Monday, February 21, 2011


Here (below) is the last third of a letter that Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806), the Archbishop of Cherson from 1775-1779, wrote in 1780. In this last third of his letter, Eugenius, an expert in the Greek language, discusses the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text. The language in bold print is selectively quoted out of context by Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) in footnote 193 on page 257 in his 1815 book, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate.



Hoc ego tantummodo in praesenti addere possem quod a nemine (quod sciam) hactenus observatum. Tantum scilicet abesse per interpolationem locum illum surrepsisse ut ne quidem versus octavus qui sequitur staret nisi versus septimus praecederet de quo agitur. Quod enim in versione Latina recte exprimitur masculino sermonis genere. Id in ipso textu Graeco originali non praesupposito superiore versiculo haud plane consisteret nisi cum violentia quadam dictionis et per solaecismum patentissimum. Cum etenim, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα, nomina neutrius generis sunt qua ratione concordabit cum iis quod immediate praecedit, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες, et quod illico sequitur, και ουτοι οι τρεις, κ. τ. λ.? Maculina equidem nomina et faeminina nominibus adjectivis pronominibusque in neutro genere expressis construi respectu habito ad τα πραγματα id sane linguae nostrae peculiare genium esse omnibus eam callentibus notissimum est. Sed quod etiam reciproce neutra nomina substantiva adjectivis vel pronominibus masculinis aut faemininus indecentur nemo dixerit. Porro hic versu octavo sic legimus, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. Sed none quaeso dictio naturalis hic et propria potius esset, τρια εισιν τα μαρτυρουντα εν τη γη το πνευμα το υδωρ και το αιμα και τα τρια εις το εν εισιν. At illud tamen est scriptum non hoc. Quae igitur alia ratio occurrentis istius ακαταλληλιας afferri potest nisi sola praecedentis versus septimi expressio quae per hunc immediate sequentum versum octavum symbolice explicatur et plane replicatur allusione facta ad id quod praecesserat? Tres igitur qui in caelo testimonium perhibent primo positi sunt versu septimo, tρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν. Deinceps vero immediate adducti iidem ipsi testes quatenus in terra etiam testimonium idem confirment per tria haec symbola versu octavo, και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. Ac si diceret Evangelista noster, Οι αυτοι εκεινοι οι εν τω ουρανω μαρτυρουντες (quod satis indicatur per particulum και cujus vis in praesenti non simpliciter copulativa est, sed plane identifia) περι ων εν τω ανωτερω εδαφιω ειρηται δηλαδη ο πατηρ ο λογος και το πνευμα οι αυτοι μαρτυρουντες εισιν και εν τη γη δι ων ημιν συμβολων απεκαλυφθησαν. ταυτα δε τα συμβολα εστιν το πνευμα δι ου δηλουται ο πατηρ το αιμα δι ου ο υιος το υδωρ δι ου το πνευμα το αγιον. Και οι τρεις οιτοι οιτινες ανωτερω μεν ανακεκαλυμμενως δι αυτων των υεαρχικων ονοματων εν τω ουρανω μαρτυρουντες παριστανται οι αυτοι εν τη γη δια της εν τη οικονομια μνησεως συμβολικως επανακαμβανομενοι οι τρεις ουτοι εις το εν εισιν. Sed ohe. urceum institui non amphoram.



Here (below) is my own word-for-word English translation of the original Greek and Latin shown above. I relied heavily on (1) the online William-Whitaker’s-Words Latin-to-English translator and (2) the online (discussion forum) help of some Latin students and (3) the online (email correspondence) help of a professor of Greek and Latin. The decision to make it a word-for-word English translation was my decision alone. Neither the Latin students nor the professor of Greek and Latin had anything to do with that decision.  


This I only in present to-add I-would-be-able, which by no-one (as-far-as I-would-know) thus-far having-been-observed. So-much certainly to-be-absent through interpolation place that to-creep, so-that not, indeed, verse eight, which it-follows, it-would-stand, unless verse seven it-would-precede, regarding which it-would-be-produced. Because, indeed, in version Latin correctly it-would-be-expressed [by] masculine language gender. This in itself text Greek original, not having-presupposed superior verse, not plainly it-would-be-consistent, unless with violence some of-diction and through solecism obvious. When, indeed, the spirit and the water and the blood, nouns of-neuter gender they-are, [by] what reasoning will-it-have-concord with that which immediately it-precedes, three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness, and which immediately it-follows, and these three-ones, and the rest? Masculine, indeed, nouns and feminine, [by] nouns adjectival and-pronouns in neuter gender having-been-expressed to-be-constructed, [with] respect having-been-had to the things, that certainly of-language our peculiar genius to-be, [by] all those experienced well-known it-is. But what also reciprocally, neuter nouns substantival, [by] adjectivals or pronouns masculine or feminine they-would-be-indicated, no-one he-will-say [or he-would-have-said]. Again, here [in] verse eight thus we-read, three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness on the earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three-ones for the one-thing they-are. But not, I-ask, diction natural here and appropriately better it-would-be, three they-are, the-things bearing-witness on the earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three-things for the one-thing they-are. But that nevertheless it-is written, not this. What, therefore, other reasoning of-occurring such inconsistency to-be-conveyed it-is-able, unless solely preceding verse seven expression, which through this immediately following verse eight, symbolically it-is-explained and plainly replicated [by] allusion having-been-made to that which it-has-preceded? Three-ones, therefore, which in heaven witness they-provide, first posited they-are [in] verse seven, three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness in the heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these the three-ones one-thing they-are. Afterward, truly immediately having-been-adduced, same themselves witnesses, where on earth again witness same they-would-confirm through three these symbols in verse eight, and three they-are the-ones bearing-witness on the earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three-ones for the one-thing they-are. And if he-would-say, evangelist our, The same those-ones, the-ones in the heaven bearing-witness (which sufficiently it-is-indicated through particle, and/even, sense of-which in present not simply copulative it-is, but plainly identifying), regarding whom in the above verse they-have-been-stated, namely, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, the same-ones bearing-witness they-are also on the earth, through which to-us symbols they-have-been-revealed. these, And, the symbols they-are the spirit, through which he-is-indicated, the Father, the blood, through which the Son, the water, through which the Spirit the Holy. And the three-ones these, who above truly revealingly through themselves the sovereign names in the heaven bearing-witness, they-are presented, the same-ones, on the earth through the in-the-arrangement memory, symbolically being-taken-on-again, the three-ones these for the one-thing they-are. But alas. Jug I-have-instituted, not amphora.   


Eugenius says in his 1780 letter that the appositive (added) nouns πνευμα, υδωρ and αιμα (spirit, water and blood) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text express three things (neuter natural gender), and that one would therefore expect the language that was used in association with those three things in that verse to be in the neuter form (τρια … τα μαρτυρουντα … τα τρια / three … the-things bearing-witness … the three-things), but that the masculine form (τρεις … οι μαρτυρουντες … οι τρεις / three … the-ones bearing-witness … the three-ones) is instead used in that verse in reference to the three persons (masculine natural gender) to whom those three things (according to Eugenius) are being symbolically equated in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text, those three persons being the πατηρ, λογος and πνευμα (the Father, Word and Spirit / three persons) in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text. Eugenius concludes that the masculine language (in reference to three persons) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is therefore evidence that John wrote 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text (in which three persons are discussed).

However, at the end of his 1780 letter, Eugenius admits that his explanation for the masculine language in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is a minor point (a jug / two gallons) instead of a major point (an amphora /  nine gallons), because his explanation does not actually require John to have written 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text. His explanation is merely one possible explanation for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text.

Another possible explanation for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is that the three persons (masculine natural gender) to whom the spirit, water and blood are being symbolically equated in that verse are the ανθρωπων (men) in την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων (the witness of-the men) in verse 5:9. Johann Bengel (1687-1752) subscribes to that explanation on page 145 in volume 5 in the 1873 English translation of the 1759 second edition of his 1742 book, The Gnomon of the New Testament.

A third possible explanation for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is that the Spirit, water and blood in that verse are a person and two things (masculine natural gender) instead of three things (neuter natural gender) and that the masculine gender in that verse refers to the person and two things (the Spirit, water and blood) in that verse.

According to Bengel and Eugenius, both of whom are experts in the Greek language, the masculine language in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text has nothing to do with the grammatical gender of any noun in the text, and it has nothing to do with gender attraction, but it has everything to do with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (three persons).

The explanation that the masculine language in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Majority Text and Critical Text) refers to the three persons (masculine natural gender) to whom the Spirit (or spirit), water and blood are being symbolically equated is the personalization (personification) explanation, which is the traditional explanation. It is a valid explanation, to which both Bengel and Eugenius (experts in the Greek language) subscribe. 

The claim of Frederick Nolan (1784-1865) in footnote 193 on page 257 in his 1815 book, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, that Eugenius analyzes the grammar in 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text the same way in his 1780 letter that he (Nolan) analyzes it on pages 257, 260 and 565 in his 1815 book is a false claim. 

Some biographical information regarding Eugenius Bulgaris is found on pages 315-322 in Dialogue 15 in the 1892 book, Neohellenica: An Introduction to Modern Greek in the Form of Dialoque, by Michael Constantinides.