gender is used. Therefore - as Hills noted - since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8.1

What then is to be done by way of explanation? The answer is that something is missing! If we retain the Johannie Comma, a reason for referring to the neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood) of verse 8 in the masculine gender becomes readily clear.2 The key is the principle of "influence" and "attraction" in Greek grammer.3 What influence would cause "that bear record" in verse 7 and "these three" in verse 8 to suddenly become masculine? The answer can only be: due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word in verse 7 which are masculine - it is the inclusion of the Father and the Word, to which the beginning and ending of the passage are attracted, a principle well known in Greek syntax. In effect then, the only way the spirit, the water and the blood can be "personalized" is by retaining the reading of the 1611 King James and the Greek text upon which it is based where all three words are direct references to the Trinity (vs.7). Where is the "Person"? "The Person" is in verse 7 of the Authorized Version of 1611.

The reader will note that the underlined phrase, "that bear witness", occurring three times in the preceding passage is a participle which is a type of verbal adjective.4 As adjectives, they modify nouns and must agree in gender. Thus if a text critic wishes to remove this passage with integrity, he should be able to answer the following:5

1. Why after using a neuter participle in line one is a masculine participle suddenly used in line three?

2. How can the masculine numeral, article (Greek), and participle (the three masculine adjectives) of line three be allowed to directly modify the three neuter nouns of line seven?

3. What phenomena in Greek syntax (the part of grammar dealing with the manner in which words are assembled to form phrases, clauses or sentences in an orderly system or arrangement) would cause the neuter nouns of line seven to be treated as masculine by the "these three" in line eight?

 There is no satisfactory answer! Leading Greek scholars as Metzger, Vincent, Alford, Vine, Wuest, Bruce, Plummer etc., make no mention whatever of the problem when dealing with the passage in any of their works to date.6 The International Critical Commentary devotes twelve pages to the passage but is ignorantly or dishonestly silent regarding the mismatched genders. Finally, with regard to internal evidence, if the words were omitted, the concluding words at the end of verse 8 contain an unintelligible reference. The Greek words "kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin" (kaiV oiJ trei'" eij" toV e{n eijsin) mean precisely - "and these three agree to that (aforementioned) One."7 If the 7th verse is omitted, "that One" does not appear. It is inconceivable how "that One" (Grk = to hen = toV e{n) can be reconciled with the taking away of the preceding words,8 that is - by taking out the "Comma". As Gaussen has remarked: "Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent."9

1 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 212.

2 Ibid.

3 Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 117.

4 Ibid., p. 116.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid., p. 117.

7 Ibid., p. 118; here Moorman quotes an extract from Robert Dabney [Dabney's Discussions Evangelical and Theological, (Trinitarian Bible Society, n.d.)] but he gives neither date nor page.

8 Ibid., p. 118; here Moorman cites Gaussen (The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, p. 193; he does not give the publisher or date) who is quoting from Bishop Middleton's 1828 A.D. eighteen page discussion of the Greek Article.

9 Ibid., p. 119.

146


continued...