The 1780 Letter of Eugenius
Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806), the
Archbishop of Cherson (1775-1779), a man highly credentialed in the Greek
language and an ardent advocate of the Johannine Comma, says this in a letter that he wrote in 1780 (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.? Masculina 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 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 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.
The following word-by-word
English translation of the Latin and Greek text in Eugenius’ 1780 letter was
produced with the help of (a) the Whitaker’s Words Latin dictionary and (b)
some Latin students at a Latin discussion forum and (c) a professor of Greek
and Latin via email. The decision to make this a word-by-word English
translation (as opposed to a smoother translation) is mine alone. The language in bold print is selectively
quoted out of context by Nolan in footnote 193 on page 257 in his 1815
book.
This I only in present
to-insert 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-sneak, so-that not, indeed, verse eight, which it-follows,
it-would-stand, unless verse seven it-would-precede, from which it-is-derived.
For indeed in version Latin correctly it-is-expressed by-masculine of-language
gender. This, in itself text Greek original, not having-presupposed superior
verse, not plainly consistent, unless with violence some of-diction and
through solecism obvious. Since indeed the spirit and the water and the blood
nouns of-neuter gender they-are, by-what reasoning would-they-agree with that
which immediately precedes, three they-are, the-ones bearing-witness, and which
immediately it-follows, and these the three-ones, and the rest? Masculine
truly nouns and feminine by-nouns adjectival and-pronouns in neuter gender
having-been-expressed to-be-arranged with-respect having-been-had to the things
[τα πραγματα / the things], that certainly of-language of-us peculiar genius to
be, with all who being experienced well known it is. But what also reversely,
neuter nouns substantival by-adjectivals or pronouns masculine or feminine
they-would-be-indicated, no-one he-will-say [or no-one he-would-have-said / the Latin verb dixerit can be either future indicative or perfect subjunctive]. Again, here
from-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 this, and particularly
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 having-been-written, not this. What
therefore other reason of-occurring that inconsistency [ακαταλληλιας /
inconsistency] to-be-conveyed it-is-able, unless solely preceding verse seven
expression which through this immediately subsequent verse eight symbolically
it-is-explained and plainly replicated by-allusion having-been-made to that
which it-precedes? Three, therefore, which in heaven witness they-give, first
posited they-are from-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 it-is-confirmed through
three these symbols from-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 of-us,
The same-ones those, the-ones in the heaven bearing-witness, as sufficiently
indicated through particle και [and, also, even], sense of-which in present not
simply copulative it-is, but plainly identifying, regarding whom in the above
verse it-has-been-stated, namely, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, the-ones
same 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, though
which he-is-indicated, the Father, the blood, through which the Son, the water,
through which the Spirit the Holy. And the three-ones same, who above truly
revealingly through their 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 [two gallons] I-have-instituted, not amphora
[nine gallons].
Eugenius says in his 1780 letter
that the added (appositive) 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 is 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 compared 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 / a two gallon vessel)
instead of a major point (an amphora / a nine gallon vessel), 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
compared in that verse are των ανθρωπων (the men) in the 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 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 the person and two things (the Spirit, water and Blood) in
that verse.
According to Bengel and Eugenius (an
expert 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, and
nothing to do with gender attraction, and 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, water and Blood are being compared is the personalization
(personification) explanation, which is the traditionally accepted explanation.
It is a valid explanation. Even Eugenius (an expert in the Greek language)
subscribes it.
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.