Comma Johanneum - The Grammar in 1 John 5:7-8

The Grammar in 1 John 5:7-8

On pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, Frederick Nolan (1784–1864) is the first person to claim (1) that the masculine articular (preceded by an article) participle in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text functions as an adjective modifying the three subsequent articular nouns in that verse and therefore agrees in gender with the masculine first subsequent articular noun, and (2) that the masculine articular participle in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text functions as an adjective modifying the three subsequent articular nouns in that verse and therefore should (but does not) agree in gender with the neuter first subsequent articular noun, and (3) that the reason that the articular participle in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is masculine instead of neuter is that it is attracted in gender to the masculine articular participle in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text, and (4) 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 quotes two small out of context excerpts from a letter that Eugenius Bulgaris (1716–1806), an expert in the Greek language, wrote in 1780, in which Eugenius analyzes the Greek grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text. Nolan claims in footnote 193 that Eugenius’ analysis of the grammar is the same as his (Nolan’s) analysis of the grammar. However, what Eugenius (an expert in the Greek language) says in his 1780 letter (agreement with the natural gender of the idea being expressed, not agreement with the grammatical gender of any noun, and not gender attraction) is the opposite of what Nolan (not an expert in the Greek language) says on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book (agreement with the grammatical gender of a noun and gender attraction, not agreement with the natural gender of the idea being expressed). Instead of supporting Nolan’s grammatical argument, Eugenius (Nolan’s own expert) refutes Nolan's grammatical argument.

On pages 191-234 in the 1871 (volume 22) edition of the Southern Presbyterian Review journal, Robert Dabney (1820–1898) anonymously presents his 1871 article, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, which is in part a review of Nolan’s 1815 book. On page 221, Dabney repeats the grammatical argument that Nolan originally presents on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book, However, Dabney had apparently not read page 565 in Nolan’s 1815 book, where Nolan states that the gender attraction in his grammatical argument occurs between the participles in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text, because Dabney states on page 221 in his 1871 article that the gender attraction in Nolan’s grammatical argument occurs between the nouns in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text.

Despite presenting Nolan’s grammatical argument on page 221 in his 1871 article, Dabney states on page 116 in the 1871 first edition of his book, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, and on page 182 in the 1878 second edition of that book that 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text is certainly of too doubtful genuineness to be used in defense of the Trinity.

On pages 350-390 in the 1890 book, Discussions Theological and Evangelical, which is a compilation of the previous writings of Dabney, the anonymous 1871 article is presented as having been written by Dabney (pages 377-378 in the 1890 book corresponding to page 221 in the 1871 article).

In footnote 20 on page 237 in his 1978 book, The Epistles of John, Dr. I. Howard Marshall subscribes to the explanation that the articular participle in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Majority Text and Critical Text (which correlates with 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text) is masculine because the Spirit, water and Blood are a person and two things (masculine natural gender), the grammatical genders of the three added articular nouns being irrelevant.

In footnote 44 on page 332 in his 1996 book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace subscribes to the explanation that the articular participle in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Majority Text and Critical Text (which correlates with 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text) is masculine because the men in the witness of the men in verse 5:9, to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared in verses 5:7-8 in the Majority Text and Critical Text (which correlate with verse 5:8 in the Received Text), are three persons (masculine natural gender), the grammatical genders of the three added articular nouns being irrelevant.

There are four instances in the Received Text in which three appositive (added) articular nouns are added as modifiers to an article or articular adjective or articular participle (functioning as a substantive) to provide additional information (Matthew 23:23, 1 John 2:16, 1 John 5:7 and 1 John 5:8).

In all four instances, the article or articular adjective or articular participle (functioning as a substantive) agrees with the natural gender of the idea being expressed, and the grammatical genders of the appositive (added) articular nouns that are added to it are irrelevant. This corroborates the statements of Eugenius (Nolan's own expert), Dr. Marshall and Dr. Wallace, and it refutes the grammatical argument originally presented by Nolan on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book and anonymously repeated by Dabney on page 221 in his 1871 article.

(Received Text) Matthew 23:23 .. τα βαρυτερα ... η κρισιν ... ο ελεον ... η πιστιν ...

23:23 … the weightier-things … THE judgment … THE mercy … THE faith …

(Received Text) 1 John 2:16 … παν το … η επιθυμια … η επιθυμια … η αλαζονεια …

2:16 … every the-thing … THE lust … THE lust … THE pride …

(Received Text) 1 John 5:7 … οι μαρτυρουντες … ο πατηρ ο λογος … το αγιον πνευμα …

5:7 … the-ones bearing-witness … THE Father, THE Word … THE Holy Spirit …

(Received Text) 1 John 5:8 … οι μαρτυρουντες … το πνευμα … το υδωρ … το αιμα … 9 … την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων …

5:8 … the-ones bearing-witness … THE Spirit … THE water … THE Blood … 9 … the witness of-the men …