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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 .
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.
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.).
“μ. περί τινος” Pl.Ap. 21a; “ὑπέρ τινος” D.29.54.
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.
μ. τινὶ τῆς συμμαχίας testify to, acknowledge the value of his alliance, J.AJ13.5.3.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
@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!
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.
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.
.