The Grammatical Argument for the Johannine Comma

This is a response to, "Johannine Comma and Georgios Babiniotis," by Nick Sayers (as retrieved on April 27, 2025).  The article starts with the suggestion: "Voulgaris Vindicated by Leading Greek Expert." That refers to an argument made by Eugenios Voulgaris (aka Eugenius Bulgaris) that argues that the text of 1 John 5 contains a grammatical solecism that is avoided only if the Johannine Comma is included. (text of Voulgaris available here, as retrieved on July 12, 2024)

Sayers begins:

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.

This blog does address all sorts of arguments that others do not.

Sayers continues:

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.

One of the challenges with interacting with this argument is that we are not given the correspondence that Sayers provided to Babiniotis, in order to understand what question was asked, and how it was asked. We have to make certain assumptions, and that can lead to mistaken conclusions about what is meant by the answers that Sayers reports.  

Let me be clear: I am not impugning Sayers' integrity in the least.  I take for granted that Sayers is honestly and accurately reporting what Babiniotis said and that if there is any error in such reporting, it is unintentional.  It's just that, as it stands, the context we have is incomplete.

Sayers continued:

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.

Prof. Babiniotis is now 87 years old.  His academic credentials seem to be that he has a bachelors in Philology from the University of Athens, and subsequently served as a professor at the University of Athens.  His political appointments are impressive: he clearly is very connected.  I'm not sure in what year Sayers contacted him, but my impression is that it was in 2021.

I don't bring these things up to disparage Prof. Babiniotis.  In 2021, La Linguistique published an article by Babiniotis: "Modern Greek Interpretive Lexicography: from the 18th century to the present day."  The article focuses on Greek dictionaries and suggests the possibility of a new and significant Greek dictionary in the near future.  He certainly is a recognized scholar in the field of dictionaries, as Sayers has highlighted.

Sayers continued:

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...”

I don't know why Sayers includes ellipses.  I assume that the meaning is that perhaps Sayers has omitted some other material from the email (for legitimate reasons of privacy, or the like).  There is, of course, nothing much to address in the email itself.  

I appreciate that Babiniotis is focused on his own linguistic skills as distinct from any theological skills.  This may, however, pose a small problem for his analysis, as we shall see.

Sayers then offers "(Word Doc):" followed by the following text, which I understand to be the entirety of Babiniotis' comments.  If there is anything missing, of course, that could alter the analysis of what is provided.

Babiniotis begins:

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.

As I understand it, Babiniotis is saying that Voulgaris has reached the right conclusion, but not for the right linguistic reasons.

Babiniotis continues:

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.

As I understand it, Babiniotis is being careful in view of various changes to the Greek language over time to couch his answer in terms of his understanding of New Testament Greek.  His interpretation might be different if he were dealing with Attic Greek or Modern Greek.  Keep in mind that, of course, New Testament Greek is not Babiniotis' central area of study.

 Babiniotis opines:

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

Presumably, Babiniotis means that each word of the three words, "τρεῖς ... οἱ μαρτυροῦντες," in verse 8, is masculine because of the parallel to "τρεῖς ... οἱ μαρτυροῦντες" in verse 7, where each of those is masculine.  To be more specific, though, the issue is really about the word μαρτυροῦντες - if that were something other than masculine, both the number and article would surely follow.

It is easy to see the parallelism, but how does Prof. Babiniotis explain the justification?

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)

Style over syntax seems to be Babiniotis' point.  Following the gender agreement rule (in which case "witness" would be neuter instead of masculine) would damage the style of providing a syntactic parallel between the three heavenly witnesses and three earthly witnesses.

I must admit that even after puzzling over it for a while, it is unclear what Babiniotis means by saying "eliminate verse 5.7." 

We don't know, because Sayers hasn't told us, but presumably Sayers had some unanswered questions as well.  He adds:

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...”

Unfortunately, we do not even get two full sentences of the explanation offered by Prof. Babiniotis (I'm not even sure that the first part of the quotation is a full sentence).  Moreover, at least as to what he means by "eliminate verse 5.7," the meaning is not at all clear.

All that said, there is no need to agree or disagree with Babiniotis as to things he has not said clearly.  As to what he said clearly, it seems:

1. Babiniotis does not agree with or accept Voulgaris' linguistic argument, only the conclusion;
2. Babiniotis thinks that the syntactic parallelism with 5.7 is an adequate explanation for 5.8 having the masculine gender (notwithstanding that it violates the gender agreement rule); and
3. Babiniotis thinks that if 5.7 needs to be present in order to justify 5.8 on the grounds of syntactic parallelism.

I do not think that my analysis of Babiniotis is unfair or in the least controversial.  I don't think it requires taking a low view of Babiniotis' linguistic abilities, credentials, acumen, or intelligence to conclude that his analysis can be boiled down to those three salient aspects.  Before providing my response, let's see what else Sayers offers:

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”.

I don't think that Sayers has correctly understood Babiniotis, if he thinks that Babiniotis is endorsing anyone else's "Greek grammatical argumentation."  Then again, I don't have access to the additional documentation that presumably Sayers himself has.  Suffice that in the released material, that is not what Babiniotis said in the published correspondence.

The bigger issue, however, is what was not considered by Babiniotis, but what was not considered by Babiniotis: is there another justification for the use of the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8, even without the justification of syntactic parallelism?

In other words, the big question is why John would refer to the three witnesses using the masculine gender and not using the neuter, even in the absence of 1 John 5:7.  There is a better explanation for why John referred to the three witnesses using the masculine gender: although the nouns themselves are not masculine, they are being anthropomorphized as witnesses.  An alternative explanation is that although the nouns themselves are not masculine, they are to be understood analogically as referring to the three persons of the Trinity.  

Unfortunately, there is no evidence of Babiniotis considering these alternative explanations for the violation of the gender agreement rule. Had Babiniotis done so, perhaps he would simply agree that these considerations may likewise trump the gender agreement rule. 

The most likely explanation is that John means to evoke the "three witnesses" rule in the Mosaic law, which both Jesus and Paul reference:

• Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
• Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
• Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
• 2 Corinthians 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
• 1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
• Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Assuming that this is indeed John's intent, then the use of the masculine as consistent with treating these witnesses as people.

There is also possible precedent for doing something similar in Psalm 89:37 (Septuagint numbering 88:38): καὶ ὡς ἡ σελήνη κατηρτισμένη εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ὁ μάρτυς ἐν οὐρανῷ πιστός διάψαλμα

In this place, witness (μάρτυς) is masculine, whereas moon (σελήνη) is feminine. One might argue, however, that the antecedent reference witness is making here should be taken as throne (θρόνος), which is masculine.

There are at least two other cases of impersonal witnesses being referenced in the Septuagint, where there is a gender agreement mismatch between the witness and the word that the witness describes. 

Septuagint Joshua 22:34 provides a first example of a non-personal witness:

καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν Ἰησοῦς τὸν βωμὸν τῶν Ρουβην καὶ τῶν Γαδ καὶ τοῦ ἡμίσους φυλῆς Μανασση καὶ εἶπεν ὅτι μαρτύριόν ἐστιν ἀνὰ μέσον αὐτῶν ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν ἐστιν

Note that altar (βωμὸν) is masculine, but witness (μαρτύριόν) is neuter.

Septuagint Joshua 24:27 provides a second example of a non-personal witness:

καὶ εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τὸν λαόν ἰδοὺ ὁ λίθος οὗτος ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς μαρτύριον ὅτι αὐτὸς ἀκήκοεν πάντα τὰ λεχθέντα αὐτῷ ὑπὸ κυρίου ὅ τι ἐλάλησεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς σήμερον καὶ ἔσται οὗτος ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς μαρτύριον ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἡνίκα ἐὰν ψεύσησθε κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ μου

Note that stone (λίθος) is masculine but witness (μαρτύριον) is neuter.

Note about content:

The content of this article (at least in part), appeared previously on my youtube channel (here).  The video may contain some additional content not captured in this post, and - of course - vice versa.

Timothy Decker has posted a very interesting item on the same subject, which can be found here: (link to post).