A Defense of the Johannine Comma - Study to Answer.Net

Hence, this close proximity and the fact that the pneuma is a carryover noun from
the previous list of nouns and was made de facto masculine by the Power of Attraction
rule in verse 7, cause the nouns in verse 8 to be treated as masculine as well. This all falls
apart if the Comma is deleted, as there are no truly masculine nouns (or a masculinated
pneuma) from verse 7 directing the attraction phenomenon. 81
It may reasonably be suggested that the reason Gregory's opponents (and Gregory
himself) did not know of the Comma directly was because of the efforts by Arians in
their time to expunge the verse from the copies of Scripture which either fell into their
hands, or were of their own manufacture. As there are no other known grammatical
solecisms in the Greek Gospel and Epistles of John, it seems more reasonable to suppose
that the existence here of such an egregious grammatical error (one noted by Greek
speakers, remember) is due to the deletion of the relevant portion of the Scripture, rather
than an original unique error in John's inspired writing.
The Comma in Greek and Latin, without which there is a grammatical error in the Greek text of John's epistle.
We should note, again for emphasis, that Robert Dabney was not the modern
"inventor" of the grammatical problem seen in I John 5:7-8 when the Comma is deleted.
As early as 1740, Bengel noted the grammatical issue involved. 82 Also in the 18th
century, we see the testimony to the grammatical problem introduced by the removal of
the Comma, as it was recognized by Eugenius Bulgarus, Archbishop of Cherson, a high
official and scholar in the eastern Greek church. Knittel reproduces Eugenius' discussion
of the solecism as it was reported by a Professor Matthaei in Moscow, in 1780, who
81 It should be noted here that some critics of the Comma do not seem to fully understand the Power of
Attraction rule. For instance, see G.G. Thomason, “Scripture, Authentic and Fabricated,” which can be
found online here. Thomason argues (pp. 49-50) that the grammatical arguments against the exclusion of
the Comma are refuted by the presence of the exact same solecism if the Comma is included, whereby the
masculine treis...marturountes en te ge in v. 8 is mismatched with the three neuter earthly witnesses. He
either ignores or is unaware of the fact that the pneuma “attracts” a carried over masculineness (as Dabney
and others pointed out) that allows this second list of three witnesses to then agree in gender with the
masculine clause at the beginning of v. 8. Incidentally, Thomason’s article also perpetuates the discredited
“Erasmus’ Promise” mythology, perhaps giving a hint to the seriousness of his investigations into this
issue.
82 J.A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 808
37