Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
Locked
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote: Nominative.
So your reading begins / is to be understood like so, -- ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

Correct ?
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

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by jaihare »

Isaac Newton wrote:
jaihare wrote: Nominative.
So your reading begins / is to be understood like so, -- ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

Correct ?
My reading? The text has ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς as the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν. The relative pronoun is nominative because it is functioning as the subject of ἦν, but the entire clause is accusative when arranged like this - since it is the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν.

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:
jaihare wrote: Nominative.
So your reading begins / is to be understood like so, -- ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

Correct ?
My reading?
Answer my question. Are you arguing that the text should be understood as follows -- ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς...
The text has ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς as the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν.
You have ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς as the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν. It's doubtful that the text does.
The relative pronoun is nominative because it is functioning as the subject of ἦν,
Yes, I get that.
but the entire clause is accusative when arranged like this - since it is the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν.
When arranged like what exactly ? You seem to be hesitant to show us exactly how your sentence looks like after ἀπαγγέλλομεν has been re-arranged from verse 3 and into verse 1? Isn't that what you're doing ?
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

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Isaac Newton wrote: What I'm trying to point out to the two of you is that νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [The man you have now] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] σου ἀνήρ [ your husband] means the same thing as σου ἀνήρ [Your husband] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [the man you have now].
I don't think that's right. 'Your husband is not the man you have now' implies that some other man is her husband. But Jesus is saying that none of the five men/husbands is in fact her husband, is he not?

Andrew

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by jaihare »

You really cannot tell me that you have not understood the position of everyone on this thread up to this point! If you do not understand, you have a comprehension issue that we probably will never work past.

The string of relative clauses that opens the letter are all connected to the main verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3. They are simply interrupted by a parenthetical in verse 2, and then are resumed (and encapsulated) by a restatement of two of the clauses before being attached directly to the verb. In fact, what do you think the theological different is between γράφω ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς and ἀπαγγέλλομεν (ἐν γράμμασιν) ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς? Is there a different in meaning between "we announce to you what was from the beginning" and "I am writing to you what was from the beginning"? What is so different here that could pack all of the punch that you want to put into this verse?

Is it simply turning ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς into an apositive for "the word" that interests you? Why do you fight so much about what you think and believe and reject what everyone that you dialogue with would offer you in one voice together?

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by jaihare »

Andrew Chapman wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: What I'm trying to point out to the two of you is that νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [The man you have now] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] σου ἀνήρ [ your husband] means the same thing as σου ἀνήρ [Your husband] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [the man you have now].
I don't think that's right. 'Your husband is not the man you have now' implies that some other man is her husband. But Jesus is saying that none of the five men/husbands is in fact her husband, is he not?

Andrew
Agreed.

demetri
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:33 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by demetri »

Isaac Newton wrote: What is the case of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 ( ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς,) according to your reading ?
jaihare wrote: Nominative.
Correct.

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

Andrew Chapman wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: What I'm trying to point out to the two of you is that νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [The man you have now] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] σου ἀνήρ [ your husband] means the same thing as σου ἀνήρ [Your husband] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [the man you have now].
I don't think that's right. 'Your husband is not the man you have now' implies that some other man is her husband.
That's exactly what Jesus' sentence implies Mr. Chapman.
But Jesus is saying that none of the five men/husbands is in fact her husband, is he not?

Andrew
No...
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: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote:You really cannot tell me that you have not understood the position of everyone on this thread up to this point! If you do not understand, you have a comprehension issue that we probably will never work past.

The string of relative clauses that opens the letter are all connected to the main verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3. They are simply interrupted by a parenthetical in verse 2, and then are resumed (and encapsulated) by a restatement of two of the clauses before being attached directly to the verb. In fact, what do you think the theological different is between γράφω ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς and ἀπαγγέλλομεν (ἐν γράμμασιν) ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς? Is there a different in meaning between "we announce to you what was from the beginning" and "I am writing to you what was from the beginning"? What is so different here that could pack all of the punch that you want to put into this verse?

Is it simply turning ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς into an apositive for "the word" that interests you? Why do you fight so much about what you think and believe and reject what everyone that you dialogue with would offer you in one voice together?
Actually γράφω ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς is not grammatical , you need a preopsition and a stative verb , something as follows --γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς to make it legible. Your other sentence is also ungrammatical, since you're basing that reading on the argument that ἀπαγγέλλομεν from verse 3 is the "main verb" governing all of the relative clauses in verse one. Had you argued that the author was assuming the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 1 instead, it would be a different story. Also, you're chopping off the prepositional phrase from the relative clauses so that the relative pronoun ὃ is not connected to τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. The correct reading here is as follows:
[γράφω] περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.....
It's a very simple sentence, but you're needlessly making it complicated (and ungrammatical) because it refutes the theology of your on-line coven.
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: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: What I'm trying to point out to the two of you is that νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [The man you have now] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] σου ἀνήρ [ your husband] means the same thing as σου ἀνήρ [Your husband] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [the man you have now].
I don't think that's right. 'Your husband is not the man you have now' implies that some other man is her husband. But Jesus is saying that none of the five men/husbands is in fact her husband, is he not?

Andrew
Agreed.
Read John 4:16.
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

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by jaihare »

Isaac Newton wrote:Actually γράφω ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς is not grammatical , you need a preopsition and a stative verb , something as follows --γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς to make it legible. Your other sentence is also ungrammatical, since you're basing that reading on the argument that ἀπαγγέλλομεν from verse 3 is the "main verb" governing all of the relative clauses in verse one. Had you argued that the author was assuming the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 1 instead, it would be a different story. Also, you're chopping off the prepositional phrase from the relative clauses so that the relative pronoun ὃ is not connected to τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. The correct reading here is as follows:
[γράφω] περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.....
It's a very simple sentence, but you're needlessly making it complicated (and ungrammatical) because it refutes the theology of your on-line coven.
You write γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς and criticize me for contributing something ungrammatical (which was perfectly grammatical)? What you've presented here doesn't allow περί to govern its most natural case - the genitive. In the Koine, especially, we would not find περὶ ὃ but rather περὶ οὗ. Either way, it wouldn't be grammatical in the way that you're attempting to construct it.

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote:
You write γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς and criticize me for contributing something ungrammatical (which was perfectly grammatical)? .
It must be pointed out that I do not endorse γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς for 1 John 1:1, it was rather an attempt to mend your ungrammatical sentence (γράφω ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ) as succinctly as I could. Having said that, the amended sentence is not ungrammatical.

What you've presented here doesn't allow περί to govern its most natural case - the genitive. In the Koine, especially, we would not find περὶ ὃ but rather περὶ οὗ. Either way, it wouldn't be grammatical in the way that you're attempting to construct it.
περὶ can (and sometimes) does take the accusative (and in classical Greek even the dative), so once again you're engaging in confidence trickery with your willful denials (perhaps lay off Nietzsche and Crowley for a while).. The sentence γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς is not ungrammatical as far as I can tell ( ὃ is in the accusative.)

However, and once again, my reading for 1 John 1:1 is as follows:
[γράφω] περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.....


be well,
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

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Isaac Newton wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: What I'm trying to point out to the two of you is that νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [The man you have now] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] σου ἀνήρ [ your husband] means the same thing as σου ἀνήρ [Your husband] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [the man you have now].
I don't think that's right. 'Your husband is not the man you have now' implies that some other man is her husband.
That's exactly what Jesus' sentence implies Mr. Chapman.
But Jesus is saying that none of the five men/husbands is in fact her husband, is he not?

Andrew
No...
Isaac Newton wrote: Read John 4:16.
So you think that when Jesus said 'call your man/husband' that was a different man from 'the one you have now'? That's unusual to say the least. OK, so let's say the man she was to call was the one Jesus considered to be her real husband. Perhaps she had once been married, and then had four other men since. Let's say it was the former husband was the first of the five, and that he is still alive. How exactly is she going to call him? Is he going to respond to a call from his former wife, who seems to have been disgracing herself for a long time?

I looked this up in the old commentaries which I have to hand. Starting with Alford, it is suggested that Jesus is forcing her to face her sin by telling her to bring her man (the one she has). I haven't seen any suggestion that he is saying call your real husband (who she now longer has and cannot easily call).

Andrew

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

Andrew Chapman wrote: So you think that when Jesus said 'call your man/husband' that was a different man from 'the one you have now'? That's unusual to say the least. OK, so let's say the man she was to call was the one Jesus considered to be her real husband. Perhaps she had once been married, and then had four other men since. Let's say it was the former husband was the first of the five, and that he is still alive.
Yes.


How exactly is she going to call him? Is he going to respond to a call from his former wife, who seems to have been disgracing herself for a long time?

I looked this up in the old commentaries which I have to hand. Starting with Alford, it is suggested that Jesus is forcing her to face her sin by telling her to bring her man (the one she has). I haven't seen any suggestion that he is saying call your real husband (who she now longer has and cannot easily call).

Andrew
That's her problem, isn't it , which she has now been urged to acknowledge and [hopefully] confront.
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

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Isaac Newton wrote: That's her problem, isn't it , which she has now been urged to acknowledge and [hopefully] confront.
OK fine, I think that may be possible grammatically. I would be interested to know if there is another person on the planet who agrees with you (that Jesus is telling her to call some other man than the one she now has).

Let's take another example, not with a copulative/equative verb. How about John 3.34a, for example:

ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, ..

Who or what is the subject of λαλεῖ ?

Andrew

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

Andrew Chapman wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: That's her problem, isn't it , which she has now been urged to acknowledge and [hopefully] confront.
OK fine, I think that may be possible grammatically. I would be interested to know if there is another person on the planet who agrees with you (that Jesus is telling her to call some other man than the one she now has).

Let's take another example, not with a copulative/equative verb. How about John 3.34a, for example:

ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, ..

Who or what is the subject of λαλεῖ ?

Andrew
ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς ... Where are you going with all this ?
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

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Isaac Newton wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: That's her problem, isn't it , which she has now been urged to acknowledge and [hopefully] confront.
OK fine, I think that may be possible grammatically. I would be interested to know if there is another person on the planet who agrees with you (that Jesus is telling her to call some other man than the one she now has).

Let's take another example, not with a copulative/equative verb. How about John 3.34a, for example:

ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, ..

Who or what is the subject of λαλεῖ ?

Andrew
ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς ... Where are you going with all this ?
We were debating whether relative clauses are always adjectival or whether sometimes they are substantival. Here it is substantival. Or if you prefer, and this is perhaps the more common way of looking at it, there is a 'hidden' demonstrative: οὗτος ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ. Then one could say that it is adjectival, modifying the (non-existent) demonstrative, and the demonstrative could be considered to be the subject of λαλεῖ.

Effectively, ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς is the subject of λαλεῖ.

Andrew

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

I was reading through Revelation this evening, and I came across the following, which is structurally identical to what I'm proposing for 1 John 1:1 --
φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Rev. 2:7
[γραφω] περι του λογου της ζωης, ο ην απ αρχης
1 John 1:1

--

Also notice that sometimes a verbal idea is implied in a construction with conjunction and relative pronoun as in 1 Cor. 10:20 --
ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ Θεῷ θύουσιν· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.
King James 2000 Bible
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that you should have fellowship with demons.

New Living Translation
No, not at all. I am saying that these sacrifices are offered to demons, not to God. And I don't want you to participate with demons.

NET Bible
No, I mean that what the pagans sacrifice is to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.
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

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by jaihare »

Isaac Newton wrote:I was reading through Revelation this evening, and I came across the following, which is structurally identical to what I'm proposing for 1 John 1:1 --
φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Rev. 2:7
[γραφω] περι του λογου της ζωης, ο ην απ αρχης
1 John 1:1
These two sentences are not syntactically similar, since ὁ λόγος is masculine and τὸ ξύλον is neuter. It is correct of the writer to use the neuter relative pronoun directly following ξύλον. It is incorrect to use it directly following λόγος. How can you propose that masculine and neuter are grammatical and syntactic equivalents in Greek?

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Isaac Newton wrote: Also notice that sometimes a verbal idea is implied in a construction with conjunction and relative pronoun as in 1 Cor. 10:20 --
ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ Θεῷ θύουσιν· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.
King James 2000 Bible
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that you should have fellowship with demons.
Notice also that the relative clause is substantival, functioning as the object of the second θύουσιν.

Andrew

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:I was reading through Revelation this evening, and I came across the following, which is structurally identical to what I'm proposing for 1 John 1:1 --
φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Rev. 2:7
[γραφω] περι του λογου της ζωης, ο ην απ αρχης
1 John 1:1
These two sentences are not syntactically similar, since ὁ λόγος is masculine and τὸ ξύλον is neuter.
I don't know what you mean by "not syntactically similar." The sentences are structurally identical; the only appreciable difference between the two is that in 1 John 1:1 the relative pronoun ὅ is referring to it's antecedent by constructio ad sensum.

It is correct of the writer to use the neuter relative pronoun directly following ξύλον. It is incorrect to use it directly following λόγος. How can you propose that masculine and neuter are grammatical and syntactic equivalents in Greek?
This is false, since there is a feature called constructio ad sensum in Greek.
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

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by jaihare »

Isaac Newton wrote:
jaihare wrote:It is correct of the writer to use the neuter relative pronoun directly following ξύλον. It is incorrect to use it directly following λόγος. How can you propose that masculine and neuter are grammatical and syntactic equivalents in Greek?
This is false, since there is a feature called constructio ad sensum in Greek.
"Word" does not have natural gender. Constructio ad sensum is when GRAMMATICAL gender/number (the gender expected because of grammar) is overridden by NATURAL gender/number. λόγος does not have a natural gender. Ugh.

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote: "Word" does not have natural gender. Constructio ad sensum is when GRAMMATICAL gender/number (the gender expected because of grammar) is overridden by NATURAL gender/number. λόγος does not have a natural gender. Ugh.

"The Word" or ὁ Λόγος (prior to it's becoming a human being ) is an entity / a peculiar thing, not a "person." One way the Greek allows us to bring this out grammatically is through constructio ad sensum ( i.e. to refer to it with a neuter pronoun even though it's grammatical gender is masculine. )
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

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by jaihare »

Isaac Newton wrote:
jaihare wrote: "Word" does not have natural gender. Constructio ad sensum is when GRAMMATICAL gender/number (the gender expected because of grammar) is overridden by NATURAL gender/number. λόγος does not have a natural gender. Ugh.
"The Word" or ὁ Λόγος (prior to it's becoming a human being ) is an entity / a peculiar thing, not a "person." One way the Greek allows us to bring this out grammatically is through constructio ad sensum ( i.e. to refer to it with a neuter pronoun even though it's grammatical gender is masculine. )
Your theological propositions aside, there is no natural gender to λόγος. It's like thinking that "thought" has a natural gender. No natural gender would override the grammatical gender. Constructio ad sensum occurs when the natural gender of what is being spoken of (most generally, a group of people) overrides the gender (and/or number) of the word used to refer to them. For example, the words for "people" (as in a group) in both Hebrew (עם) and Greek (either λαός or δῆμος) are masculine singular, yet the peoples being referred to are masculine plural. Thus, it is natural for λαός/δῆμος (as well as עם) to switch to the masculine plural when being the subject of thought - and this happens a lot. Similarly, τέκνα is neuter plural (of τέκνον) and naturally switches to the masculine plural frequently, since the natural gender of a group of children is masculine.

Constructio ad sensum happens with references to people, not to abstract concepts (like "words" or "love"). "Love" (whether ἡ ἀγάπη(σις), ἡ φιλία or ὁ ἔρως) will always maintain its grammatical gender. There is no reason to expect it to EVER switch to something else. The same is true of λόγος. It will not have a natural gender that is neuter nor feminine. It has only grammatical gender, and it will not switch to something else. You're abusing the concept of constructio ad sensum.

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:
jaihare wrote: "Word" does not have natural gender. Constructio ad sensum is when GRAMMATICAL gender/number (the gender expected because of grammar) is overridden by NATURAL gender/number. λόγος does not have a natural gender. Ugh.
"The Word" or ὁ Λόγος (prior to it's becoming a human being ) is an entity / a peculiar thing, not a "person." One way the Greek allows us to bring this out grammatically is through constructio ad sensum ( i.e. to refer to it with a neuter pronoun even though it's grammatical gender is masculine. )
Your theological propositions aside, there is no natural gender to λόγος. It's like thinking that "thought" has a natural gender. No natural gender would override the grammatical gender. Constructio ad sensum occurs when the natural gender of what is being spoken of (most generally, a group of people) overrides the gender (and/or number) of the word used to refer to them. For example, the words for "people" (as in a group) in both Hebrew (עם) and Greek (either λαός or δῆμος) are masculine singular, yet the peoples being referred to are masculine plural. Thus, it is natural for λαός/δῆμος (as well as עם) to switch to the masculine plural when being the subject of thought - and this happens a lot. Similarly, τέκνα is neuter plural (of τέκνον) and naturally switches to the masculine plural frequently, since the natural gender of a group of children is masculine.

Constructio ad sensum happens with references to people, not to abstract concepts (like "words" or "love"). "Love" (whether ἡ ἀγάπη(σις), ἡ φιλία or ὁ ἔρως) will always maintain its grammatical gender. There is no reason to expect it to EVER switch to something else. The same is true of λόγος. It will not have a natural gender that is neuter nor feminine. It has only grammatical gender, and it will not switch to something else. You're abusing the concept of constructio ad sensum.
Jameson, to begin with, I did not say Logos in John 1 and in 1 John 1 is an "abstract concept." Secondly, constructio ad sensum does not just occur in conjunction with "a group of people." I think the word "natural" (as in natural gender) or "actual" (as in actual gender) is causing you conceptual confusion. Think rather in the following terms : when the main idea of a noun is not a "person" or "personality", that is, when it's a thing rather than an individual or an intelligent being, the Greek mind sometimes tends to refer to such things with neuter pronouns even though their grammatical gender may be masculine or feminine. For instance the grammatical gender of τράπεζα is feminine, but it is not uncommon in Greek to refer to it with a neuter form of the pronoun. This in a nutshell is constructio ad sensum. If you won't take it from me, then at least do so from a Trinitarian . Here's Dr. Luginbill:

Case in point is the whole issue of gender. This is one the areas where my Latin students who have grown up in a world where grammar is a mystery have quite a large amount of trouble. The notion that a table can be feminine in gender so that it is possible to refer to it with feminine pronouns even though everyone understands it is a "thing" devoid of any sexuality is a tough concept for many of them to grasp. However, in Latin, and even more so in Greek, it is not uncommon for an author to shift to the neuter in such cases, since the main idea of the object is indeed neuter.
hope this helps to clarify things 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

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by jaihare »

Isaac Newton wrote:Jameson, to begin with, I did not say Logos in John 1 and in 1 John 1 is an "abstract concept." Secondly, constructio ad sensum does not just occur in conjunction with "a group of people." I think the word "natural" (as in natural gender) or "actual" (as in actual gender) is causing you conceptual confusion. Think rather in the following terms : when the main idea of a noun is not a "person" or "personality", that is, when it's a thing rather than an individual or an intelligent being, the Greek mind sometimes tends to refer to such things with neuter pronouns even though their grammatical gender may be masculine or feminine. For instance the grammatical gender of τράπεζα is feminine, but it is not uncommon in Greek to refer to it with a neuter form of the pronoun. This in a nutshell is constructio ad sensum. If you won't take it from me, then at least do so from a Trinitarian . Here's Dr. Luginbill:
Case in point is the whole issue of gender. This is one the areas where my Latin students who have grown up in a world where grammar is a mystery have quite a large amount of trouble. The notion that a table can be feminine in gender so that it is possible to refer to it with feminine pronouns even though everyone understands it is a "thing" devoid of any sexuality is a tough concept for many of them to grasp. However, in Latin, and even more so in Greek, it is not uncommon for an author to shift to the neuter in such cases, since the main idea of the object is indeed neuter.

hope this helps to clarify things for you,

What it helps clarify for me is that you think in English. In English, a table is neuter. In Greek, it is feminine. I have not yet seen an example in which a table becomes neuter. It has no natural gender (gender in nature - sex).

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote: What it helps clarify for me is that you think in English. In English, a table is neuter. In Greek, it is feminine. I have not yet seen an example in which a table becomes neuter. It has no natural gender (gender in nature - sex).


You want to be treated like a child ? O.K., let's do it your way:

(a) Do you understand Dr. Luginbill's point that it is not uncommon for a Greek writer to shift to the neuter pronoun in reference to a noun like "table" , since the main idea of the object is neuter ?

(b) Do you acknowledge this phenomenon ?
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by jaihare »

Isaac Newton wrote:You want to be treated like a child? O.K., let's do it your way:
Let's just say that you treating other people as children because they reject your authoritarian statements doesn't come as a surprise. I don't need to accept something on the basis of hearsay.

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:You want to be treated like a child? O.K., let's do it your way:
Let's just say that you treating other people as children because they reject your authoritarian statements doesn't come as a surprise. I don't need to accept something on the basis of hearsay.
It's not "hearsay" though. Not infrequently, relative pronouns do not follow basic rules of agreement . Take a look at the following instances of constructio ad sensum associated with relative pronouns , will you (for starters) ? --John 4:22,1 Cor. 15:10, Acts 26:17,1 Cor. 4:17,col. 2:19,Gal. 4:19, 2 Peter 2:17, 2 John 1, Rev. 13:14
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

Here are examples of gender shift by constructio ad sensum

(a) neuter (noun) to masculine (relative pronoun) :
καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης καὶ ἔζησεν.
(Rev. 13:14)

(b) feminine singular (noun) to masculine plural (relative pronoun) :
Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν,
(2 John 1)

(c) feminine (noun) to neuter (relative pronoun):
ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγάπην, ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος.
(Col. 3:14)

etc...
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: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

Greek sometimes uses the neuter form of the pronoun (through constructio ad sensum) in reference to a grammatically masculine or feminine antecedent if it is an inanimate thing , or an animal or even a brutish person ( i.e. things not rising to the level of an "Individual" / "person" in the author's mind) . In this regard, earlier in Col. 3:14 we saw the author use the neuter form of the pronoun ὅ in reference to the grammatically feminine ἀγάπην because ἀγάπην is a thing rather than an individual being. In 1 Cor. 6:10-11 the author purposely revokes the masculine pronoun in reference to those human beings who were formerly deemed sub-human by him:

οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν Θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε· ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν.
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: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

I cited 1 John 2:8 earlier in this regard, but since memories are short, I shall do so again :
πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει.
Incidently, I came across the following just now quite by chance :


[B-Greek] Neuter Pronoun 1 John 2:8

Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Oct 26 09:41:26 EDT 2005
Previous message: [B-Greek] Neuter Pronoun 1 John 2:8
Next message: [B-Greek] Neuter Pronoun 1 John 2:8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear Charles,

>In 1 John 2:8 the author writes hO ESTIN ALHQES EN AUTW KAI EN hUMIN
>hOTI hH SKOTIA PARAGETAI KAI TO FWS TO ALHQINON HDH QAINEI. To what
>does the hO refer? One author had the unique approach (at least to
>me) of saying that hO was a postcedent and it related to all the
>phrase following hOTI because hOTI is considered to take a neuter
>nominative article. Most everyone else said that it related to the
>precedent clause (PALIN ENTOLHN KAINHN GRAFW hUMIN).
But the
>difficult part for me was that some said it could not relate to
>ENTOLHN because it was feminine and others said even though it was
>feminine it still related to it because sometimes the neuter would
>do this.

HH: I think the majority is right, and the neuter can take a compound
or complex idea as its antecedent. I am just guessing, but it seems
that complexity could arise if John were referring to the content of
the command more than just the command itself. Loving one another as
Jesus loved us (John 13:34) is something that is true in us because
of new covenant realities such as the indwelling Spirit and the
example of Jesus.

Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (p 337), notes: "Not
infrequently relative pronouns do not follow the basic rules of
agreement. Sometimes the gender of the relative pronoun does not
match that of the antecedent, usually because of sense agreement
superceding syntactical agreement (constructio ad sensum)."

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
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

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by jaihare »

Well, let's suppose that you're right. How does constructio ad sensum create a situation in which this verse somehow strengthens your argument? What weight is riding on the constructio ad sensum argument?

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote:Well, let's suppose that you're right. How does constructio ad sensum create a situation in which this verse somehow strengthens your argument? What weight is riding on the constructio ad sensum argument?
Well, just as the neuter ὅ in Col. 3:14 grammatically betrays the fact that the writer did not consider τὴν ἀγάπην to be an individual personality, so too the ὅ in 1 John 1:1 tells us that the author did not imagine τοῦ Λόγου / τῆς ζωῆς (prior to it's becoming a human being, i.e. ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ) to be a personality, but rather an inanimate thing (quite possibly even an abstraction).
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: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

Check this out, A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. New edition revised and ...By Edward ROBINSON (D.D.), Samuel Thomas BLOOMFIELD :
So the neuter ὅ often refers to a masc. or fem. antecedent, taken in the general sense of thing, Matth. #439. comp. Buttm. # 129. 6. So in explanations Matt. 1:23 Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον , 27: 33 , Mark 3:17. 12:42 λεπτὰ δύο, ὅ ἐστιν κοδράντης 15:16, 42. John 1:39. Col. 1:24. Heb. 7:2. al ( otherwise Acts 9:39). Also where neuter ὅ refers to a whole preceding clause, Mark 15:34. 1 John 2:8
ref. http://books.google.ca/books?id=lwAOAAA ... sensum&f=f
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

User avatar
Andrew Chapman
Textkit Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Isaac Newton wrote:I cited 1 John 2:8 earlier in this regard, but since memories are short, I shall do so again :
πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει.
Do you have any examples of an adjectival relative clause being situated so far prior to its antecedent as it is in your understanding of 1 John 1.1:

[adjectival clause(s) modifying λόγου] (γράφω) περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.

You could not write, say:

τοῦ ἁγίου (γράφω) περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.

And I very much doubt that you can do this with an adjectival relative clause instead of an adjective.

Andrew

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

Andrew Chapman wrote: Do you have any examples of an adjectival relative clause being situated so far prior to its antecedent as it is in your understanding of 1 John 1.1:

[adjectival clause(s) modifying λόγου] (γράφω) περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.

You could not write, say:

τοῦ ἁγίου (γράφω) περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.

And I very much doubt that you can do this with an adjectival relative clause instead of an adjective.

Andrew
The pronoun is actually situated in the immediacy of it's antecedent. There are four relative clauses each referring to the same thing. Move the prepositional phrase to the front of the sentence and τοῦ Λόγου / τῆς ζωῆς comes immediately before the first prepositional phrase (Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς), leave it as is, and it comes immediately after the last (ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν ).

On another note it's interesting that you're now complaining about distance when the main verb ( ἀπαγγέλλομεν) in your reading does not occur until verse 3.

It is inevitiably the case that not a few trinitarians (and their cronies) in many a forum I engage lack all sense of grammatical and exegetical objectivity when it comes to the so-called "christologically significant" texts. They will do to the text or texts almost anything, or will say just about everything if it threatens their essential doctrines, which are fundamentally absurd; after all these same doctrines propose that Jesus existed (literally) prior to his existence / birth , and that "he" was not "a human being" even though he had human nature. Think about how everyday language (τίκτω as in Luke 2:11, ἄνθρωπος as in John 7:46, etc.) has to be re-defined and twisted to even entertain such nonsense. Unfortunately this is precisely what the fourth century Church councils which Deified Jesus did. And they admit to it, to boot:




Catechism of the Catholic Church

250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people's sense of the faith.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82

252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.
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

demetri
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:33 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by demetri »

Sigh...old heresies die hard. This is a topic for a theology forum. Here it just serves as a Soap Opera - entertaining but useless. :wink:

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

demetri wrote:Sigh...old heresies die hard. This is a topic for a theology forum. Here it just serves as a Soap Opera - entertaining but useless. :wink:
I hope you're not suggesting that the main topic of this thread (grammatical analysis of 1 John 1:1) is for a theology forum.

All truly useful language forums must (and do) cater to a certain amount of theological digression . It must be pointed out that often a grammatical argument in a forum dominated by "Christians" is inextricably bound to theology. What I mean is that often those arguing for a certain grammatical position pretend objectivity and impartiality outwardly but are in fact raving "Deity of Christ" lunatics underneath , wolves in sheeps clothing. And it is precisely these fundamentalists who are most perturbed by any discussion of Christ's "Deity", especially by someone knowledgeable not from their fold .

I have no issue with those who declare their faith and theological leanings outwardly, but the pretenders to objectivity truly get my goat. I must say that Markos and jaihare are two posters here who are most candid about their beliefs, and in this at least they have not disgraced themselves..
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

demetri
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:33 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by demetri »

I fail to see how sophistry and rhetoric implies "being knowledgeable". You are pressing your belief agenda and, as I think I have tried to point out, ignore the understanding of those who historically did not need translations. This is theater.

Locked