in the attack on the authenticity of the verse. And even though he was very familiar with and respectful of Eugenius, Richard Porson managed to never mention or discuss this grammatical issue.
====================
As for the modern struggles around handling constructio ad sensum sensibly, with a specific emphasis on John's use of πνεῦμα, I recommend reading the Gaselli and Nons paper:
“Prooftexting the Personality of the Holy Spirit: An Analysis of the Masculine Demonstrative Pronouns in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–14,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 16 (2011): 65–89."
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2011/NaselliGons2011.pdf
Now to be fair, they show this problem going back all the way to the 1600s, and that it touches grammarians as well as commentators and apologists.
====================
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
As for my pointing out that the emphasis on classical scholarship in the educational systems has declined rather radically in Europe and the USA, compared to the 1600s and 1800s, that is simply a recognized fact. Granted, those studying in the seminaries and other language venues may not want to consider this point in evaluating commentary.
An important exception: read Professor Daniel Streett about the current skill level, along with the attempts to bring ulpan into the language field so that the students attain a degree of fluency.
And similarly my pointing out that Eugenius Bulgaris especially, and men like Frederick Nolan and William Craig Brownlee, were strong linguists and/or classical scholars is simply a valid note. This counters the tendency to curt dismissal. Thus an "appeal to authority" that involves such men is not a fallacious appeal (although of course their skill level does not demonstrate that they are correct on a specific point.)
Thus I will say this again:
"The Bible scholars who raised these issues were classical scholars, at a time when that meant a high degree of fluency and proficiency."
Not all such Bible scholars over all time, however. As an example, Robert Lewis Dabney in the 1800s raised the issues in a secondary, derivative manner. His classical skill language level is unclear. Similar question with Edward Freer Hills, whose education was in the 1900s. However, the key players fit the description above.
On the contra-authenticity side, the person with the greatest skill level in classical Greek was likely Richard Porson, a key figure in the attack on the authenticity of the verse. And even though he was very familiar with and respectful of Eugenius, Richard Porson managed to never mention or discuss this grammatical issue.
====================
As for the modern struggles around handling constructio ad sensum sensibly, with a specific emphasis on John's use of πνεῦμα, I recommend reading the Gaselli and Nons paper:
“Prooftexting the Personality of the Holy Spirit: An Analysis of the Masculine Demonstrative Pronouns in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–14,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 16 (2011): 65–89."
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2011/NaselliGons2011.pdf
Now to be fair, they show this problem going back all the way to the 1600s, and that it touches grammarians as well as commentators and apologists.
====================
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
- seneca2008
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2033
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
- Location: Londinium
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
I can see that all you are interested in doing is selectively misrepresenting what you read. Why bother asking questions about things you have already made your mind up about? So there is no point in pursuing this further.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:27 am
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
If I am not mistaken, a fellow in this thread here appears already to have picked and culled a large number of analogous examples of the construction in question:
Although this is only by the by, it may be interesting to point out, in the context of this discussion, that one of the statements bearing on this passage which you have collected in a certain place happens to agree with the interpretation of @Hylander: "John Pye Smith (1774-1851): "the neuter nouns are, by the composition of the sentence, personified."
If much or all of the information you have collected about this subject is your own doing, then I commend you for your industry and independence of thought, Mr Avery; but it seems that you may have been pursuing a wild-goose chase, which is a misfortune which often befalls the best of us. It is all still very curious from a historical point of view.Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ
In this instance, the antecedent of the masculine pronoun (οὕς) is both a feminine singular (κυρίᾳ) and a neuter plural (τέκνοις).
Boom. There was the sound of the grammatical argument hitting the floor. But you have other examples. Keep in mind some knowledge of Greek is necessary to comprehend this grammatical discord. There are probably close to 100 examples of discord in the OT and NT combined. These include:
These include:
Matt 25:32 [τα εθνη (n)…αυτους (m)];
Mark 3:8 [πλῆθος (n)…ἀκούσαντες (m)];
Mark 5:41 [τοῦ παιδίου (n) λέγει αὐτῇ (f)];
Luke 2:13 [πλῆθος (n) στρατιᾶς (f)…αἰνούντων (m) …λεγοντων (m)];
Acts 13:48 [τὰ ἔθνη (n)…ὅσοι (m)…τεταγμένοι (m)];
Acts 14:4 [τὸ πλῆθος (n)…καὶ οἱ (m)…οἱ (m)…];
Acts 15:17 [τὰ ἔθνη (n) ἐφ’ οὓς (m)];
Acts26:17 [τῶν ἐθνῶν (n) εἰς οὓς (m)];
Rom 2:14 [ἔθνη (n)…οὗτοι (m)];
Rom 9:23-24 [σκεύη (n)...οὓς (m)];
Gal 4:19 [τεκνία (n)…οὓς (m)];
Eph. 2:11 [τὰ ἔθνη (n)…οἱ λεγόμενοι (m)];
Eph 4:17-18 [ἔθνη (n)…ἐσκοτισμένοι (m)… ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι (m)…αὐτοῖς (m)];
Col 2:19 [κεφαλήν (f) ἐξ οὗ (m)];
Phlm 10 [τέκνου (n) ὃν (m)].
LXX examples include:
Exod 8:15 [δάκτυλος (m)…ἐστιν τοῦτο (n)]
2 Chron 29:32 [ὁ ἀριθμὸς (m) τὴς ὁλοκαυτώσεως (f) ἧς (f)…πάντα (n) ταῦτα (n)].
There are a multitude of other examples, including: Matt 28.19; Rom 4.12; Col 3.11; Rev 19.15 in the NT. In the LXX, examples include: Exod 23.7; Num 14.15; Deut 12.29; 18.14; 31.3; Ps 43.3; 77.55; Job 17.6; Jer 25.9; Ezek 11.16; Ezek 30.23, 26
Although this is only by the by, it may be interesting to point out, in the context of this discussion, that one of the statements bearing on this passage which you have collected in a certain place happens to agree with the interpretation of @Hylander: "John Pye Smith (1774-1851): "the neuter nouns are, by the composition of the sentence, personified."
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:13 pm
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
MarkAntony198337 wrote:If I am not mistaken, a fellow in this thread here appears already to have picked and culled a large number of analogous examples of the construction in question:"
Simple question.
Are any of those analogies masculine (or feminine) grammar with only neuter noun(s)? If not, they are simply irrelevant, as I rather carefully explained above. Did you read Eugenius Bulgaris?
MarkAntony198337 wrote: "John Pye Smith (1774-1851): "the neuter nouns are, by the composition of the sentence, personified."
Definitely, this has been the major attempt of people who have tried to find an answer to the gender discord in the short text without the heavenly witnesses.
The problem is .. John never personifies pneuma, and did not even personify pneuma in 1 John 5:6 two verses early. (And pneuma would have to take the lead in personification, who has ever theorized water and blood being a person?) Thus this is totally inconsistent as Johannine grammar and thus is nothing more than a special pleading type of answer.
Now, to be fair, it is easy to see how this developed. There is a common grammatical error (see Naselli and Gons, referenced above) that says that John did personify pneuma in John 14, 15 and 16. That error can easily lead to suggesting the mistaken personification error in 1 John 5. Error begets error. Daniel Wallace even wrote a paper emphasizing that the Spirit is never personified grammatically in the New Testament (i.e if the Spirit is to be conceived of as a person, it must be done interpretatively, not as something impelled by grammar.) In that assertion, Wallace is on solid ground.
Steven Avery
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
It does seem like you are the very model of a Biblical Philologist!
- jeidsath
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 5476
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
- Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν
Re: Thomas Naeogeorgus on Greek grammar of Bible verse
I think that we've fairly well exhausted this topic. I will lock the thread. If anyone is interested, perhaps continue it on one of the other forums that Steven Avery has already mentioned instead of Textkit?
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com