On the syntactical description John 5:7,8
Posted: August 29th, 2018, 8:48 am
I read yesterday the insightful comments of Daniel Wallace on John 5:7,8
Ὃτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν
His text can be found at p. 118-9 https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2 ... Spirit.pdf
I can copy his words if needed.
My question has to more do with the terminology.
Wallace is saying that the most possible explanation for the use of the masculine participle is not the personality of the Spirit and thus a phenomenon of constructio ad sensum, but the metaphor of the “three witnesses”, which surrounds “spirit, water and blood”.
1) If we don’t have here a constructio ad sensum, is it technically proper to talk about a syntactical discord?
2) If the phrase Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα is just an apposition, isn’t it syntactically similar with John 14:26?
(ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα)
I am grateful for your time.
Ὃτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν
His text can be found at p. 118-9 https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2 ... Spirit.pdf
I can copy his words if needed.
My question has to more do with the terminology.
Wallace is saying that the most possible explanation for the use of the masculine participle is not the personality of the Spirit and thus a phenomenon of constructio ad sensum, but the metaphor of the “three witnesses”, which surrounds “spirit, water and blood”.
1) If we don’t have here a constructio ad sensum, is it technically proper to talk about a syntactical discord?
2) If the phrase Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα is just an apposition, isn’t it syntactically similar with John 14:26?
(ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα)
I am grateful for your time.