Victor of Vita - a Fifth Century Witness to the Emergence of Johannine Comma?

Borrowing from Brownlee, Mike Ferrando has argued that "460 Bishops" gave witness to the Johannine Comma as being a part of Scripture. (The Comma Calmly Considered)  Mike specifically stated: "In the same way that the 500 witnessed Christ’s resurrection, so here too the 460 give witness to these verses as part of Scripture." (p. 3)  Let's evaluate this claim.

First, we must track down the source of Mike's "460" number.  The primary/ultimate source for Mike's claims is a work by Victor of Vita.  In 1992, as volume 10 of the Translated Texts for Historians series, Liverpool University Press published John Moorhead's translation of History of the Vandal Persecution by Victor of Vita.  The copy I'm working from for this article appears to be a "print on demand" printing by Lightning Source LLC, but I'm optimistic that the pagination is consistent with the original 1992 printing. 

According to Moorhead's introduction, Victor's book was nearly all written in 484, about the time period from 429 to 484 (p. x), with the starting point of that range corresponding to the entrance of the Vandals into north Africa (429) after passing through what is today Spain preceding decades (p. ix).  Victor's focus is on the persecution of the Christians who referred to themselves as "Catholics" by folks who referred to them as "homousians" and were referred to as "Arians" by Victor.  My point in this article is not to get into the interesting distinctions amongst Arianism, Semi-Arianism, and the like, nor to get into the distinction between "Catholic" in the 5th century African sense and "Catholic" in today's contemporary parlance. An attempt to "impose Arianism on Catholics" (p. xii) appears to have provided the impetus for the writing of this work in 484. Before leaving the question of labels, it is interesting to note that those who Victor called Arians took offense at Victor's side referring to themselves as "Catholics" (Book 3, section 1, p. 64).

Returning to Mike's claim about "460," it seems that Mike gets this from Brownlee (a 19th century author), who states: "At the time fixed by the royal edict, there appeared, says Gibbon in his Roman History, four hundred and sixty bishops from the orthodox African churches." (p.546)  Gibbon's "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," pp. 550-1 states: "At the command of Hunneric, four hundred and sixty-six orthodox bishops assembled at Carthage...."  Gibbon himself is reliant on Dom Ruinart's 1694 edition of Victor's work as the source for his information.  

How does Gibbon arrive at the number of bishops? Gibbon explains it this way (p. 551):

• 1 Martyr
• 1 Confessor
• 28 Fled
• 88 Conformed
• 46 Sent to Corsica
• 302 Banished to various parts of Africa

That sums to 466.  Moreover, this does not come from Victor's work itself, but rather from another document (see p. 123 of Ruinart's work)

(Ruinart, p. 140)

How reliable this further document is, I do not venture a guess. But let us set aside the 466 vs. 460 discrepancy for the moment.

Mike uses the heading: "Confession of the 460 Bishops Read Aloud" (p. 6).  What is the work being discussed, and whose work is it?  As mentioned earlier, Victor of Vita presents his account as being a history.  He says that "The Book of the Catholic Faith" (section 56-101 of Book 2 of his work, pp. 44-63) was presented in lieu of debate, after their opponent, Cyrila claimed to be unable to speak Latin (Book 2, section 55, p. 44).  This was after the Catholic side had designated ten men to speak on their behalf, so that the other side could not claim that Catholic side had won through sheer numbers (Book 2, section 53, p. 43).  At the conclusion of the book, however, Victor (or perhaps the authors of the book) wrote: "This is the end of the book sent on 20 April by Januarius of Zattara (Kef Benzioune) and Villaticus of Casae Medianae, bishops of Numidia, and Boniface of Foratiana and Boniface of Gratiana, Bishops of Byzacena."  (Book 2, Section 101, p. 63)  So, based on the actual primary source, this is the work of four men as reported by a fifth, namely Victor of Vita himself.  

The confession of the Catholics was Trinitarianism.  The book amounts to arguments from Scripture in favor of that confession.  Whether anyone from the Catholic side carefully reviewed the work of the four bishops before they delivered it, who can say! Victor does not tell us.  All that Victor says is that upon the refusal of the other side to debate: "our people had foreseen this and written a short work concerning the faith, composed quite fittingly and with the necessary detail. They said: 'If you wish to know our faith, this is the truth we hold'." (Book 2, Section 55, p. 44)  Moreover, Victor reports that "our little book had been presented to them and read out" (Book 3, Section 1, p. 64), which suggests some kind of public reading of the book, though without much clarity as to how far they read, since the objections began with the title.

So, it is a stretch to ascribe this whole work to the entire multitude, even if we accept the 466 number of Ruinart or the oddly rounded-down 460 of Gibbon.  Rather, if we accept Victor's account and the present form of the work, it was the work of four men, two from the area near modern day Bouchegouf, Algeria, and the other two from the area near modern day Sousse, Tunisia, two cities that are about 500 km apart, along the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, south of Sardinia.

Mike's reason for pulling out the rhetorical stops to make it sound as though hundreds of bishops were focused on the text of 1 John 5:7-8 is known only to Mike.  Mike's rhetorical flourish is, however, a sword with two edges: the same confession he's citing for this reading presents John 8:25 as "I who speak to am the beginning" (which Mike rejects; Book II, section 77, p. 54) and cites Sirach 24:5, which should not be cited authoritatively (Book II, section 78, p. 54) as well as Daniel 13:42, which is a spurious addition to the book of Daniel (Book II, section 84, p. 57).  The confession also cites Wisdom 1:7 as though it were the work of Solomon (Book II, section 88, p. 58).  Surely Mike does not accept "Glorify God and carry him about in your body" as being the correct reading of 1 Corinthians 6:20, though this confession quotes it thus (Book II, section 89, p. 59).  Likewise, one hopes Mike rejects: "Adore his footstool" as the reading of Psalm 98:5.  In short, once Mike weights this little book with the authority to decide textual critical matters, it will immediately stab him in the foot with several obvious blunders. 

There remains a question about the date of composition of Victor's work that reports the little book.  Although "virtually all" (p. x) of Victor's book may have been written in 484, Victor's book itself seems to suggest that it was composed in the 60th year of the Vandal invasion (i.e., 489), although Moorhead questions whether anything more than light editing was done later than 484 (pp. xvi-xvii).    There were (at the time of Moorhead's writing) two critical editions of this work (MGH AA 3 and CSEL 7)(p. xix), both prepared in the late 1800s (1879 and 1881, respectively, as mentioned on p. 95).  Moorhead said he tried to follow a "sense for sense" rather than "word for word" translation methodology (p. xx).

In an interesting (for the purposes of this particular article) footnote, Moorhead observes (p. xx, fn. 28): "It must be said that some of the variants which occur in the Book of the catholic faith constitute amendments in a Trinitarian direction."  If this is the case, one wonders whether the amendments may have included amendments to the little book as well.

At Book 2, Section 55, Victor introduces the context of the Book of the Catholic Faith, namely that after Cyrila refuses to debate the catholic bishops on the grounds that he (Cyrila) does not speak Latin.  Cyrila is described by the king's notary as "the patriarch Cyrila," which the Catholics do not accept as having legitimacy (Book 2, Section 54). The Book then spans Book 2, Section 56 to Section 101 (the end of Book 2).

Section 82 of Book 2, in the form translated by Moorhead, includes the following:

And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: 'There are three who bear witness heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.'[fn47: The famous Johannine comma, occurring in the text of I Joh at 5:8, but certainly not a part of the original text. The circumstances of its addition remain obscure.] Surely he does not say 'three separated by a difference of quality' or 'divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them?' No, he says that the 'three are one.'

I've included Moorhead's footnote in the block quotation.  Apart from that comment, Moorhead offers no note about the this passage.  However, it ought to be observed that this passage presents itself as an abrupt intrusion upon the text, interrupting the flow of what comes before and after.  Without the passage, the beginning of Section 82 and the beginning of Section 83 read as follows:

And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. But so that the single divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things, you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as creator: 'It is the divine Spirit who made me, and the Spirit of the almighty who teaches me.' (cf. Job 33:4) And David says: 'Send forth your Spirit and they will be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth.' (Ps 103:30) If creation and renewal will take place through the Spirit, without doubt the beginning of creation as well was not carried out without the Spirit.

This text flows together.  However, inserting the first block quotation between two verses talking about creation makes little sense.  The selection of this insertion point is, of course, not completely arbitrary.  The text has been inserted after the word "Trinity" in a section that includes arguments for the equal divinity of the Holy Spirit.  

There are similarities and differences between the inserted material and the remainder of the book.  For example, at section 60, the book addresses John 10:30, "I and the Father are one," and there anticipates the response that this is only describing a unity of will.  Likewise, when the book addresses John 5:18, the book anticipates the objection that this is the Jews opinion.  There does not, however, seem to be any anticipated objection to the Johannine Comma.  The author does use a "he did not say" formula to argue for his preferred meaning, but here the author does not anticipate the most obvious objection that they are one in testimony.  

As with many textual critical questions, it may be difficult to prove a claim of later revision without some manuscript support.  The MGH critical edition relied on two ninth century manuscripts, two tenth century manuscripts, and one manuscript from each of the eleventh and twelfth centuries:

(p. X)

(p. V)

The MGH critical edition does retain the entire insertion in the main text, but at the Johannine Comma offers the following note (the Latin is the note, the English is a rough translation):

Haec verba, quae in nonnullis SS. Bibliorum codicibus translatorum infidelitate excidisse conqueritur S. Hieronymus, vel quivis alius auctor, qui suh huius s. doctoris nomine Prologum edidit in epistolas Canonicas, religiosius in codicibus Africanis conservata fuisse patet, ubi Patres Africani in unum congregati pro emittenda fedei professione ea adhibuerunt' 

(p. 34)

These words, which in some codices of the Holy Bibles, through the unfaithfulness of translators, Jerome complains to have fallen out, or any other author who published under the name of this holy doctor the Prologue into the Canonical epistles, it is evident to have been more religiously preserved in the African codices, where the African Fathers, gathered into one for the issuing forth of a profession of faith, employed them.

My assumption, based on the notes, is that none of the six manuscripts consulted was missing this passage.  The CSEL edition, however, seems to have consulted a greater number of manuscripts, and even to have attempted to map their relation to one another, though still, unfortunately, there is nothing earlier than the 9th century.

(p. XV)

(p. VI)

When it comes to the critical reconstruction, CSEL likewise, maintains the passage in the main text:

(p. 60)

Once again, my assumption (and I have made no attempt to check the manuscripts to verify this) is that none of the extant manuscripts of Victor's work omit the passage in question.

Ruinart's main text, followed by his endnotes:

(p. 54)

(p. 178)

(p. 179)

As the bulk of Ruinart's note is already transcribed and translated above, I won't repeat the process here.

Suffice to say that, for the moment, it does not seem that any scholar of Victor of Vita has investigated the question of whether Victor himself or a copyist prior to the 9th century has inserted the passage "three are one" into the argument, as opposed to being the original work of the four men (not four hundred) who are credited with writing the little book.

On the other hand, it is not incredible that someone may have edited Victor's work.  Moorhead places the final section of the work in brackets (Book 3, Section 71, p. 93) and says that it is "almost certainly a later addition to the text" (p. xvi.).

Is Victor's report credible?  Moorhead sometimes questions the accuracy of Victor's reports.  For example, Victor blames the Vandals for destroying the temple of Caelestis, but Moorhead cites Quodvultdeus to demonstrate that it was Catholics who destroyed that temple before the Vandals arrived (Book 1, Section 8, p. 5, fn. 8).  

Moorhead notes: "Augustine died on 28 August 430, during the Vandal siege of Hippo (Brown 1967: 432), although there is no need to connect his passing with the Vandals." (p. 7, fn. 12)  Victor describes the situation this way: "At this time the city of Hippo Regius (Annaba), which the blessed Augustine, worthy of all praise, governed as its pontiff, was besieged." (Book 1, Section 10, p. 6)  

In another case, Moorhead does not question the accuracy of Victor's report, but the report at Book 1, Section 34, involves involves a claim that: "As their flesh was torn in pieces the blood poured out and their inner parts were exposed to view, but on each occasion, as Christ healed them, they were restored unharmed on the next day" and again after a notable Christian virgin named Maxima was tortured: "as everyone looked on, the putrefaction caused by the enormous pieces of wood vanished."  Victor does not claim to have witnessed this for himself, but recorded it on the basis of someone's claim: "the man responsible for her custody testified to me on oath that this is what happened." (Book 1, Section 34, p. 16)  This account of supposed miracles is not unique: 

• 1:38 a blind woman receives sight; 
• 1:43 Armogas breaks strings used torture him like "threads of spiders' webs" and manages to sleep comfortably while being dangled by one leg; 
• 1:45-46 Armogas tells Felix to bury him under a certain carob tree rather than in a basilica, and when they dig under the tree they find a regal marble sarcophagus prepared;
• 2:11 a withered hand is "restored, in good condition;"
• 2:18 someone saw a vision that the church of Faustus would never be lose its glory, never to be restored;
• 2:19 someone saw a vision of a threshing by a whirlwind, followed by a grain inspection that reduced an "enormous" to a "tiny pile;" 
• 2:20 someone saw a vision of some kind of fiery stones falling from the sky;
• 2:21 "the venerable bishop Paul" saw a vision of a savage donkey kicking over a tree big enough to "cover almost all Africa with its shade"
• 2:22 "The honorable bishop Quintianus" saw a vast flock of sheep killed and boiled in a pair of pots
• 2.37 Christian exiles survive attacks of poison-breathing scorpions whose attacks were otherwise infallibly lethal;
• 2:47-51 A blind man receives a vision telling him to go to Eugenius and to be blessed when the baptismal pool is blessed, to receive his sight, and his sight is restored after the sign of the cross is imposed on his eyes after blessing the baptismal pool; and 
• 3:31 Multiple people have their tongues cut off but "thanks to the operation of the Holy Spirit they spoke, and continue to speak, just as they had spoken before".

While this says something about the general willingness to accept claims of the miraculous on Victor's part, and a seeming willingness to propagate such claims by recording them in writing, it's hard to see what bearing it has on his precision in reporting the contents of the little book.

Other topics of interest from the work:

Self-government of churches is an interesting detail that emerges in Book 2.  Book 2, Section 2, has Victor reporting: At the request of the emperor Zeno and Placidia, the widow of Olybrius, [Huniric] gave the church of Carthage freedom to ordain for itself whomever it wished as bishop. At that time the church had been deprived of such an ornament for 24 years." (pp. 24-5) A few sections later, Victor reports: "The catholic multitude rejoiced that they had been given the right to ordain a bishop again while the barbarians held power." (Book 2, Section 6, p. 26)

Additionally, the issue of the procession of the Spirit comes up in the very first section of the little book (Book 2, section 56, p. 45). The Spirit is said to proceed from the Father (without mentioning the idea of the Spirit proceeding from the Son).  

Likewise, at Book 3, Section 47, Victor identifies the demand for papers showing Arian baptism with the mark of the beast mentioned at Revelation 13:16. (p. 83)

There is some kind of invocation of dead faithful at book 3, section 69, (p. 92) though whether it should be understood literally or rhetorically is hard to tell from the context.

N.T. Wright and the Potter Analogy

 A dear reader offered the following screenshots (assembled as an image, and attributed to N.T. Wright, "Paul for Everyone," pp. 12-13).  All my characterizations in the following discussion are based on assuming that attribution is correct, and also are limited to interacting with the quoted material.  So, for example, I say that the author does not address X, Y, and Z, but perhaps the author (presumably NT Wright) does address those things somewhere else.

The argument from the screenshots can be summarized this way:

1) Paul's potter/clay illustration is taken from Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9 (with "echoes" of Isaiah 64:8 and Jeremiah 18:1-6).

2) In Isaiah and Jeremiah, God is dealing with already-rebellious Israel.  The author seems to suggest that the clay is somehow unresponsive to the potter's molding.

3) The author then suggests that it's not valid to treat Paul's comments as relevant to human beings generally, but that they must be understood of the nation of Israel specifically.

4) However, the author fails to consider other clay motifs from canonical and extracanonical literature.  For example, the author fails to consider the canonical use in Job 10:9, 13:12, & 33:6 but also the extracanonical use in Sirach 33:13 ("As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it at his pleasure: so man is in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best.") and Wisdom of Solomon 15:7 ("For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.") both of which are themselves dependent on the canonical use, especially Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9.  Moreover, the canonical use (and the extracanonical use that depends from it) has literary connection to the story of the special creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7 "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" and maintained in other canonical writings (e.g., Psalm 103:14 & Ecclesiastes 3:20 & 12:7)

5) Of course, the use in the extracanonical wisdom literature is not binding on Paul (nor on the author to whom we are responding), but it shows the conventional understanding of the Isaiah metaphor as having a more gnomic or general application: not an application limited to a particular nation or circumstance.

6) While Job is authoritative, Paul does not necessarily have Job's use in mind as he does Isaiah's.  On the other hand, if one is to make reference to "echoes" of Jeremiah, one should certainly also see the "echoes" in Job.  Job uses a similar potter/clay metaphor without the context of any reference to national Israel's rebellion.

7) Next, the idea that God is having some kind of difficulty molding Israel as God would like to do is irreconcilable with Paul's usage and the flow of Paul's argument.  The "one lump" language, in particular, suggests that God is perfectly capable of molding the same lump in different ways, not that the lump somehow constrains the potter.

8) The author's contextualization, even limited to the verses he identifies, is still suspect.  Isaiah 64:8 is in the context of repentant Israel.  Isaiah 29:16 is prospective, pointing forward to a day that includes things like people coming to understanding and learning doctrine (Isaiah 29:24).

9) Even where woe is pronounced (in Isaiah 45) it is not accompanied by God expressing inability but the opposite: "all their host have I commanded" (vs. 13) and "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (vs. 7).

10) So, the author's conclusion seems to be premised on trying to read the specific context of Jeremiah 18 into Paul's use of the potter/clay metaphor.  Even in that context, however, God's word to Jeremiah is not saying that the potter has any lack of ability brought about by the clay, but rather that God has absolute freedom to do what God likes, including to rework something He has previously worked.  The human potter that Jeremiah saw produced a marred vessel first and then refashioned it into what he wanted.  God doesn't err like a human potter: that's not the point of the metaphor.  God has the freedom to do what he wants with mankind.  That's the point.

A Straw Man of David Allen's Position?

 At least one person reached out to me to suggest that I (in my previous post) misunderstood Dr. Allen, and that Dr. Allen does not teach that 1 John 5:1 teaches that faith precedes regeneration.  This person referenced one of Dr. Allen's papers from a few years ago ("Does Regeneration Precede Faith?" in the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry, Fall 2014, Vol. 11, No. 2), which more modestly argues only that regeneration preceding faith cannot be proved from the grammar of the text (e.g., "The most that can be said from the Greek present participle and perfect tense verb combination is that the actions are contemporaneous" p. 41).  Indeed, in that paper, Dr. Allen attempted to resort to an argument from the "broader context" ("The broader context of John’s writings indicate he would not teach that regeneration precedes faith and elsewhere teach that faith is a condition for life as he does in John 20:31." p. 41)

Nevertheless, as documented in my various video responses (Original Response Part 1, Original Response Part 2, Response to Flowers' Claim that Allen Addressed James White's argument, and a follow-up regarding Sherman and Tuggy), especially the Original Response (for example, Part 1, from the place where Allen says, 'Well I'm gunna go ahead and raise some eyebrows'), Allen differs from Flowers and says that there are "semantic grounds" for his view of 1 John 5:1; and Part 2, where he reads section 4 of his paper, which argues from the "semantic structure" that faith precedes regeneration). 

Interestingly, the entire challenge posed to Dr. Allen by Dr. White hangs on this point.  If Dr. Allen were to abandon his position for Flowers' position, White's challenge would no longer apply to Allen with the same strength, although Dr. White would still be right to demand a consistent exegesis of 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, and 1 John 5:1.  

An Improvement to the so-called "Pure Cambridge Edition" (2006) of Matthew Verschuur

Matthew Verschuur published his own minor edition of the King James Version, which he refers to as "the Pure Cambridge Edition."  This edition was first published in 2006, although it is sometimes promoted as "circa 1900."  Verschuur has managed to attract some measure of following to his position that the PCE is absolutely perfect, although Verschuur's position has been criticized by King James advocates, such as the Trinitarian Bible Society, and many others.  Quite recently, Bryan Ross has offered a devastating critique of the PCE position in a series of lectures accompanied by a book-length (200+ pp.) set of notes (link to "Assessing the Pure Cambridge Edition Position"). MV has offered a few responses to Bryan Ross (most recently on March 24).  If you want to see the hubris of MV, you may consider this table his most recent response offers (March 10 post):

The Scripture is more pure than other writings.

The KJB’s version is more pure than any TR or version.

The KJB’s translation is more pure than any other English Bible.

The PCE is a more pure Edition than any other Edition/edition.

Bible Protector’s text file and collation of the PCE is more pure than any other text file or representation.

MV claims that that this edition is correct even as to such things as the capitalization of words.  In fact, he provides capitalization as being an important reason for his edition.  For example, he states (Guide to PCE):

I thought my Cambridge Edition was correct, but when I examined the case of the letter “s” on the word “spirit” at various places, I discovered that in 1 John 5:8 my Cambridge book differed from Pastor Savige’s Collins Bible. I then inquired concerning this area, and wrote to various King James Bible experts about it. One said, “follow Scrivener” (see below), another said, “it is up to the interpreter”, another said, “probably capital”, another said to effect, “both are correct concurrently”, and yet another, a textual critic and Cambridge King James Bible editor, plainly said, “there is no ‘correct’ edition”. I was unsettled on the matter for a while. 

In another place, he states (Guide to PCE):

In November 2005, it became apparent that there must be a settling of a difference found in Collins editions as opposed to Cambridge printed Bibles of the Pure Cambridge Edition, that is, at 1 Chronicles 14:10 where Collins capitalised the “A” of “and wilt thou”. In addressing this particular issue, I understood that while there were differences between all representations of the Pure Cambridge Edition, none was necessarily definitive, neither was there one that I could be sure was free from typographical errors. I saw that the Scripture indicated, and that it was in line with God’s nature, that there should be a definitive and scrupulously correct representation. Therefore, I reasoned that such a text would have to be resolved, and that it would be commendable to create it in an electronic text which would be able to be disseminated abroad and become a universal standard. 

Moreover, when it comes to the marks of a PCE, MV points to 12 readings, six of which have to do with the capitalization of the English word "spirit" (source) -- this is beyond the capitalization of "and" in "and wilt thou" in 1 Chronicles 14:10, mentioned by MV above  (Guide to PCE):

1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8

MV distinguishes between something being "actually an 'error' in the Bible" and something being a "presentation error." He states (source): "A typographical error is not actually an "error" in the Bible, because it is only a presentation error." 

I have a few problems with this kind of distinction, which I have seen in various King James advocacy circles.  They seem to be aiming to distinguish between the source of the errors (namely the translators/editors vs. the printers; in his March 24 post, MV seeks to divide amongst "Scripture," "Version," "Translation," "Edition," and "Setting Forth."), but they are arguing it as though it were a difference in the kind of error.  However, these (alleged) errors are the following kinds:

• word (1, 2, 4);
• spelling? (6, 8, 9); and
• capitalization (3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12)

In theory, these could be attributable to the translators (either in terms of their translation text or their translation choices/methodologies) or to the printers (either in terms of failing to read the translators' notes correctly or failing to print what the translators requested).  There may be good reasons to argue for a particular source of a particular error.

However, I must point that when it comes to capitalization, MV sometimes goes so far as to say (Guide to PCE):

The Pure Cambridge Edition is consistent in its usage of “Son of David”, as the Oxford is consistent in its blasphemous “son of David”. The Oxford is obviously wrong. 

Notice that even if MV is willing to say that matters of capitalization are not "actually an error" but "only a presentation error," he's also willing to call the Oxford editions reading "blasphemous".  He does this also with the Oxford capitalization at Matthew 4:1.  MV writes (Guide to PCE):

Matthew 4:1

If Jesus was led of the “spirit” lowercase, then He was relying on something out of the realm of the normal believer, being His own spirit. Yet, the Scripture teaches that Christ is our example, and that we ought “to walk, even as he walked.” (1 John 2:6a). The Scripture even shows that Christ promised, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” (John 14:12). If Christ was led merely by his own spirit, then this would disallow believers to be able to walk or do exactly as Christ had done. Such a thing could not be walked in by anyone without the Holy Ghost — no one in their own merits could even get close to the standard of Christ. However, if Jesus was relying on the “Spirit” as the Cambridge reading shows, then He was relying on something that became available to all believers, namely, the Holy Ghost. Thus, the Oxford reading makes a blasphemy and a mockery of Christianity. Whereas the Cambridge shows that man needs the Spirit of God to lead him to Christ, and this would eventually lead to the Pentecostal manifestation, which is available for all. There are many indications that the Spirit would come upon or fill certain people in the Old Testament or before the day of Pentecost, but Christians who follow Christ as an example are able to do so after Pentecost because the Spirit has been made available to all since that time, if people will believe and receive that baptism. 

Notice that by something as seemingly trivial as a capital letter, MV claims: "the Oxford reading makes a blasphemy and a mockery of Christianity."

Knowing that capitalization issues are half of the marks that MV offers and that capitalization is especially important to MV when it comes to God, I happened to read Philippians 3.  There I found this reading in MV's text:

Philippians 3:19 (source) 

Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

(screenshot from p. 1071 of MV's pdf)

Notice that "God" is capitalized in Philippians 3:19.  However, notice that in places where something other than the true God is referred to as "god," the convention is to use lowercase:

(Exodus 7:1, p. 59)

(Judges 6:31, p. 252)

(1 Kings 18:27, p. 363)

(2 Kings 1:6, p. 371)

Notice especially the last example, where "a God" (true God) is contrasted with "the god" (not the true God). 

This English convention is one that is done out of reverence and respect for God.  It is also the underlying premise behind MV's rather provocative claim that "son of David" is "blasphemous" or that Jesus being led of the "spirit" "makes a blasphemy and a mockery of Christianity."

If one were to apply the same standard to MV's reading at Philippians 3:19, one could just as easily argue that MV's reading blasphemously portrays God as someone's belly, making a sort of Buddhist mockery of Christianity.

Naturally, I don't agree with MV's standard, though I do like the capitalization convention that we use in the 21st century to distinguish between a "god" and the "God".  Following that convention, MV's reading is "obviously wrong" - much more so than the Oxford's, "son of David," where - in fact - the Oxford's capitalization is better, because Jesus is the Son of God according to his divinity and the son of David according to his humanity, being both God and man in two distinct natures and one person.

These are not faults of the 1611 KJV, because at that time English capitalization conventions were not the same as today, and it would be anachronistic to judge the 1611 by modern capitalization conventions.

Additionally, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek contains capital letters.  Thus, using a capital/lowercase distinction in the KJV to argue for some doctrinal conclusion is to rest upon the wisdom of the translators, as distinct from relying on the underlying text of the Holy Scriptures, as inspired by God.  

"From ... Youth" - an important Hebrew Idiom

The expression "from ... youth" is a Hebraism - a Hebrew expression we find in lots of places in the Old and New Testaments.  It generally carries the sense of something always having been a certain way.  Although the underlying Hebrew word can be used in other contexts, in this context, the point of the expression is an emphasis on the absence of a time when the opposite was the case.  This same idea is strengthened further by "until today" or "unto this day" or similar statements.

I've provided a list of examples of this usage.  I break them down into categories of moral/vocational/personal history.  Some of these classes blur into each other, so I offer them just by way of broad categorization.

There is also a second version of the same idiom using a slightly different Hebrew word, but meaning approximately the same thing.  There are just two examples of this usage.  I've grouped all the New Testament Greek uses under the first version.  

There is also another Hebrew expression, which is an even stronger version of the same idea: "from ... womb."  Job 31:18 uses the two expressions in parallel, suggesting that they have (or at least can have) approximately the same sense as one another.

These idioms become important when it comes to the topic of original sin and total depravity.  Sometimes opponents of total depravity will complain that the word "youth," in "the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth," can refer to an age as late as adolescence, or even young adulthood.  The problem with that analysis is failing to treat the word as part of the idiom that it is: an idiom that is similar to "from the get-go" or the like.  

Interestingly, the same folks will typically take an exactly opposite approach when we point to the verses that use "from the womb," claiming that it is some kind of hyperbole and should not be taken literally, even though - of course - "womb" does not have a similarly wide range of semantic meaning. 

First Version - "From ... Youth"

Moral Character

Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

1 Kings 18:12 And it shall come to pass, [as soon as] I am gone from thee, that the Spirit of the LORD shall carry thee whither I know not; and [so] when I come and tell Ahab, and he cannot find thee, he shall slay me: but I thy servant fear the LORD from my youth.

Psalm 71:5, 17 For thou [art] my hope, O Lord GOD: [thou art] my trust from my youth. ... O God, thou hast taught me from my youth: and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works.

Jeremiah 3:24-25 For shame hath devoured the labour of our fathers from our youth; their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters. We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God.

Jeremiah 22:21 I spake unto thee in thy prosperity; [but] thou saidst, I will not hear. This [hath been] thy manner from thy youth, that thou obeyedst not my voice.

Jeremiah 32:30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.

Ezekiel 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.

Matthew 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Mark 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

Luke 18:21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

Acts 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

Vocation

Genesis 46:34 That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, [and] also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians.

1 Samuel 12:2 And now, behold, the king walketh before you: and I am old and grayheaded; and, behold, my sons [are] with you: and I have walked before you from my childhood unto this day.  ("childhood" here translates the same Hebrew word translated "youth" in other places)

1 Samuel 17:33 And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou [art but] a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.

Isaiah 47:12, 15 Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail. ... Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast laboured, [even] thy merchants, from thy youth: they shall wander every one to his quarter; none shall save thee.

Zechariah 13:5 But he shall say, I [am] no prophet, I [am] an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.

Personal History

2 Samuel 19:7 Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the LORD, if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now.

Job 31:18 (For from my youth he was brought up with me, as [with] a father, and I have guided her from my mother's womb;)

Psalm 129:1-2 [[A Song of degrees.]] Many a time have they afflicted me from my youth, may Israel now say: Many a time have they afflicted me from my youth: yet they have not prevailed against me.

Jeremiah 48:11 Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees, and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity: therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed.

Second Version of "From ... Youth" with Close Synonym

Psalm 88:15 I [am] afflicted and ready to die from [my] youth up: [while] I suffer thy terrors I am distracted.  [The word translated "youth" here is essentially a synonym of the more common word for "youth".]

Proverbs 29:21 He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become [his] son at the length. [The word translated "children" here is essentially a synonym of the more common word for "youth".]

"From ... Womb" Version

Judges 13:5, 7 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. ... But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean [thing]: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.

Judges 16:17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I [have been] a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any [other] man.

Job 31:18 (For from my youth he was brought up with me, as [with] a father, and I have guided her from my mother's womb;)

Psalm 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Psalm 71:6 By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise [shall be] continually of thee.

Psalm 110:3 Thy people [shall be] willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

Isaiah 44:2, 24 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, [which] will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. ... Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 46:3 Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne [by me] from the belly, which are carried from the womb:

Isaiah 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time [that] thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

Isaiah 49:1, 5 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. ... And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb [to be] his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

Hosea 9:11 [As for] Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Acts 3:2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;

Acts 14:8 And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,

Greek Participles - Particularly Substantival Participles - Especially Generic Substantival Participles - Some Study

Introduction

We start our consideration of the Greek participle, by going back to Classical Greek.  For this analysis, I'm relying on van Emde Boas' Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, (pp. 606-35). I have supplemented with Mastronarde's Introduction to Attic Greek (pp. 225-33), which provides additional detail, with a focus on the study of Attic Greek, as well as with Hansen's Greek: an Intensive Course (pp. 208-30), which provides a lot of the same material for the study of ancient Greek. I also consulted Morwood's Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek (pp. 136-43), which I did not find particularly helpful when compared with the others.

These days, however, the study of Greek by English-speakers is heavily weighted toward the study of what is often referred to as "New Testament Greek."  

Huffman's The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek (pp. 75-80) provides a concise and helpful explanation of participles.  Wenham's The Elements of New Testament Greek (pp. 147-55) provides a concise description, more geared toward classroom use and, I suspect, more aimed at those just beginning their study of Greek.  Machen's classic, New Testament Greek for Beginners (pp. 87-108) has three lessons on participles, diving into more detail but providing clear explanations. Notwithstanding its name, Machen's treatment is - to my mind at least - slightly more advanced than Wenham's. 

Matthewson's Intermediate Greek Grammar (pp. 205-26) has a helpful chapter on participles, as does Köstenberger's Going Deeper with New Testament Greek (pp. 321-60). Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pp. 612-55) similarly devotes a chapter to the subject.  Interestingly, both Huffman and Matthewson quote Wallace as to the view that "Mastery of the syntax of participles is mastery of Greek syntax." (Wallace, p. 613; Matthewson, p. 205; Huffman, p. 79) 

For the purposes of my particular study, Blass's treatment was interesting in that relevant material was found both under the study of Tense (section 339, pp. 174-5) and Mood (sections 411-25, pp. 212-20).

Participles Generally 

van Emde Boas explains (section 52.1, p. 606, bold in original, internal citation omitted):

Participles are verbal adjectives:

- they are like adjectives in that they are marked for case, number and gender, and follow the rules of agreement; 

- they are like verbs in that they are marked for tense-aspect and voice, and may be construed with an object, complement, etc.; modified by adverbs; etc.

Huffman notes that, unlike finite verbs, participles do not have mood or person (p. 75).  Matthewson spells it out more fully: "The participle is a nonfinite verb form, that is, like the infinitive, it is not limited by person, nor does it possess mood." (p. 205)

van Emde Boas goes on to explain (section 52.2, pp. 606-7, bold in original) that participles can have three uses: "Supplementary" (i.e., "as an obligatory constituent with verbs"), "Circumstantial" (e.g., "to express a circumstance, cause, condition, motivation, purpose, etc."), and "Attributive/substantival," as well as in "various periphrastic constructions."  Hansen puts it this way (p. 204, bold in original): "There are three major uses of the participle in Greek, the attributive, the circumstantial, and the supplementary."  At page 213, however, Hansen acknowledges (italics in original), "As with all adjectives, the attributive participle can be used substantively." Huffman divides the uses into adjectival, adverbial circumstantial, adverbial non-circumstantial, and independent verbal (pp. 75-78).  Wenham says: "There are two uses: the adjectival participle and the adverbial participle." (p. 151)  However, Wenham goes on to say: "The adjectival participle is generally preceded by an article (with which it agrees). This so-called articular participle is occasionally used in English in expressions like 'the living', 'the missing'. In the New Testament it is very common." (p. 151, italics in original) Matthew notes: "though the presence of the article guarantees that a participle is adjectival, the absence of the article does not guarantee that it is adverbial" (p. 206). Wenham cautions: "any number of qualifying words may be inserted between the article and the participle" (p. 151).  Matthewson insists (p. 206, italics in original): "it is important to distinguish the form of a participle (a participle is a participle is a participle!) from the variety of ways it can function (as a substantive; attributive or adverbial modifier; predicate; etc.)."  Ultimately, Matthewson classifies participles first into the categories of adjectival or verbal, and then into their sub-categories (for adjectival: attributive modifiers, predicate adjectives, and substantives; for verbal: adverbial modifiers, supplementary to verbs, and as predicates), and separately treats genitive absolutes and periphrastic constructions (p. 206). Köstenberger provides a handy chart showing up to three levels of classification of participles, in which he divides the major category of adjectival participles into "Attributive" and "Substantival" (p. 326). Wallace notes that the adjectival side of the participle "is seen in both substantival (independent) and adjectival (dependent) uses." (pp. 613-4)

Attributive/Substantival

For the purposes of my analysis, the specific sub-topic I'm most interested in is "attributive/substantival" category of usage. Machen divides these as two uses "234. The Attributive Participle" (p. 90) and "235. Substantive Use of the Participle" (p. 91). Machen provides a note about translation (p. 92, italics in original): "The Greek ὁ does not mean the man or the one or he. It means the, and it is just as simple an article as the article in the phrase the cat or the dog or the house. But in English we do not use the article with the substantive participle. Therefore we have to reproduce the idea of the Greek ὁ λέγων by a phrase of which the individual parts have absolutely nothing to do with the individual parts of the Greek phrase. It is only the total meaning of the English phrase which is the same as the total meaning of the Greek phrase." Wenham (p. 151, parenthesis in original) says: "The examples below mean literally 'the believing (ones)', 'the sowing (man)', 'the having-been-sown-by-the-wayside (man).'." In those examples, the words "ones" and "man" are provided for the reason that Machen more eloquently explains. Köstenberger explains (p. 321): "Participles usually take more than one word to translate. With a noun, for example, often a one-to-one correspondence between Greek and English can be made (ἄγγελος = angel). With a participle, however, up to six words might be needed (ὁ τεχθεὶς = "the one who has been born")."

van Emde Boas provides some examples as well as the following explanation of the attributive/substantival use: "the participle is used, normally with the article, in noun phrases, as modifier (attributive use) or head (substantival use)." (p. 607) Under the topic of "Placement of Participles," (52.3, p. 607), van Emde Boas explains that "attributive participles naturally occur in attributive position" (bold in original). Mastronarde similarly divides the uses of the participle and notes that "The substantival use of the attributive participle is extremely common in Greek" (p. 226). Huffman divides the adjectival use into "Attributive (Dependent Adjectival) Participle" (with four sub-categories), "Predicate (Dependent Adjectival) Participle" (with four subcategories), "Substantival (Independent Adjectival) Participle," and "(Pendant) Nominative Absolute Participle." (pp. 75-76)  In my view, Huffman's final category could be rolled up with his third category for our purposes, though admittedly there is a nuanced difference between them.  For the interested reader, p. 80 of Huffman provides a very handy "Participle Usage Identification Guide" with what amounts to a flow chart to identify usage.  

Tense/Aspect of Participles 

van Emde Boas also includes several sections (52.3 to 52.6) on the "Tense/Aspect and 'Mood' of Participles" (pp. 607-10).  For my purposes, I'm most interested in present tense participles and their interaction with perfect tense verbs that are what I usually think of as "main verbs," but what van Emde Boas refers to as "matrix verbs."  van Emde Boas explains (52.4, p. 607, bold in original, internal citations omitted) "Each of the tense-aspect stems has its own participle: the difference between the stems is aspectual (except for the future stem). In the case of the participle, these aspectual differences lead to a relative-tense interpretation in a large majority of cases: The present participle typically expresses an action simultaneous with that of the matrix verb ... The perfect participle typically refers to a state (or lasting effects), simultaneous with the matrix verb, resulting from a previously completed action ... ."  Huffman makes similar observations but seems to suggest that the relative time determination is for adverbial participles (as distinct, presumably, from adjectival and substantival participles): "With adverbial participles, the relationship of its action to the main verb's action must be determined, particularly its time." (p. 75) Machen simply says, "The tense of the participle is relative to the time of the leading verb." (p. 90) Köstenberger (p. 324, fn. 5) explains what he calls the traditional view with this quotation: "'In general, time is absolute in the indicative, relative in the participles, and nonexistent in the other moods" (Wallace,  498; emphasis original)."

Köstenberger (pp. 324-5) notes two further views on time in participles, one associated with Porter and the other with Picirilli, ultimately siding with Picirilli.  Porter's view, per Köstenberger, is that the order of the participle indicates the relative time (antecedent placement implying antecedent time).  Picirilli's view, per Köstenberger, is that "participles never communicate time (even relative time) but that the time of the participles can only be determined by context." (p. 325)  Köstenberger cites some statistical analysis showing that 80% of aorist adverbial participles and 90% of present adverbial participles "are contemporaneous with the action of the main verb." (p. 325) Wallace argues (p. 613): "The context has more influence on participles than on any other area of Greek grammar. ... One's exegetical skills get tested more with participles than with any other part of speech."  Blass suggests: "Participles originally had no temporal function, but denoted only the Aktionsart; their relation to the finite verb was derived from the context." (p. 174)

By contrast to the way van Emde Boas explains things, Mastronarde suggests (p. 225, italics in original, internal citations omitted): "In most constructions, the participle (like the infinitive) conveys by its tense a distinction in verbal aspect rather than time. ... The present participle conveys the aspect of the present stem: that is, continuous or repeated action. In practice, it most often refers to an action contemporaneous with the action of the main verb of the sentence and is usually translated in English by a present participle (X'ing, being X'ed). But in the proper context, the present participle may refer to an action antecedent or subsequent to that of the main verb .... The present participle may also have conative force." Wallace borrows a keen observation regarding an important nuanced difference between the infinitive and the participle: "although participles and infinitives are often translated the same (especially when the infinitive is translated as a gerund), the is a distinct difference. 'Whereas the infinitive is abstract, specking of the act or fact of doing, the participle is concrete, speaking of the person who or thing which does.'[FN18: Williams, Grammar Notes, 50. Cf. also Robertson, Grammar, 1101-02.]"

After acknowledging that participles indicate relative time, Mathewson explains (p. 205, footnote omitted): "As with finite verbs, the key feature of participles is not time but verbal aspect, or how the author chooses to represent an action: aorist participles convey perfective aspect; present participles convey imperfective aspect; perfect participles convey stative aspect." (pp. 205-6)  After briefly discussing the rare future participle, Mathewson openly disagrees with Wallace by saying: "No matter what the function of the participle (see below), it still always communicates verbal aspect.[fn3: Contra Wallace (615-16) who thinks the aspect is sometimes reduced." (p. 206) Wallace specifically notes that many nouns in Hellenistic Greek "in a former life were participles" and that the "constant pressure from the adjectival side finally caved in any remnants of verbal aspect" for such former participles (now nouns) and suggested that "when a participle is a substantival, its aspectual force is more susceptible to reduction in force." (p. 625, italics in original) 

Hansen provides a third, though arguably similar, perspective (p. 203, formatting changed, italics in original): "The tense of a Greek participle for the most part shows aspect but often in context it is clear that there is a definite temporal relationship between the participle and the main verb. 1. The present participle shows progressive/repeated aspect; its action is most often simultaneous with that of the main verb, and it can usually be translated by the English present participle, e.g., "educating, educating for oneself, being educated."

Wallace, however, provides an important observation regarding a category of substantival participles: "many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances. The πας ὁ ἀκούων (or ἀγαπῶν,  ποιῶν, etc.) formula is always or almost always generic. As such it is expected to involve a gnomic idea. Most of these instances involve the present participle. But if they are already gnomic, we would be hard-pressed to make something more out of them-such as a progressive idea." (pp. 615-16, italics in original, footnotes omitted)  Wallace goes on to point out the absurdity of suggesting that "everyone who divorces his wife" should be taken in some kind of repetitive ongoing way.  In footnote, Wallace suggests that a progressive sense may still be present in a gnomic statement, suggesting that the verb to pisteuwn (believe) may be a good candidate. Wallace makes a concerted argument for this point at pp. 620-1, especially in footnote 22 on the latter page.  The former page provides the amusing, but persuasive, point that calling John "the one baptizing" does not mean that John is "the one who continually baptizes", particularly in Mark 6:14, where he is referred to this way after his decapitation.  

In the next section (52.5, pp. 608-9, bold in original, internal citations omitted), van Emde Boas points out that there are numerous exceptions to the general rule: "Although the relative-tense interpretation of the stems of the participle outlined above is usually valid, there are numerous exceptions. In such cases, a different interpretation of a certain tense-aspect stem takes precedence over (or is present in addition to) the conventional relative-tense interpretation. .. A present participle may be used to refer to an ongoing, habitual or repeated action preceding the action of the matrix verb; the present participle in such cases is sometimes called an "imperfect participle". An explicit indication is usually present ... . Present participles of the telic verbs may also have a conative interpretation, or an interpretation as a resultative present ... ."  Köstenberger (p. 323) quotes Wallace (p. 639), who notes: "Result participles are invariably present participles that follow the main verb ...." 

After discussion of the supplementary and circumstantial uses (which do not concern our present study), van Emde Boas provides greater depth regarding "The Participle in Noun Phrases" at pp. 631-4, before concluding the chapter with discussion of the periphrastic uses.  van Emde Boas makes a distinction between "Attributive Use (as Modifier) and Substantival Use (as Head)" and specifically states: "The participle can be used with an article in noun phrases, either as a modifier (attributive use) or as head (substantival use). ... Note 2: some substantivally used participles developed into nouns" providing the example of archon (chief), which developed from archw (rule) (52.46, p. 631). van Emde Boas, section 52.47 (p. 632), notes: "Occasionally, attributive/substantival participles occur without an article" providing a couple of examples. 

Generic Use

Important to our present study, at section 52.48, "Generic Use," van Emde Boas explains (p. 623, bold in original, internal citations omitted): "When the article is used with a participle (especially with present participles), it often has generic value, with the sense 'whoever ...'. The negative in this case is μή" and provides some examples. Morwood (p. 137 and p. 138) indicates that "The negative in both these causal cases is οὐ" while "If μή is used with the participle, it is likely to have this conditional force...." Mastronarde (p. 229) in a section on "Negation of Participles" provides a helpful discussion of the distinction between negation with οὐ as opposed to negation with μή, and states that "The negative μή is used when the participle refers to an action that is conditional or generic...." Hansen provides a similar explanation of the οὐ / μή distinction but then goes on to observe (p. 216): "Without the negative or an adverb or conjunction to help distinguish the circumstantial participles, only context allows one to chose from among all the possibilities," and offers an example in which the possibilities are "Being harmed," "When we are harmed," "Since we are harmed," "If we are harmed," and "Although we are harmed."  Blass mentions that "When the participle has a generic meaning, πᾶς may be inserted, and even then the article is usually used ...." (pp. 212-3)

"Tense/Aspect of Attribute and Substantival Participles" is the next section (52.49), here van Emde Boas explains (p. 633, bold in original, internal citations and bullet formatting omitted): "The aspectual distinctions between different tense stems are fully relevant for attributive and substantival participles. Such distinctions typically typically result in an interpretation of relative sense; for instance ... γεγενημένα in (129) refers to a state simultaneous with εἴη; Not infrequently, however, other connotations of aspect are equally or more relevant." At this point, van Emde Boas offers example 137, in which example when speaking about births and deaths generically, a present participle is used, whereas when discussing concrete births and deaths, aorist participles are used.

Section 52.50 relates to "Participles in Apposition," which relates an interesting (though essentially irrelevant to the present discussion) use of participles, particularly those of εἰμί (e.g., ὤν).  This is more interesting in connection with my length treatment of Revelation 16:5. 

There are other sections of van Emde Boas' work that are potentially informative to our discussion, such as "The Article as Substantivizer" where, at section 28.23, van Emde Boas indicates (p. 335, bold in original, internal citations omitted) "When a word (group) other than a noun is modified by the definite article, it is 'substantivized' (i.e., 'turned into a noun'), and serves as head of a noun phrase."  At section 28.25, van Emde Boas further explains (p. 335, bold in original, internal citations omitted): "The following types of word or phrase are frequently substantivized in this way: ... Participles (in any tense and voice; the article is often generic)."

Bibliography

Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Section 339 "The Present and Aorist Participles", (pp. 174-5); and "The Participle," Sections 411-25, pp. 212-20)

van Emde Boas, Evert; Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink, and Mathieu de Bakker. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, first published 2019 (version 5, April 2024).  Chapter 52, "The Participle" (pp. 606-35).

Hansen, Hardy, and Gerald M. Quinn. Greek: An Intensive Course. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Fordham University Press, 1992. Unit 8, Sections 65-71 (pp. 208-30)

Huffman, Douglas S. The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012. (pp. 75-80)

Köstenberger, Andreas J., Benjamin L. Merkle, and Robert L. Plummer. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2020. Chapter 10 "Participles" (pp. 321-60).  

Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners. New York: Macmillan, (originally published 1923). (Ithaca Classics 2024.) Lesson XVIII, "Present Participles. Use of Participles" (pp. 87-95), Lesson XIX, "Aorist Participles Active and Middle. Use of Participles (Continued). The Negatives οὐ and μή" (pp. 96-102), and Lesson XX, "Aorist Passive Participle. Genitive Absolute" (pp. 103-8).

Mastronarde, Donald J. Introduction to Attic Greek. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. Unit 27, "Uses of the Participle I" (pp. 225-33)

Mathewson, David L., and Elodie Ballantine Emig. Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, (originally published 2016, paperback edition 2019).  Chapter 10 "Participles" (pp. 205-26).

Morwood, James. Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press (originally published 2001, paperback edition 2002) (pp. 136-43)

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Chapter "Participles" (pp. 612-55).

Wenham, John W. The Elements of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Lesson 36 "Participles" (pp. 147-55)

Appendix: Item of interest

At page 209, Matthewson provides the following example (bold in original, one typo of ἀπό for ἀπὸ corrected, formatting altered):

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Rev 1:4)

Grace to you and peace from the one who is and who was and who is coming.

The participles are the objects of a preposition. Notice the grammatical incongruity with the nominative used after the preposition ἀπὸ (we would expect the genitive). This incongruity is likely intentional on the part of the author and is meant to get the readers to sit up and take notice. This is probably because the author wants to draw attention to the nature of this expression as a title and its OT antecedent (Exod. 3:14).

Matthewson footnotes what I believe to be his own work on Revelation. In any event, This explanation is similar to what I've discussed in the broader context of discussing the improvement needed to the KJV at Revelation 16:5.

Patriarchy before the Fall?

In a recent article Aaron P. Mize (a minister serving as a pastor of an OPC congregation) writes (link to article):

Scripture never presents patriarchy as the created or redeemed norm. It is a feature of the fallen world Christ overturns, not a structure he institutes.

Later in the article, he writes:

Patriarchy appears nowhere in the pre-fall order.  

I suppose, of course, this depends on what you mean by "Patriarchy". The word "patriarchy" has been loaded with a lot of baggage in recent decades.  However, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Mize seems to believe that a male/female authority relations are somehow only a result of the fall, and consequently something that is being or will be overturned by redemption.  For example, Mize writes:

When God creates humankind male and female in his image, he communicates shared dominion and fellowship—not subordination of one to the other.

This sentence immediately precedes the section heading "Creation: Mutual Dominion, Not Male Rule." Mize goes on to argue (the emphasis and signal are Mize's):

The divine commission in Genesis 1:26–28 is joint: “Let them have dominion” (emphasis added). Both man and woman bear God’s image, both receive the mandate, both share the blessing.

Of course, the antecedent of "them" in vs. 26 is אָדָם (adam, man), and the blessing in verse 28, while also plural, includes being fruitful and multiplying, which is something performed by the female, as well as replenishing and subduing the earth, which is something performed by the male.  While this division might not be immediately obvious from 1:26-28, it becomes apparent when the curse affects the woman's reproduction (Genesis 3:16) and the man's cultivation (Genesis 3:17).

Likewise, of course, women don't multiply on their own, and there is no reason to suppose that women cannot participate alongside men in earth's cultivation, even if that is not their primary calling.  Moreover, surely the creation is under the joint rule of humanity, including men, women, and children, not solely under the rule of men.  

The question is, how can Mize's view be squared with 1 Corinthians 11?  Unfortunately for the reader, Mize does not engage this important text.  1 Corinthians 11 argues for male headship from the creation order.  Moreover, 1 Corinthians 11 is supported by Genesis.

Genesis 2:18 18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Regarding this verse, Mize expresses his opinion thus:

Genesis 2 deepens the picture by portraying the woman as the כְּנֶגְדּוֹ עֵזֶר (ʿēzer kenegdô), “a helper corresponding to him.” The term עֵזֶר (ʿēzer) is most often used of God himself as Israel’s helper (Deut. 33:29; Ps. 33:20). It conveys strength and partnership, not subordination. 

The strength of Mize's argument here is that the term 'ezer does refer to the help or assistance itself or a person who helps or aids another person.  However, that term does not in itself convey any suggestion that the person is subordinate to the other.  As Mize observes, the majority of the uses are references to God helping humans, but it would be absurd to suppose that God is subordinate to humans.

The weakness of Mize's argument here is that God was not created for the purpose of helping man.  Moreover, consider the incarnation.  Although the Logos was in no way our subordinate, when Jesus was incarnated he took on the position of a servant:

Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Paul explains it this way:

Philippians 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

A full-orbed Christology includes both the humiliation and exaltation of Christ.  Christ took on a position of service, and we should not feel ashamed to serve others.

The incarnation, however, differs from the Creation of mankind.  In the creation of mankind, Adam was first created, and then God created the woman specifically for the purpose of aiding the man.  That is not TurretinFan's argument: that's Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11.