Johannine Comma and Georgios Babiniotis

From Textus Receptus

Voulgaris Vindicated by Leading Greek Expert

Most critical text proponents don't even engage in the grammatical issues surrounding the Johannine Comma, and those who do, such as Barry Hofstetter, or James White, only reveal that they are not adequately informed about this issue.

In an email discussion with Professor Georgios Babiniotis a few months ago, I asked him about the validity of the claims of legendary Greek professor Eugenius Voulgaris concerning the Johannine Comma. Those familiar with the grammatical arguments made by Voulgaris will be pleased to know that Babiniotis, who is probably one of the most important Greek linguists alive today, said that not only was Voulgaris correct to say we need to keep the Comma for grammatical reasons, and he also took it a step further by pointing out that verse 7 justifies verse 8 because of the “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses.

Babiniotis is a Greek linguist and philologist who has written several books about Greek grammar, etymology, and other Greek language-related topics. He is the former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece and previously served as rector of Athens University.

As David Crystal is to English-speaking people, so Georgios Babiniotis is to the Greek speaker. Here are some of the books he has written here: https://babiniotis.gr/ergografia/vivlia.

You may know of Babiniotis from his Greek dictionary which is often simply called the "Babiniotis" dictionary.

In May he wrote the following and attached a word doc:

“...Dear Mr Sayers,

I apologize that only now I can answer your kind letter about the N.T. passage discussed by Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης.

Here is my opinion as a linguist, not as an expert in theology.

Γ. Μπαμπινιώτης...”

(Word Doc):

I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically —though with another explanation— Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8.

What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek.

The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.

«καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»

is linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”, i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (“parallel”) in structure with that of 5.7.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,

ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα

καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν είσι

So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical “gender agreement rule” (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender : «καὶ τρία εἰσὶ τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ…»), but the overruling schema of “syntactic parallelism” which is much more stronger than a simple gender agreement rule.

Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7.

(End of word doc)

George later said in an email:

“...I have given you my own linguistic explanation which is to keep verse 5.7. which justifies verse 5.8. It is grammatical and mainly “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses...”

So I hereby challenge those of the Anglo Sanhedrin who desire to delete the Comma, such as James White, Dan Wallace, Barry Hofstetter, James Snapp Jr, Stephen Boyce, Bill Brown, Bart Ehrman, Elijah Hixson, etc, to refute the claims of this top Greek linguist, who has basically just confirmed that the Greek grammatical argumentation that myself (Nick Sayers), Steven Avery, Will Kinney, Edward Hill, Jack Moorman, and many other TR/KJV people hold to, is not only correct but that the Comma is also linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”.

Johannine Comma

1 John 5:7

1 John 5:8

Pure Bible Forum

KJV Today

1 John 5:7 and Modern Criticism by Taylor Desoto

Codex Montfortianus, Erasmus, and 1 John 5:7

Erasmian Myths: The Comma Wager

Erasmian Myths: Codex Vaticanus

1 Jn.5:7,8 Establishing the Authenticity

Defense D. A. Waite

And These Three Are One

Manuscript Differences

“And These Three Are One” Part 1

Riddle Review of McDonald book

Hixson, the CJ, and Roman Catholic Provenance

Riddle on Hixson Part 1

Riddle on Hixson Part 2

Riddle on Hixson Part 3

Riddle - Internal Argument

Riddle - Papyrus

KJV Asia Scams

KJV Asia

KJV Asia Manuscripts

Setting the Record Straight

Dedending 1 John 5:7 by David Cloud

KJV "Errors"

(1 John 5:7-8) Is It Inspired Scripture?

First John 5:6-8 by Floyd Jones

Scion of Zion Article

Trinitarian Bible Society on Johannine Comma

1 John 5:7-8 by Jeffrey Khoo

1 John 5:7 by Thomas Golda

David Cloud Articles

Email Debate Gregory S. Neal and Thomas Holland

“And These Three Are One” Part 2

Links to Books

Frederick Nolan - An Inquiry

SS(ancti) apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae 1782 [1]

Joseph Bryennios Comma Quotation

New criticisms Knittle

13 Sermons - Doctrine of the Trinity Edmund Calamy

Raising the Ghost of Arius by Grantley McDonald

Letters To Edward Gibbon George Travis 1785

A Vindication...of Porson Thomas Turton 1827

Memoir of the Controversy. William Orme

A Vindication of 1st John v. 7 Thomas Burgess Web

Ben David

William Craig Brownlee 1825 Part 1

William Craig Brownlee 1825 Part 2

Theopneustia - François Samuel R. Louis Gaussen, 1841

New plea for the authenticity - Charles Forster 1867 [2][3]

Deux dissertations (French) English Martin

The doctrine of the Greek article - Thomas Middleton

Richard Porson I John v 7, 1790

The King James Version 2023 Edition New Testament is now complete and in print format here.

Internal Links

Old Testament - New Testament KJV 1900

New Testament KJV 2016

Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus

2016 Urdu New Testament (TR Based)

Russian Synodal Version (TR Based)

Reina Valera Gómez Spanish (TR Based)

Marginal Notes in the 1611 Authorized Version

Ephesians 3:9

Why We Should Not Passover Easter 1, 2, & 3

Will Kinney

List of TR/KJV based foreign bibles

List of New Testament minuscules

List of New Testament lectionaries

^{List of New Testament Papyri}

𝔓¹ · 𝔓² · 𝔓³ · 𝔓⁴ · 𝔓⁵ · 𝔓⁶ · 𝔓⁷ · 𝔓⁸ · 𝔓⁹ · 𝔓¹⁰ · 𝔓¹¹ · 𝔓¹² · 𝔓¹³ · 𝔓¹⁴ · 𝔓¹⁵ · 𝔓¹⁶ · 𝔓¹⁷ · 𝔓¹⁸ · 𝔓¹⁹ · 𝔓²⁰ · 𝔓²¹ · 𝔓²² · 𝔓²³ · 𝔓²⁴ · 𝔓²⁵ · 𝔓²⁶ · 𝔓²⁷ · 𝔓²⁸ · 𝔓²⁹ · 𝔓³⁰ · 𝔓³¹ · 𝔓³² · 𝔓³³ · 𝔓³⁴ · 𝔓³⁵ · 𝔓³⁶ · 𝔓³⁷ · 𝔓³⁸ · 𝔓³⁹ · 𝔓⁴⁰ · 𝔓⁴¹ · 𝔓⁴² · 𝔓⁴³ · 𝔓⁴⁴ · 𝔓⁴⁵ · 𝔓⁴⁶ · 𝔓⁴⁷ · 𝔓⁴⁸ · 𝔓⁴⁹ · 𝔓⁵⁰ · 𝔓⁵¹ · 𝔓⁵² · 𝔓⁵³ · 𝔓⁵⁴ · 𝔓⁵⁵ · 𝔓⁵⁶ · 𝔓⁵⁷ · 𝔓⁵⁸ · 𝔓⁵⁹ · 𝔓⁶⁰ · 𝔓⁶¹ · 𝔓⁶² · 𝔓⁶³ · 𝔓⁶⁴ · 𝔓⁶⁵ · 𝔓⁶⁶ · 𝔓⁶⁷ · 𝔓⁶⁸ · 𝔓⁶⁹ · 𝔓⁷⁰ · 𝔓⁷¹ · 𝔓⁷² · 𝔓⁷³ · 𝔓⁷⁴ · 𝔓⁷⁵ · 𝔓⁷⁶ · 𝔓⁷⁷ · 𝔓⁷⁸ · 𝔓⁷⁹ · 𝔓⁸⁰ · 𝔓⁸¹ · 𝔓⁸² · 𝔓⁸³ · 𝔓⁸⁴ · 𝔓⁸⁵ · 𝔓⁸⁶ · 𝔓⁸⁷ · 𝔓⁸⁸ · 𝔓⁸⁹ · 𝔓⁹⁰ · 𝔓⁹¹ · 𝔓⁹² · 𝔓⁹³ · 𝔓⁹⁴ · 𝔓⁹⁵ · 𝔓⁹⁶ · 𝔓⁹⁷ · 𝔓⁹⁸ · 𝔓⁹⁹ · 𝔓¹⁰⁰ · 𝔓¹⁰¹ · 𝔓¹⁰² · 𝔓¹⁰³ · 𝔓¹⁰⁴ · 𝔓¹⁰⁵ · 𝔓¹⁰⁶ · 𝔓¹⁰⁷ · 𝔓¹⁰⁸ · 𝔓¹⁰⁹ · 𝔓¹¹⁰ · 𝔓¹¹¹ · 𝔓¹¹² · 𝔓¹¹³ · 𝔓¹¹⁴ · 𝔓¹¹⁵ · 𝔓¹¹⁶ · 𝔓¹¹⁷ · 𝔓¹¹⁸ · 𝔓¹¹⁹ · 𝔓¹²⁰ · 𝔓¹²¹ · 𝔓¹²² · 𝔓¹²³ · 𝔓¹²⁴ · 𝔓¹²⁵ · 𝔓¹²⁶ · 𝔓¹²⁷ · 𝔓¹²⁸ · 𝔓¹²⁹ · 𝔓¹³⁰ · 𝔓¹³¹ · 𝔓¹³² · 𝔓¹³³ · 𝔓¹³⁴ · 𝔓¹³⁵ · 𝔓¹³⁶ · 𝔓¹³⁷ · 𝔓¹³⁸ · 𝔓¹³⁹ · 𝔓¹⁴⁰ ·