Textkit Logo

1 John 2:8

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!

1 John 2:8

Postby Isaac Newton » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:06 pm

πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει.


1 John 2:8

What is the antecedent of ὅ in above ?
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

None

Postby Mindy » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:41 pm

deleted
Last edited by Mindy on Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mindy
 

Re: 1 John 2:8

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:02 pm

Mindy wrote:έντολὴν is the antecedent of ὅ.


Mindy,
ἐντολὴν καινὴν is feminine. Which doesn't agree with ὅ.

postcript:

The OP has argued about this on various forums ad nauseam. Barry Hofstetter argued with him as recently as 2016[1].

[1] 1jn 2:8 Barry Hofstetter vs John Milton = Isaac Newton

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theol ... dent/page3
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: 1 John 2:8

Postby Markos » Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:55 pm

Isaac Newton wrote:
πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει.

1 John 2:8

What is the antecedent of ὅ in above ?

ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει.
οὐ μανθάνω γράφειν, ἀλλὰ γράφω τοῦ μαθεῖν.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2941
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: 1 John 2:8

Postby Isaac Newton » Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:35 pm

Mindy wrote:έντολὴν is the antecedent of ὅ.


You're right.

Ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἠγαλλιάσατο τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ Ἁγίῳ καὶ εἶπεν Ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, Πάτερ, Κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἀπέκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν, καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις· ναί, ὁ Πατήρ, ὅτι οὕτως εὐδοκία ἐγένετο ἔμπροσθέν σου.


Luke 10:21
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: 1 John 2:8

Postby Isaac Newton » Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:41 pm

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
Mindy wrote:έντολὴν is the antecedent of ὅ.


Mindy,
ἐντολὴν καινὴν is feminine. Which doesn't agree with ὅ.

postcript:

The OP has argued about this on various forums ad nauseam. Barry Hofstetter argued with him as recently as 2016[1].

[1] 1jn 2:8 Barry Hofstetter vs John Milton = Isaac Newton

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theol ... dent/page3


Barry did not "argue" with me about 1 John 2:8 in that thread you furnished.
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

None

Postby Mindy » Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:59 am

deleted
Last edited by Mindy on Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mindy
 

Re: 1 John 2:8

Postby Isaac Newton » Sun Apr 22, 2018 5:52 am

Mindy wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
Mindy,
ἐντολὴν καινὴν is feminine. Which doesn't agree with ὅ.

I did not know that έντολὴν is fem. and ὅ is neuter. I only guessed from the parallel.


You read the text correctly initially ( because you did so naturally) even though you did not know the reason why. I hope you have not changed your mind on this score. In Greek the gender of the relative pronoun does not have to match the grammatical gender of it's antecedent but may match (or agree with) it's actual or perceived gender/notion. This is called constructio ad sensum. Here's Smyth's grammar, 2502 :


d. The relative may stand in the neuter, in agreement with the notion implied in the antecedent rather than with the antecedent itself; as διὰ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυκεν ὡς ἀγαθόν for the sake of profit, a thing which every nature is inclined to pursue as a good P. R. 359c.


Notice that in Smyth's example above the noun τὴν πλεονεξίαν is feminine but a neuter relative ( ὃ) is referring to it by ad sensum construction because τὴν πλεονεξίαν is not an actual woman but it is a thing, a concept, hence the neuter. The same can be argued at 1 John 2:8 with the noun ἐντολὴν καινὴν and the neuter relative pronoun there. That being said, the feminine relative (ἥ) may also have worked just fine in either 1 John 2:8 or in the Smyth example.

Does this clarify things a bit more for you ?
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Thanks

Postby Mindy » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:51 am

deleted
Mindy
 

Re: 1 John 2:8

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:09 pm

I have no desire to engage this here, but so that Mindy can see that it is not so facile as the other poster suggests:

ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν. Efforts to unravel the meaning of this relative clause and its relationship to the rest of the verse have, for the most part, been unsuccessful. The neuter gender of the relative pronoun makes it clear that the antecedent cannot be ἐντολὴν καινὴν, which is feminine. The most likely antecedent is the whole preceding statement: ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν (so Brooke, 36; Strecker, 50; cf. Moule, 130). The relative clause is introduced, then, to diffuse the contradiction between the claim in verse 7 and the claim being made here. If this analysis is correct, then αὐτῷ, which is typically viewed as a (masculine gender) reference to Christ (e.g., Burdick, 143; Brown, 266; Smalley, 57; Strecker, 50), should probably be viewed as neuter and coreferential with ὅ, its nearest possible antecedent.

Culy, M. M. (2004). I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (p. 33). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

The clause ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς relates to the preceding matter, as is evident from the relative pronoun, and cannot be connected with the following clause introduced by ὅτι, as Ebrard thinks. The Neuter forbids our regarding it as a relative clause belonging to καινὴ ἐντολὴ, as maintained by Düsterdieck, who assumes a constructs ad sensum, and says that “the real substance of ἐντολὴ is declared to be true, both in Christ and in the readers,” but this would require ἡ—ἀληθής (Lücke), and “the thing required by ἐντολὴ is nothing else but the ἐντολὴ itself” (Ebrard). We must take it rather as coördinated with ἐντολὴν καινὴν, and construe it like ἐντολὴν καινὴν, as the object of γράφω.

Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Brain, K., & Mombert, J. I. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1, 2, 3 John (p. 53). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθές, in apposition to ἐντολήν—“a thing which is true,” viz., the paramount necessity of Love.

Smith, D. (n.d.). The Epistles of John. In The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary (Vol. 5, pp. 175–176). New York: George H. Doran Company.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: 1 John 2:8

Postby Isaac Newton » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:37 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:I have no desire to engage this here, but so that Mindy can see that it is not so facile as the other poster suggests:

ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν. Efforts to unravel the meaning of this relative clause and its relationship to the rest of the verse have, for the most part, been unsuccessful. The neuter gender of the relative pronoun makes it clear that the antecedent cannot be ἐντολὴν καινὴν, which is feminine. The most likely antecedent is the whole preceding statement: ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν (so Brooke, 36; Strecker, 50; cf. Moule, 130). The relative clause is introduced, then, to diffuse the contradiction between the claim in verse 7 and the claim being made here. If this analysis is correct, then αὐτῷ, which is typically viewed as a (masculine gender) reference to Christ (e.g., Burdick, 143; Brown, 266; Smalley, 57; Strecker, 50), should probably be viewed as neuter and coreferential with ὅ, its nearest possible antecedent.

Culy, M. M. (2004). I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (p. 33). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

The clause ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς relates to the preceding matter, as is evident from the relative pronoun, and cannot be connected with the following clause introduced by ὅτι, as Ebrard thinks. The Neuter forbids our regarding it as a relative clause belonging to καινὴ ἐντολὴ, as maintained by Düsterdieck, who assumes a constructs ad sensum, and says that “the real substance of ἐντολὴ is declared to be true, both in Christ and in the readers,” but this would require ἡ—ἀληθής (Lücke), and “the thing required by ἐντολὴ is nothing else but the ἐντολὴ itself” (Ebrard). We must take it rather as coördinated with ἐντολὴν καινὴν, and construe it like ἐντολὴν καινὴν, as the object of γράφω.

Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Brain, K., & Mombert, J. I. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1, 2, 3 John (p. 53). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθές, in apposition to ἐντολήν—“a thing which is true,” viz., the paramount necessity of Love.

Smith, D. (n.d.). The Epistles of John. In The Expositor’s Greek Testament: Commentary (Vol. 5, pp. 175–176). New York: George H. Doran Company.


Culy et. al here are not being honest (or else being deliberately deceptive, or else being ignorant of Koine grammar) when they say that the antecedent of ἐντολὴν καινὴν "cannot" be ("forbidden" to be) ὅ because ὅ is neuter. The antecedent can indeed be ὅ due to ad sensum
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am


Return to The Academy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests