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 »

mwh wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: You're making very little sense I'm afraid.
Isaac Newton wrote: ... you are utterly unable to furnish a single example of ὃ without an antecedent from the bible.
Find us another book of the bible beginning with ὃ, and we'll find you your parallel.

I'm betting that will make very little sense to you too.


Here's the bottom line: You're arguing that ὃ at 1 John 1:1 does not have an antecedent. Is it too much to ask for a single proof text from the bible showing that a relative pronoun ( around 4000 occurrences) can work this way ?
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:30 am, 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:How is that remotely relevant though ? And yes, it is a less than sensible demand.

Here's the bottom line: You're arguing that ὃ at 1 John 1:1 does not have an antecedent. Is it too much to ask for a single proof text from the bible showing that a relative pronoun ( around 4000 occurrences) can work this way ?
He's already provided you with ὃ γέγραφα γέγραφα (John 19.22). This is exactly the same structure as ὃ ἑωράκαμεν... ἀπαγγέλλομεν.

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 »

What I find amazing is that 1 John is clear about what the author claims to have "heard." He says it explicitly:

ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν... Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία. ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευδόμεθα καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν· ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ ἀλλήλων καὶ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας... κτλ.

What we have seen and heard we announce also to you... And this is the message that we heard from him and announce to you: that God is light and there is no darkness in him at all. If we say that we have communion with him and are walking (living) in darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth; and if we live (walk) in the light as he himself is in the light, we have communion with one another and the blood of Jesus his son cleanses us from all sin... etc.

This is the message. This is what he heard. This is what was from the beginning. He says it clearly. The thing that was from the beginning is... *drum roll*... the gospel, the story of what the disciples learned from being with Jesus from the very beginning, what they heard from him, what they saw and witnessed with regard to his life and the things he did, the salvation story.

Can it be settled yet? Good grief.

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:How is that remotely relevant though ? And yes, it is a less than sensible demand.

Here's the bottom line: You're arguing that ὃ at 1 John 1:1 does not have an antecedent. Is it too much to ask for a single proof text from the bible showing that a relative pronoun ( around 4000 occurrences) can work this way ?
He's already provided you with ὃ γέγραφα γέγραφα (John 19.22). This is exactly the same structure as ὃ ἑωράκαμεν... ἀπαγγέλλομεν.
I'm not talking about "sentence structure " (though even then, the two sentences do not have the same structure) but of the function of the relative pronoun ὃ. According to mwh at 1 John 1:1b ὃ does not have an antecedent, but ὃ at John 19.22 does have an antecedent. Do you get this so far ?
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:31 am, 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

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 I find amazing is that 1 John is clear about what the author claims to have "heard." He says it explicitly:

ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν... Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία. ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευδόμεθα καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν· ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ ἀλλήλων καὶ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας... κτλ.

What we have seen and heard we announce also to you... And this is the message that we heard from him and announce to you: that God is light and there is no darkness in him at all. If we say that we have communion with him and are walking (living) in darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth; and if we live (walk) in the light as he himself is in the light, we have communion with one another and the blood of Jesus his son cleanses us from all sin... etc.

This is the message. This is what he heard. This is what was from the beginning. He says it clearly. The thing that was from the beginning is... *drum roll*... the gospel, the story of what the disciples learned from being with Jesus from the very beginning, what they heard from him, what they saw and witnessed with regard to his life and the things he did, the salvation story.
This is verse 3, a completely different sentence and thought. We're discussing verse 1.

Can it be settled yet? Good grief.
Do you want me to accept your position just because you say it is true ?
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:29 am, 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:Do you want me to accept your [ nonsense] position just because you say it is true ?
My nonsense position? It's EVERYONE's position who is participating in this thread. Every single person here, "John Milton" / "Isaac Newton." Not one single person here - all from different theological backgrounds and each with his own personal convictions, and every single one of them better at reading and understanding Greek than you - not a single one agrees with you. (Notice that my parenthetical includes a phrase before it that is repeated after it for the sake of redirection and clarification [to remind the audience of what I had just said]. This is what is going on in 1 John 1.1-3.)

Every single person on this thread agrees with my position. We all agree. All of us. Atheists, former Christians, those with no theological baggage, current Christians. Everyone. What are you not getting? We are dealing with the Greek text - and what you propose to do simply butchers it. We all see it. You are not singling me out here. You're the lone coyote trying to make his voice heard in the darkness. You're neither making friends nor proving your point by just screaming at the top of your lungs and hoping that someone will listen, while growling at any passersby who might have compassion on you in your lonely state.

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:Do you want me to accept your [ nonsense] position just because you say it is true ?
My nonsense position? It's EVERYONE's position who is participating in this thread. Every single person here, "John Milton" / "Isaac Newton." Not one single person here - all from different theological backgrounds and each with his own personal convictions, and every single one of them better at reading and understanding Greek than you - not a single one agrees with you. (Notice that my parenthetical includes a phrase before it that is repeated after it for the sake of redirection and clarification [to remind the audience of what I had just said]. This is what is going on in 1 John 1.1-3.)

.
First, that's (bold above) not true. Second even if everyone single person here was unanimously in agreement that a certain position was true , it doesn't make it so. It's not a numbers game. You have to prove why your argument is true, not just scream that it is so.

Every single person on this thread agrees with my position. We all agree. All of us. Atheists, former Christians, those with no theological baggage, current Christians. Everyone. What are you not getting? We are dealing with the Greek text - and what you propose to do simply butchers it. We all see it. You are not singling me out here. You're the lone coyote trying to make his voice heard in the darkness. You're neither making friends nor proving your point by just screaming at the top of your lungs and hoping that someone will listen, while growling at any passersby who might have compassion on you in your lonely state
But you're doing that though...
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:First, that's (bold above) not true. Second even if everyone single person here was unanimously in agreement that a certain position was true , it doesn't make it so. It's not a numbers game. You have to prove why your argument is true, not just scream that it is so.
When so many people who have nothing else in common except that they are reading the Greek text come to the same conclusion after rational discussion, the chances of them being wrong are minimized. When we point out the problems of your position, with just ignore the criticisms. When we provide justification for our position, you ignore the arguments. You will continue to ignore anything and everything that disrupts the comfort that your thinking provides you. No one here is so ignorant as to think that you could really be persuaded by anything short of God himself coming down and telling you that you're mistaken.

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: When so many people who have nothing else in common except that they are reading the Greek text come to the same conclusion after rational discussion, the chances of them being wrong are minimized.
This is a rather disingenuous statement on multiple levels.

(a) There are not "so many people" participating here. Other than myself, the are / have been just six other participants. They are Mwh, Markos, jaihare, Andrew Chapman, John W. and Qimmik. And from this handful only yourself and Andrew Chapman have been posting with any regularity.

(b) You all have something very important in common. Virtually everyone of you believe either that the bible teaches the "Deity" of Christ or are sympathetic to this POV. This was true before anyone of you entered this discussion, and it remains true now, and odds are it will remain true forever.

When we point out the problems of your position, with just ignore the criticisms. When we provide justification for our position, you ignore the arguments. You will continue to ignore anything and everything that disrupts the comfort that your thinking provides you. No one here is so ignorant as to think that you could really be persuaded by anything short of God himself coming down and telling you that you're mistaken.
You seem to be psychologically projecting, yet again.
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

uberdwayne
Textkit Fan
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by uberdwayne »

This is a 9 page discussion that has gone nowhere for at least 7 of them, perhaps its best to drop the discussion and move on.
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ

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

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

Apologies, I forgot to mention Uberdwayne. So 7 of you.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:12 am, 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 »

uberdwayne wrote:This is a 9 page discussion that has gone nowhere for at least 7 of them, perhaps its best to drop the discussion and move on.
Perhaps more accurately, it hasn't been going your way for at least 7 of them ?
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

uberdwayne
Textkit Fan
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by uberdwayne »

Isaac wrote:BTW, I forgot to mention Uberdwayne. So 7 of you.
Nope, you didn't forget me, this would only be my second post in this thread.
Isaac Newton wrote:Perhaps more accurately, it hasn't been going your way for at least 7 of them ?
What way is that Isaac? Can you show me a post I've made in this thread where I give my opinion on which way I think concerning 1 John 1:1? Truth is, you don't know because I haven't stated it and you jumped to a conclusion.

I have not contributed to this conversation at all, only to suggest that it be ended (and this post, of course). It is getting quite silly.

If its your goal to change their thinking on this matter, you've lost the ability to do that because everyone seems to be getting frustrated with you, so why bother anymore, you will only be frustrating the others further? Unless of course, that is your goal.

You've had 9 pages and you've accomplished nothing, at least in the minds of those you are trying to convert.
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by klewlis »

uberdwayne wrote:This is a 9 page discussion that has gone nowhere for at least 7 of them, perhaps its best to drop the discussion and move on.
Let's start a game... drink a shot every time someone repeats himself. :lol:
First say to yourself what you would be; then do what you need to do. ~Epictetus

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

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

uberdwayne wrote:
Isaac wrote:BTW, I forgot to mention Uberdwayne. So 7 of you.
Nope, you didn't forget me, this would only be my second post in this thread.
Isaac Newton wrote:Perhaps more accurately, it hasn't been going your way for at least 7 of them ?
What way is that Isaac? Can you show me a post I've made in this thread where I give my opinion on which way I think concerning 1 John 1:1? Truth is, you don't know because I haven't stated it and you jumped to a conclusion.

I have not contributed to this conversation at all, only to suggest that it be ended (and this post, of course). It is getting quite silly.

If its your goal to change their thinking on this matter, you've lost the ability to do that because everyone seems to be getting frustrated with you, so why bother anymore, you will only be frustrating the others further? Unless of course, that is your goal.
It's not. I suspect though that it's the other way round..

You've had 9 pages and you've accomplished nothing, at least in the minds of those you are trying to convert.
Why would you think that though ? I'm not. The reason for this topic, if you really have to know, is to debunk the Mickey-Mouse Greek that does the rounds in threads dominated by the "Deity of Christ" crowd (as this one certainly is). Here's a quick sample of what I'm talking about:

(1) that ὃ in 1 John 1:1 does not have an antecedent.

(2) that τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς in 1 John 1:1 cannot be two genitives in simple apposition unless we add ὅ ἐστι to the expression.

(3) that the antecedent of αὐτὸν in John 1:10 is not τὸ φῶς in verse 9.

(4) that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in 1 John 1:3 is the "main verb" which governs the relatives at 1 John 1:1.

(5) ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα at John 19:22 is "structurally identical" to ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν at 1 John 1:1.

(6) that the first relative (at 1 John 1:1) is referring to the One who is later revealed as the Lord Jesus Christ.

(7) that Constructio ad sensum happens with references to people, not to abstract concepts (like "words" or "love").

(8) doubting whether the neuter relative pronoun ὅ is able to refer to a masculine or feminine antecedent by constructio ad sensum, taken in the general sense of thing.

(9) insisting that both Θεοῦ (Phil. 2:6) and δούλου (Phil. 2:7) are epexegetical genitives.

And I can go on....
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: Why would the apostle use the neuter form of the pronoun to refer to ὁ λόγος (masculine) / Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (masculine) ?
Here is Meyer:
ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of perception by the apostle’s senses. But from the appositional adjunct περὶ κ.τ.λ. and the parenthetical sentence, 1Jn 1:2, it follows that John understands by it the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς or the ζωή, and more exactly the ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, which was with the Father and was manifested. That the apostle, however, does not thereby mean a mere abstraction, but a real personality, is clear, first from ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν κ.τ.λ. and ἐφανερώθη, and then especially from the comparison with the prooemium of the Gospel of John, with which what is said here is in such conformity that it cannot be doubted that by ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς the same subject is meant as is there spoken of as ὁ λόγος. The neuter form does not entitle us to understand by ὃ ἦν κ.τ.λ., with the Greek commentators Theophylact, Oecumenius, and the Scholiasts, the “μυστήριον of God,” namely, ὅτι Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, or even, with Grotius, the “res a Deo destinatae.” Nor does do Wette’s interpretation: “that which appeared in Christ, which was from eternity, the eternal divine life,” correspond with the representation of the apostle, according to which the ζωή not only was manifested in Christ, but is Christ Himself. By far the greatest number of commentators interpret ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς correctly of the personal Christ. The reason why John did not write ὅς (comp. chap. 1Jn 2:13 : τὸν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς), but ὅ, cannot.. be found in.. [4 explanations, which Meyer rejects}

The neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that to the apostle Christ is “the life” itself; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea.[25] True, the apostle could have written even ὅς instead of the neuter; but as Christ has His peculiar importance just in this, that He is the Life itself (not merely a living individual),—comp. Gospel of Joh 14:6,—and as John begins his Epistle filled with this conception, it was more natural for him to write here ὅ than ὅς.[26] By ἮΝ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς John describes Christ as Him who, although at a particular time He was the object of perception by sense, has been from all eternity; the imperfect ἮΝ, however, does not express the premundane, eternal existence, but is explained in this way, that John speaks historically, looking backwards from the point of time at which Christ had become the object of sensuous perception.
I think he may be right that John is considering Christ from what might call an abstract point of view, as being Himself Life, and so on. He goes on to balance this by referring to his humanity, since they actually saw and heard Him in the flesh.

I do think also that there is something in the idea that Christ is being presented as a μυστήριον, to be revealed progressively. It's almost like Twenty Questions, if I may be forgiven so prosaic an allusion. There's Something; It was from the beginning; [Yet] we heard and saw and touched It; and so on.

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 »

Hi Andrew,
Andrew Chapman wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: Why would the apostle use the neuter form of the pronoun to refer to ὁ λόγος (masculine) / Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (masculine) ?
Here is Meyer:
ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of perception by the apostle’s senses. But from the appositional adjunct περὶ κ.τ.λ. and the parenthetical sentence, 1Jn 1:2, it follows that John understands by it the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς or the ζωή, and more exactly the ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, which was with the Father and was manifested. That the apostle, however, does not thereby mean a mere abstraction, but a real personality, is clear, first from ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν κ.τ.λ. and ἐφανερώθη, and then especially from the comparison with the prooemium of the Gospel of John, with which what is said here is in such conformity that it cannot be doubted that by ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς the same subject is meant as is there spoken of as ὁ λόγος. The neuter form does not entitle us to understand by ὃ ἦν κ.τ.λ., with the Greek commentators Theophylact, Oecumenius, and the Scholiasts, the “μυστήριον of God,” namely, ὅτι Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, or even, with Grotius, the “res a Deo destinatae.” Nor does do Wette’s interpretation: “that which appeared in Christ, which was from eternity, the eternal divine life,” correspond with the representation of the apostle, according to which the ζωή not only was manifested in Christ, but is Christ Himself. By far the greatest number of commentators interpret ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς correctly of the personal Christ. The reason why John did not write ὅς (comp. chap. 1Jn 2:13 : τὸν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς), but ὅ, cannot.. be found in.. [4 explanations, which Meyer rejects}

The neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that to the apostle Christ is “the life” itself; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea.[25] True, the apostle could have written even ὅς instead of the neuter; but as Christ has His peculiar importance just in this, that He is the Life itself (not merely a living individual),—comp. Gospel of Joh 14:6,—and as John begins his Epistle filled with this conception, it was more natural for him to write here ὅ than ὅς.[26] By ἮΝ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς John describes Christ as Him who, although at a particular time He was the object of perception by sense, has been from all eternity; the imperfect ἮΝ, however, does not express the premundane, eternal existence, but is explained in this way, that John speaks historically, looking backwards from the point of time at which Christ had become the object of sensuous perception.
I think he may be right that John is considering Christ from what might call an abstract point of view, as being Himself Life, and so on. He goes on to balance this by referring to his humanity, since they actually saw and heard Him in the flesh.

I do think also that there is something in the idea that Christ is being presented as a μυστήριον, to be revealed progressively. It's almost like Twenty Questions, if I may be forgiven so prosaic an allusion. There's Something; It was from the beginning; [Yet] we heard and saw and touched It; and so on.

Andrew
Meyer is correct that the antecedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς. The only problem I have with his analysis is that he insists ὁ λόγος [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] is a "personality" even though he realizes that apostle John uses the neuter form of the pronoun in reference to it. This is a disconnect no doubt motivated by his rabid trinitarianism. The moment he suggests that ὁ λόγος is a "personality" after conceding that the apostle refers to it with a neuter form of the pronoun (ὃ), his reading becomes ungrammatical. In a sense, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

In any case this is another nail in the coffin of mwh's assertion that ὃ in 1 John 1:1 has no antecedent. It also put's to rest once and for all "Jaihare's" rather schizophrenic conviction that "all" of you are speaking with "one voice" against the possibility that the neuter relative ὃ is referring to the masculine ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς in 1 John 1.

Thanks for your thoughts,
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:Hi Andrew,
Andrew Chapman wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: Why would the apostle use the neuter form of the pronoun to refer to ὁ λόγος (masculine) / Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (masculine) ?
Here is Meyer:
ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of perception by the apostle’s senses. But from the appositional adjunct περὶ κ.τ.λ. and the parenthetical sentence, 1Jn 1:2, it follows that John understands by it the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς or the ζωή, and more exactly the ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, which was with the Father and was manifested. That the apostle, however, does not thereby mean a mere abstraction, but a real personality, is clear, first from ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν κ.τ.λ. and ἐφανερώθη, and then especially from the comparison with the prooemium of the Gospel of John, with which what is said here is in such conformity that it cannot be doubted that by ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς the same subject is meant as is there spoken of as ὁ λόγος. The neuter form does not entitle us to understand by ὃ ἦν κ.τ.λ., with the Greek commentators Theophylact, Oecumenius, and the Scholiasts, the “μυστήριον of God,” namely, ὅτι Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, or even, with Grotius, the “res a Deo destinatae.” Nor does do Wette’s interpretation: “that which appeared in Christ, which was from eternity, the eternal divine life,” correspond with the representation of the apostle, according to which the ζωή not only was manifested in Christ, but is Christ Himself. By far the greatest number of commentators interpret ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς correctly of the personal Christ. The reason why John did not write ὅς (comp. chap. 1Jn 2:13 : τὸν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς), but ὅ, cannot.. be found in.. [4 explanations, which Meyer rejects}

The neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that to the apostle Christ is “the life” itself; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea.[25] True, the apostle could have written even ὅς instead of the neuter; but as Christ has His peculiar importance just in this, that He is the Life itself (not merely a living individual),—comp. Gospel of Joh 14:6,—and as John begins his Epistle filled with this conception, it was more natural for him to write here ὅ than ὅς.[26] By ἮΝ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς John describes Christ as Him who, although at a particular time He was the object of perception by sense, has been from all eternity; the imperfect ἮΝ, however, does not express the premundane, eternal existence, but is explained in this way, that John speaks historically, looking backwards from the point of time at which Christ had become the object of sensuous perception.
I think he may be right that John is considering Christ from what might call an abstract point of view, as being Himself Life, and so on. He goes on to balance this by referring to his humanity, since they actually saw and heard Him in the flesh.

I do think also that there is something in the idea that Christ is being presented as a μυστήριον, to be revealed progressively. It's almost like Twenty Questions, if I may be forgiven so prosaic an allusion. There's Something; It was from the beginning; [Yet] we heard and saw and touched It; and so on.

Andrew
Meyer is correct that the antecedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς. The only problem I have with his analysis is that he insists ὁ λόγος [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] is a "personality" even though he realizes that apostle John uses the neuter form of the pronoun in reference to it. This is a disconnect no doubt motivated by his rabid trinitarianism. The moment he suggests that ὁ λόγος is a "personality" after conceding that the apostle refers to it with a neuter form of the pronoun (ὃ), his reading becomes ungrammatical. In a sense, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

In any case this is another nail in the coffin of mwh's assertion that ὃ in 1 John 1:1 has no antecedent. It also put's to rest once and for all "Jaihare's" rather schizophrenic conviction that "all" of you are speaking with "one voice" against the possibility that the neuter relative ὃ is referring to the masculine ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς in 1 John 1.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Well, if Meyer says so.... You're good at argumentum ad baculum, so it makes sense.

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, if Meyer says so.... You're good at argumentum ad baculum, so it makes sense.
Do you have anything intelligent to counter with ? This is just a snarky quibble .
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: Well, if Meyer says so.... You're good at argumentum ad baculum, so it makes sense.
Do you have anything intelligent to counter with ? This is just a snarky quibble .
As far as I know, it's perfectly intelligent to counter with the claim of an argumentative fallacy.

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: Well, if Meyer says so.... You're good at argumentum ad baculum, so it makes sense.
Do you have anything intelligent to counter with ? This is just a snarky quibble .
As far as I know, it's perfectly intelligent to counter with the claim of an argumentative fallacy.
Not if it is an unsupported, false accusation. At this point, you seem to be just trolling.
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

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by mwh »

Well this has been fun. But all good things must come to an end.

What we the “Deity of Christ crowd” rejoice to take away, in place of our Mickey-Mouse Greek, is that:

“1 John 1:1 is a complete sentence, and nothing is amiss from it.”

“No scholar with an inkling of good sense would say that it is ungrammatical for the neuter relative ὃ to be a reference to λόγος in this verse.”

“the writer is jettisoning grammatical gender”

“The relative clauses in verse 1 cannot be the objects of ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 because of the simple fact that ἀπαγγέλλομεν is governing verse 3."

“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.”

“A relative clause is an adjectival clause.”

“in the sentence γράφω περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς , τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is the direct object.”

We stand ashamed to have resisted these truths. We concede defeat at the hands of a master, and shall troll no more.

Fare well.

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

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by Isaac Newton »

Hi mwh,
mwh wrote:Well this has been fun. But all good things must come to an end.

What we the “Deity of Christ crowd” rejoice to take away, in place of our Mickey-Mouse Greek, is that:

“1 John 1:1 is a complete sentence, and nothing is amiss from it.”

“No scholar with an inkling of good sense would say that it is ungrammatical for the neuter relative ὃ to be a reference to λόγος in this verse.”

“the writer is jettisoning grammatical gender”

“The relative clauses in verse 1 cannot be the objects of ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 because of the simple fact that ἀπαγγέλλομεν is governing verse 3."

“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.”

“A relative clause is an adjectival clause.”

in the sentence γράφω περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς , τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is the direct object.”

We stand ashamed to have resisted these truths. We concede defeat at the hands of a master, and shall troll no more.

Fare well.
I stand by all of those quotes, except the last one (bold) where I carelessly misspoke. I meant to say τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is the object of the preposition. Thanks for pointing that out.
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:Hi Andrew,
Andrew Chapman wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: Why would the apostle use the neuter form of the pronoun to refer to ὁ λόγος (masculine) / Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (masculine) ?
Here is Meyer:
ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of perception by the apostle’s senses. ..
Meyer is correct that the antecedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς.
No, read what Meyer said. He renders ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς as 'that which was from the beginning'. One can either say that he adds an imaginary demonstrative pronoun as antecedent - or as mwh prefers, there is no antecedent - these are two ways of saying the same thing, so far as I can see.

Meyer on 1 John 1.3:
1Jn 1:3. In the opening words of this verse: ὃ … ἀκηκόαμεν, the object expressed in 1Jn 1:1 is resumed, and the governing verb, which was there already in the apostle’s view, is added.
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 »

Hi Andrew,
Andrew Chapman wrote:
No, read what Meyer said. He renders ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς as 'that which was from the beginning'. One can either say that he adds an imaginary demonstrative pronoun as antecedent - or as mwh prefers, there is no antecedent - these are two ways of saying the same thing, so far as I can see.
But you furnished me Meyer in response to my following question ; "Why would the apostle use the neuter form of the pronoun to refer to ὁ λόγος (masculine) / Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (masculine) ?" You now seem to be doing an about turn and denying that λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is a reference to ὃ in 1 John 1:1. Is that correct ?

Read what he says again. He says that John understands by ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς to be the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς or the ζωή:
ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of perception by the apostle’s senses. But from the appositional adjunct περὶ κ.τ.λ. and the parenthetical sentence, 1Jn 1:2, it follows that John understands by it the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς or the ζωή, and more exactly the ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, which was with the Father and was manifested.
He even gives his reason for why the apostle is referring to λόγος τῆς ζωῆς with a neuter pronoun ὃ. See here:
By far the greatest number of commentators interpret ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς correctly of the personal Christ. The reason why John did not write ὅς (comp. chap. 1Jn 2:13 : τὸν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς), but ὅ, cannot.. be found in.. [4 explanations, which Meyer rejects}

The neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that to the apostle Christ is “the life” itself; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea.[25] True, the apostle could have written even ὅς instead of the neuter; but as Christ has His peculiar importance just in this, that He is the Life itself (not merely a living individual),—comp. Gospel of Joh 14:6,—and as John begins his Epistle filled with this conception, it was more natural for him to write here ὅ than ὅς.[26]
This excuse does not address the grammar , and I don't see how his excuse, by calling "the life" an "abstract idea" ("The neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that to the apostle Christ is “the life” itself[/b]; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea"), helps his cause that "the life" at this time is a "personality."
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 »

You now seem to be doing an about turn and denying that λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is a reference to ὃ in 1 John 1:1. Is that correct ?
You had said that:
Meyer is correct that the antecedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς.
I was pointing out that he never said that it was the grammatical antecedent.

He actually says that περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is an appositional adjunct to ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς. So they may well be referring to the same thing - or person. That does not mean that it is the antecedent. On the contrary, it seems to me that an appositive follows after what it is in apposition to. An antecedent precedes in thought that which it is antecedent to.

Meyer on verse 2:
Without bringing to an end the thought begun in 1Jn 1:1, from the exact continuation of which he has already digressed in περὶ τοῦ λόγου τ. ζ.,..

This whole verse [verse 2] is of course parenthetical..
Obviously, he wouldn't describe περὶ τοῦ λόγου τ. ζ. as a digression if it contained the antecedent.

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:
You now seem to be doing an about turn and denying that λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is a reference to ὃ in 1 John 1:1. Is that correct ?
You had said that:
Meyer is correct that the antecedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς.
I was pointing out that he never said that it was the grammatical antecedent.

He actually says that περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is an appositional adjunct to ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς. So they may well be referring to the same thing - or person. That does not mean that it is the antecedent. On the contrary, it seems to me that an appositive follows after what it is in apposition to. An antecedent precedes in thought that which it is antecedent to.

Meyer on verse 2:
Without bringing to an end the thought begun in 1Jn 1:1, from the exact continuation of which he has already digressed in περὶ τοῦ λόγου τ. ζ.,..

This whole verse [verse 2] is of course parenthetical..
Obviously, he wouldn't describe περὶ τοῦ λόγου τ. ζ. as a digression if it contained the antecedent.

Andrew
You're severely mis-reading and mis-understanding your own source. When he says "περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is an appositional adjunct to ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς", he's not saying that they are appositives . For starters, an appositive to another substantive must be in the same case.
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 was mulling over 1 John 1:2 just now:
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν,—
ἥτις (grammatical gender agreement) here just doesn't seem right if ἡ ζωὴ is supposed to be a "person" (and the Divine person at that), for then the biblical writer would have jettisoned the feminine for the masculine (ὅστις in this case) just as another biblical writer does at Col. 2:19--
καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν Κεφαλήν, ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συνβιβαζόμενον αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ.
It would be as difficult ( insulting ) for the biblical writer to refer to the apparent "person" of "the Light" / "Second Divine person of the Trinity" (i.e. ἡ ζωὴ) with a feminine relative pronoun here as it would be to refer to Christ (i.e.τὴν Κεφαλήν, even if only a man) with the feminine pronoun ἧς (instead of οὗ) . . Now, on the other hand, if ἡ ζωὴ is not a person but a thing (like pre-existent torah) then there is not the same difficulty present IMHO in leaving grammatical concord intact here.
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 was filtering through Smyth's Grammar this evening and chanced upon the following, 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 πλεονεξία_ν, δ̀ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυ_κεν ὡς ἀγαθόν for the sake of profit, a thing which every nature is inclined to pursue as a good P. R. 359c.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:30 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:I will filtering through Smyth's Grammar this evening and chanced upon the following, 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 πλεονεξία_ν, δ̀ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυ_κεν ὡς ἀγαθόν for the sake of profit, a thing which every nature is inclined to pursue as a good P. R. 359c.
You've quoted from a botched text. Can you spot the major typo in what you've copied and pasted? Of course, the underscores are to represent the macron (such that α_ means ᾱ and υ_ means ῡ), but there is a real problem with what you pasted. Can you point it out? How would you type it up so that it is 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 »

jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:I will filtering through Smyth's Grammar this evening and chanced upon the following, 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 πλεονεξία_ν, δ̀ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυ_κεν ὡς ἀγαθόν for the sake of profit, a thing which every nature is inclined to pursue as a good P. R. 359c.
You've quoted from a botched text. Can you spot the major typo in what you've copied and pasted? Of course, the underscores are to represent the macron (such that α_ means ᾱ and υ_ means ῡ), but there is a real problem with what you pasted. Can you point it out? How would you type it up so that it is correct?
Jameson, I read the words as follows -- διὰ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, ὃ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυκεν ὡς ἀγαθόν

I don't see a "major" typo here. Could you point it out ?
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:You've quoted from a botched text. Can you spot the major typo in what you've copied and pasted? Of course, the underscores are to represent the macron (such that α_ means ᾱ and υ_ means ῡ), but there is a real problem with what you pasted. Can you point it out? How would you type it up so that it is correct?
Jameson, I read the words as follows -- διὰ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, ὃ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυκεν ὡς ἀγαθόν

I don't see a "major" typo here. Could you point it out ?
What you originally pasted does not contain ὅ in it. Do you really see no difference (if not, it doesn't surprise me).

διὰ τὴν πλεονεξία_ν, δ̀ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυ_κεν ὡς ἀγαθόν.

Do you think that δ and ὃ are the same thing?

By the way, I'm not Jameson on this forum, just as you are not John Milton.

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:You've quoted from a botched text. Can you spot the major typo in what you've copied and pasted? Of course, the underscores are to represent the macron (such that α_ means ᾱ and υ_ means ῡ), but there is a real problem with what you pasted. Can you point it out? How would you type it up so that it is correct?
Jameson, I read the words as follows -- διὰ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, ὃ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυκεν ὡς ἀγαθόν

I don't see a "major" typo here. Could you point it out ?
What you originally pasted does not contain ὅ in it. Do you really see no difference (if not, it doesn't surprise me).

διὰ τὴν πλεονεξία_ν, δ̀ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυ_κεν ὡς ἀγαθόν.

Do you think that δ and ὃ are the same thing?

By the way, I'm not Jameson on this forum, just as you are not John Milton.
No, but I "got" what δ actually meant here, it's an obvious typo, not a "major" one. I fear Jaihare that you're out on the troll again.

Get some rest,
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:
Isaac Newton wrote:Jameson, I read the words as follows -- διὰ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, ὃ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυκεν ὡς ἀγαθόν

I don't see a "major" typo here. Could you point it out ?
What you originally pasted does not contain ὅ in it. Do you really see no difference (if not, it doesn't surprise me).

διὰ τὴν πλεονεξία_ν, δ̀ πᾶσα φύσις διώκειν πέφυ_κεν ὡς ἀγαθόν.

Do you think that δ and ὃ are the same thing?

By the way, I'm not Jameson on this forum, just as you are not John Milton.
No, but I "got" what δ actually meant here, it's an obvious typo, not a "major" one. I fear Jaihare that you're out on the troll again.

Get some rest,
This typo was the very example that the text was trying to pull as for demonstration, yet you didn't even read the Greek text and spot the problem. It wouldn't have been a major typo had it not been the focus of the grammatical note you were quoting without comprehension.

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 did read the Greek text and spotted the "problem" (as you call it) but felt that it didn't need pointing out because it was so obvious. Jaihare, I fear that you're trolling , perhaps because you don't really have a valid argument at 1 John 1:1..

In any case, I was reading through this very informative article by James L. Boyer. Following are a few interesting statistics:

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hi ... es-gtj.pdf
Location of Antecedent

The very term antecedent suggests that the antecedent comes
before the relative, as it actually does in 1089 cases (about 82%). But
in 244 cases the antecedent follows the relative in the sentence. If one
subtracts the 69 places where the pleonastic pronoun is counted as an
antecedent following the relative, there are 175 cases (less than 13%)
in which the antecedent follows the relative.

How far before or after the relative the antecedent may be found
is not easy to summarize even with all the statistics at hand. Counting
inclusively (that is, a count of two means it is the next word) a few
observations may be helpful. Full statistics are available.


Antecedent before relative:
Next word before. 39%
5 words or less before 25%
10 to 20 words before 10%
over 20 words before 3%
Antecedent after relative:
Next word after 25%
5 words or less after 71 %
10 to 20 words after 31 %
over 20 words after 4%
In the peace of the true Christ,
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:19 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 »

So here are the statistics and the grammar from Mr. Boyer's study which I found pertinent to my reading of 1 John 1:1.

(a) "Every pronoun has an antecedent, the nominal in place of which the pronoun stands."

(b) "The antecedent of a relative pronoun may be a simple noun or a substantival expression. By approximate count, 900 antecedents of relative pronouns are nouns, 150 are pronouns, 160 are other substantival expressions, 100 are the subject expressed in the person and number of the verb, and 340 antecedents are left to be understood from the context."

(c) "The very term antecedent suggests that the antecedent comes before the relative, as it actually does in 1089 cases (about 82%). But in 244 cases the antecedent follows the relative in the sentence." (As already noted, in 31% of such cases the relative is found "10 to 20 words after.")

(d) "Normally, gender and number agree with the antecedent, but the case of the relative is determined by its grammatical function in its own clause. The exceptions to this rule are often called by grammarians "ad sensum" agreement, i.e., agreement in sense but not in grammatical form.There are 25 examples in the NT (of relative pronouns) that may be classified in this category.-- Phil. 3:20, 2 Peter 3:6, 1 Cor. 3;17, Luke 6;17-8, etc.. "



----
If Mr. Boyer's analysis and statistics are correct, the reading which I'm proposing is rather unremarkable. Every one of the grammatical elements which I'm asserting for my reading has precedent (multiple times each) in the GNT. I don't have to go looking for a verb to govern dangling clauses, for example, something funky for which there is no grammatical precedent in the GNT.
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

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by mwh »

The bits that are in fact pertinent to the construction are these:

“Nominal Relative Clauses
There are 473 relative clauses in the NT for which the antecedent
of the relative pronoun is lacking
, left to be supplied, or understood.
The relative pronoun is usually translated by "the one who," "that
which," or "what" (= "that which," not the interrogative). Actually, it
is better to consider the relative as containing in itself its antecedent,
and the entire clause becomes in effect a substantive.

Direct Object of the Verb
The largest number of the nominal relative clauses, 222 (47%),
function as direct object of the verb.


Four of these, of course, are the first four relative clauses of 1 John.

But Isaac Newton has made it abundantly clear that he is incorrigibly committed to his peculiar and quite obviously untenable reading. Nothing will shake him from it; futile to try. I only wish he would realise that there’s nothing to be gained by continuing to pester people on this forum with 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 »

mwh wrote:The bits that are in fact pertinent to the construction are these:

“Nominal Relative Clauses
There are 473 relative clauses in the NT for which the antecedent
of the relative pronoun is lacking
, left to be supplied, or understood.
The relative pronoun is usually translated by "the one who," "that
which," or "what" (= "that which," not the interrogative). Actually, it
is better to consider the relative as containing in itself its antecedent,
and the entire clause becomes in effect a substantive.
Mwh, these are relative clauses for which the antecedent of the relative pronoun is lacking, so not pertinent to my analysis.


Direct Object of the Verb
The largest number of the nominal relative clauses, 222 (47%),
function as direct object of the verb.
Again these pertain to relative clauses for which the antecedent of the relative pronoun is lacking.


But Isaac Newton has made it abundantly clear that he is incorrigibly committed to his peculiar and quite obviously untenable reading.
But this is an argument by "because I say so", though.
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 »

Six or seven individuals have been strenuously asserting that the first four relative clauses at 1 John 1:1 function as objects of the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3. This is an extraordinary claim, and we know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

In order for this "grammatical" claim to get off the ground in my books, I need to see evidence -- at least one similar example of such a construction from the GNT. I have requested for such evidence but there is always silence (or else abusive "responses"). So I have stopped asking.

On the other hand it shouldn't surprise me that those who proffer this reading are still at zero examples. Since it is rather strange that a verb which first clearly governs it's own relative clause , should then apparently also govern four more relative clauses ( not obviously related to it syntactically and) separated from it.

Confident sounding assertions , and assertions made by force of numbers are not necessarily truthful assertions. Always we must ask for evidence,-- the weirder the claim, the more powerful the evidence one must ask for.
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

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Post by mwh »

I didn't post for your benefit, Isaac, since I know that would be futile, but for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with this perennial thread and your behavior.

Locked