Textkit Logo

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.

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jaihare » Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:21 am

I think that τοῦτο καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν is perfectly intelligible on its own and is a fine independent clause. However, the τοῦτο would need to be clarified elsewhere - not necessarily within a relative clause. It could very well be that he writes:

τῇ μεγίστῃ ἄστει τῇ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ἐνοικῶ, καὶ τοῦτο καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν πάλιν αὖθις.
I live in the largest city in the country, and this I yet again proclaim to you.

In this case, τοῦτο refers to the fact of what he had just written, or at least the claim of its truth. There is no need to have a relative clause, yet the τοῦτο must be explained somewhere in the context.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:03 am

Andrew Chapman wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:Actually, I was half-thinking that τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς was an object in Isaac's scheme.[/b] 'I am writing about the word of life' - is 'the word of life' an object of the verb?

Of course it is

That's not obvious to me at all. If I say 'I am writing a book about golfing' then 'a book' is the direct object of the verb, and 'about golfing' is an adjectival prepositional phrase.

If I say 'I gave the book to Tim' then 'Tim' is an indirect object, I think. If you look up the subject of objects, [b]the idea seems to be that the object is impacted by the action. Here both the book and Tim are impacted, directly or as it were indirectly. But is golfing impacted by my writing a book about it? If I write a book about nineteenth century philosophy, is that impacted? I don't think so.

That's why I doubt that τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is an object of the (admittedly invisible) γράφω. But I am an amateur, just looking things up on the internet.

Andrew


I don't know what you mean by "impacted" and I fail to see relevance. I think you're needlessly introducing your private philosophical musings into what is a very clear grammatical category. In grammar, an object receives the action of the verb. There are three main types of objects: direct objects, prepositional objects, and non-prepositional indirect objects.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:08 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: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:18 am

jaihare wrote:I think that τοῦτο καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν is perfectly intelligible on its own and is a fine independent clause. However, the τοῦτο would need to be clarified elsewhere - not necessarily within a relative clause. It could very well be that he writes:

τῇ μεγίστῃ ἄστει τῇ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ἐνοικῶ, καὶ τοῦτο καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν πάλιν αὖθις.
I live in the largest city in the country, and this I yet again proclaim to you.

In this case, τοῦτο refers to the fact of what he had just written, or at least the claim of its truth. There is no need to have a relative clause, yet the τοῦτο must be explained somewhere in the context.


I think you're right, Jason, and again I apologise for my terminological shortcomings. Perhaps my point could be better put another way: where a pre-placed relative clause exists, in all the examples so far identified its function is to supply the object (direct or otherwise) of the following main clause (though, as you say, that object could be made clear in other ways).

Could such a pre-placed relative clause supply the subject of the following main clause? Possibly, though I can't think of any examples offhand - but it would still be supplying something which the main clause lacks.

Best wishes,

John
John W.
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:23 am

jaihare wrote:In English idiom, we say "thin air."


It's certainly not out of "thin air." As I pointed out earlier in this thread with examples, Koine sometimes assumes verbs. For instance, ellipsis of the verb ἐξῆλθαν is a common habit in John's Gospel ( 1:8 ; 9:3 ; 13:18 ; 15:25 ). In fact even in English when we are dealing with a prepositional phrase and relative pronouns sometimes we assume or even eliminate the verb..Consider the following note by a frustrated professor of particle physics ;

"About the Equation, the difficult one, that which has been puzzling us from the beginning. Well, we're still unable to solve it after all these months..."

You will notice that even without a directly expressed verb the sentence is quite sensible, and most would just assume the verb and read the above as "[This note is] about the Equation...", "[I'm writing] about the Equation..." even though there is no explicit verb.

Everyone in the thread is just allowing it for the sake of discussion - because "Isaac Newton" thinks that it belongs in the verse as an omitted assumption. No one else here thinks such a thing.


Well, since you like to make your case by recourse to strength of numbers, how about I invoke Carl W. Conrad (Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus) ) ? He's worth more than all of you combined, I should think, and he made the following comment about 15 years ago --

I have not consulted the commentaries on this -- as perhaps I ought to --
before formulating here the view that I've long held but not hitherto
expressed regarding this little prepositional phrase -- PERI TOU LOGOU THS
ZWHS -- in this particular text: that the phrase is fundamentally
parenthetical. To show what I mean I'll offer a 'loose' version of these
two verses:

"What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our own eyes, what we gazed upon and our hands have felt-to-touch
-- (I'm talking) of the WORD which is LIFE -- and this life became visible,
and we have seen it and we attest and report to you the eternal life which
existed in the pressence of the Father and (which) became visible to us ..."
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:40 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: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:30 am

John W. wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:What does the koine speaker do when he sees the following sentence ?

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς [γράφω] περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς




Actually, Isaac, I think the koine speaker would expect the Ὃ to indicate the object of the forthcoming main clause - just as it does in all the other examples we have been accumulating, e.g. ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν (Acts), Ὃ γέγραφα γέγραφα (John 19.22), ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (Galatians 2.20), etc. - not forgetting, of course, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν just two verses later in this very letter!

Let's just suppose that the hypothetical γράφω actually existed and was present (rather than having to be inferred) in your sentence. If readers saw Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γράφω ..., wouldn't they really expect - given how common the idiom evidently was, as evidenced by all the examples we have cited - Ὃ to be the object of γράφω? And wouldn't they, in all likelihood, most naturally take your sentence

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γράφω περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς

to mean something like

'I write what has been from the beginning regarding the Word of Life'?


Best wishes,

John


No because that would be ungrammatical garble. It's hard to explain, but the Greek mind would literally process the sentence as follows :"The thing that was from the beginning, concerning the Word/the Life", though in English we could only make sense of it by changing the word order and furnishing a verbal form, "I write about the Word/Life which was from the beginning."

This is the best I can do, since it's impossible to bring out the meaning of this sentence in English except by paraphrase.
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: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Shenoute » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:33 am

"What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our own eyes, what we gazed upon and our hands have felt-to-touch
-- (I'm talking) of the WORD which is LIFE -- and this life became visible,
and we have seen it and we attest and report to you the eternal life which
existed in the pressence of the Father and (which) became visible to us ..."

Well, I'm not an native English speaker but this sentence doesn't make sense to me...Why add a verb if that doesn't even produce an understandable sentence?
Shenoute
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:40 am

Shenoute wrote:
"What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our own eyes, what we gazed upon and our hands have felt-to-touch
-- (I'm talking) of the WORD which is LIFE -- and this life became visible,
and we have seen it and we attest and report to you the eternal life which
existed in the pressence of the Father and (which) became visible to us ..."

Well, I'm not an native English speaker but this sentence doesn't make sense to me...Why add a verb if that doesn't even produce an understandable sentence?


He's showing you what he thinks is happening in the 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
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Shenoute » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:42 am

And ? What does it mean ?
Shenoute
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:44 am

Shenoute wrote:And ? What does it mean ?


He has a slightly different take than I do, but I furnished his full explanation in page 1. Would you read it ?
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: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Shenoute » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:49 am

I read it. I meant, what does it mean "showing what's happening in the Greek?"
Or better said what's the point? He's adding words in the Greek text, fine, this may sometimes be needed. But this is done to clarify the meaning of the text. How does his addition of "I'm talking" make the text clearer if it can not even be rendered in English?
Shenoute
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:55 am

Isaac Newton wrote:
Well, since you like to make your case by recourse to strength of numbers, how about I invoke Carl W. Conrad (Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus) ) ? He's worth more than all of you combined, I should think, and he made the following comment about 15 years ago --

I have not consulted the commentaries on this -- as perhaps I ought to --
before formulating here the view that I've long held but not hitherto
expressed regarding this little prepositional phrase -- PERI TOU LOGOU THS
ZWHS -- in this particular text: that the phrase is fundamentally
parenthetical. To show what I mean I'll offer a 'loose' version of these
two verses:

"What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our own eyes, what we gazed upon and our hands have felt-to-touch
-- (I'm talking) of the WORD which is LIFE -- and this life became visible,
and we have seen it and we attest and report to you the eternal life which
existed in the pressence of the Father and (which) became visible to us ..."



Isn't there a problem with combining Conrad's suggestion with your own view that verse 1 forms a complete sentence? I mean by this that, if [γράφω] περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is parenthetical, don't you end up with something like this?

Ο ΗΝ ΑΠ᾽ ΑΡΧΗΣ, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν ([γράφω]περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς).

If, as you say, this is a standalone sentence, we now have four relative clauses without a main clause, and a parenthesis whose verb has to be inferred. That doesn't seem very satisfactory at all.

Best wishes,

John
John W.
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:07 am

John W. wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:
Well, since you like to make your case by recourse to strength of numbers, how about I invoke Carl W. Conrad (Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus) ) ? He's worth more than all of you combined, I should think, and he made the following comment about 15 years ago --

I have not consulted the commentaries on this -- as perhaps I ought to --
before formulating here the view that I've long held but not hitherto
expressed regarding this little prepositional phrase -- PERI TOU LOGOU THS
ZWHS -- in this particular text: that the phrase is fundamentally
parenthetical. To show what I mean I'll offer a 'loose' version of these
two verses:

"What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our own eyes, what we gazed upon and our hands have felt-to-touch
-- (I'm talking) of the WORD which is LIFE -- and this life became visible,
and we have seen it and we attest and report to you the eternal life which
existed in the pressence of the Father and (which) became visible to us ..."



Isn't there a problem with combining Conrad's suggestion with your own view that verse 1 forms a complete sentence? I mean by this that, if [γράφω] περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is parenthetical, don't you end up with something like this?

Ο ΗΝ ΑΠ᾽ ΑΡΧΗΣ, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν ([γράφω]περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς).

If, as you say, this is a standalone sentence, we now have four relative clauses without a main clause, and a parenthesis whose verb has to be inferred. That doesn't seem very satisfactory at all.

Best wishes,

John


Following is a less-than-literal version of these two verses according to Conrad:

"What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our own eyes, what we've gazed upon and our hands have felt--it's
the Word which is Life I refer to--and the Life became visible and we've
seen it and attest and report to you that everlasting life that existed in
the presence of the Father and became visible to us ..."


This should hopefully clarify things for you.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:24 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
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jaihare » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:49 am

Indeed, Carl's statement insertion of "I'm talking" is similar to inserting "that is..." or "in other words..." into a text. It's an explanatory note. It does not mean that Carl thinks (or thought at that point) that a verb is essentially missing from the verse. His view is that περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is parenthetical, not that it is part and parcel of the main sentence of verse 1.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:36 am

I'm grateful to Isaac for his clarification.

It's not so much the possible existence of a parenthesis (assuming for now that περὶ would be a suitable introduction for one) that causes me trouble, as the fact that it isn't really a parenthesis as the term is normally used. Generally one has a sentence which, in itself, is grammatically complete; into that one then inserts a parenthesis, often (as is being suggested here) to clarify what has preceded. This would be the case here if (for example) we had something like:

'What was in existence from the outset (I mean the Word of Life) we now report to you too.'

However, in Conrad's rendering, if one temporarily takes out the supposed parenthesis we do not have a coherent sentence, but instead a series of relative clauses followed by 'and the life became visible' etc.

Even if this interptetation is correct, I'm not clear why Isaac regards it as more 'grammatical' than the one which I and others favour. All three options - Isaac's, Conrad's and our third option - involve some complexity or awkwardness in sentence construction (just realised I inserted a parenthesis there!).

Best wishes,

John
John W.
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:19 pm

John W. wrote:I'm grateful to Isaac for his clarification.



You're welcome John W.

It's not so much the possible existence of a parenthesis (assuming for now that περὶ would be a suitable introduction for one) that causes me trouble, as the fact that it isn't really a parenthesis as the term is normally used. Generally one has a sentence which, in itself, is grammatically complete; into that one then inserts a parenthesis, often (as is being suggested here) to clarify what has preceded. This would be the case here if (for example) we had something like:



I'm not sure (bold above) about that however. You must understand that a Greek parenthetical is not divorced from the grammatical structure of the sentence which it is clarifying, though the exact nuance of such a sentence can only be brought out in English by paraphrase. Just because it looks incomplete in English [interlinear type] translation doesn't mean that it is ungrammatical.

'What was in existence from the outset (I mean the Word of Life) we now report to you too.'

However, in Conrad's rendering, if one temporarily takes out the supposed parenthesis we do not have a coherent sentence, but instead a series of relative clauses followed by 'and the life became visible' etc.



We couldn't temporarily take out the parenthetical and hope for a sensible sentence, that's the point. You have to understand that It really doesn't matter what you call περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς,-- whether a parenthetical or a prepositional phrase with an implied verbal idea, the end result is about the same.



Even if this interptetation is correct, I'm not clear why Isaac regards it as more 'grammatical' than the one which I and others favour. All three options - Isaac's, Conrad's and our third option - involve some complexity or awkwardness in sentence construction (just realised I inserted a parenthesis there!).

Best wishes,

John


Wallace asserts that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 governs the relative clauses in verse 1, but this is (a) untrue, (b) ungrammatical.

(a) ἀπαγγέλλομεν governs ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν in verse 3 [ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν], but nothing in verse 1. Look at the sentence!

(b) 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 . There is no such thing as hanging relative clauses waiting to become grammatical , as it were, clauses dangling , looking to latch on to the governing verb of a relative clause removed from it . I hate to say this but Wallace sometimes acts like a brute when it comes to texts which eliminate his pet doctrine . For instance he adds a verb quite out of thin air into the Greek text of John 1:1c , but his disciples accept this distortion of a "Christologically significant" text unquestioningly because it tickles their fancy. He does injustice to 1 John 1:1 also, knowing full well that his fans would not really question it, and would in fact start justifying this reading over time by an appeal to numbers.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:48 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
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:43 pm

Isaac - thanks again. I'll go through your various points carefully, as they no doubt deserve, before responding substantively.

However, I'd be grateful for clarification of just one thing. What exactly is the 'Christological point' at issue here, and how does it bear on this passage? I've seen various references to this, but as I've said I'm no theologian (nor, believe it or not, do I have any theological axe to grind), nor am I versed in Unitarian teaching. Is it something to do with this business of neuter v. masculine, which in turn somehow relates to pre- and post-incarnation Christ?

I'm sorry to ask, and I really don't want to stir up a religious conflict, but as I sense this is somehow lurking in the background it would be interesting to understand the theological point at issue. But if you and/or others think it best left undisturbed, I'll understand.

Best,

John
John W.
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:34 pm

John W. wrote:Another point has started to worry me re verse 1:

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν ...

In Greek ἀκούω normally takes the genitive of the person from whom something is heard, and the accusative of the information heard. ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν here would be fine if it goes with περὶ etc. ('what we have heard concerning...'), but I'm not at all sure whether it can be applied to a person..

Does anyone have a NT equivalent of Betant's Lexicon Thucydideum, which might help us ascertain whether ἀκούω ever takes an accusative of person in the NT? In Classical Greek the only time it does that I can think of is when it is accompanied by a participle, in the sense 'I heard that person X did something'.

Best wishes,

John


I'm effectively reposting this because no one else has commented. It seems to me that there is an issue here. In English we say 'I heard him' with the accusative, but, as I said above, ἀκούω takes a genitive of person. The accusative is fine if (as I and others think) ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν refers to information heard, but I can't see at present how ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν can be applied to hearing a person.

John
John W.
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Andrew Chapman » Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:04 pm

Isaac Newton wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:That's why I doubt that τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is an object of the (admittedly invisible) γράφω.

In grammar, an object receives the action of the verb. There are three main types of objects: direct objects, prepositional objects, and non-prepositional indirect objects.

A direct object , which is what concerns us with the expression [γράφω] περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς answers the question "what" or "whom." Take the sentence "I bought the cow." Cow is the direct object, since it answers the question "what" ( I bought... what) . Similarly, in the sentence γράφω περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς , τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is the direct object because it answers the question "what" (I'm writing about... what).

If I buy a cow, something happens to the cow. If I write about last week's football game, nothing happens to last week's game. So there is a clear difference between the two cases.

I just looked up 'write' in the OED, and it puts:
With preps., as about, .. upon,.. (a matter, subject, etc.);
under the intransitive uses of the word [II. intr. 16.b]. Which more or less convinces me that there is no object in the clause: 'I write about the word of life'. But I might be wrong.

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

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Andrew Chapman » Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:29 pm

John W wrote:The common thread in all of them is that the main clause is grammatically incomplete, in that it lacks an object, which is represented in the main clause solely by a demonstrative pronoun (either actual or implied) referring back to the preceding relative clause, which is where the object actually sits.

John, still trying to put my finger on what exactly the problem is with Isaac's reading:

Consider the following English sentences:

A1) What I receive, I give.
A2) I give what I receive.

Both these are OK. Now look at these:

B1) I give the money which I received.
B2) Which I received, I give the money.

Isaac's reading is like B2, I think. What's the difference between A and B?

Well, one thing is that 'what I receive' is not actually a relative clause, but a substantive clause ie it functions like a noun. 'What' is short for 'that which', just as ὅ is short for τουτο ο. Consider essay titles. 'What I did on my holidays' is OK, but 'which I did on my holidays' is not.

Likewise, Ὃ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς and the rest are not relative clauses but substantive clauses.

Carl Conrad says he is reading these as substantive clauses, ie these are just like headings or some such, in his reading, so far as I can see. And it means that he is reading τουτο ο, I think.

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

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby mwh » Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:01 pm

There evidently no stopping this thread, and I’m not sure I even want to any more, even though everything since the first two posts has been essentially an repetition of them.

So, in order to save Isaac the trouble of continuing to repeat himself over and over and over again, and for the delectation of everyone else, here is a bunch of Newtonian propositions from the first half of this month alone (bear in mind the thread has been running for nearly a year now):

“I cannot stress this enough, but that 1 John 1:1 is a complete sentence, and nothing is amiss from it. It is not "complicated" or "poor" Greek, at least not to me.”

“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 apostle uses the neuter form of the pronoun ὃ to refer to the masculine λόγος multiple times in the first sentence to send a striking grammatical message.”

“(T)he opening verse is very elementary and pure Greek, designed as it were for the lay person . The relative pronoun Ὃ here refers to τοῦ λόγου which is in apposition to τῆς ζωῆς. That is all.”

Isaac, we’ve got the message loud and clear. The trouble is, no-one believes it. You'll just have to accept that none of us has an inkling of good sense.
Last edited by mwh on Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2807
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby mwh » Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:44 pm

And now of course there's more:

"Wallace asserts that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 governs the relative clauses in verse 1, but this is (a) untrue, (b) ungrammatical.
(a) ἀπαγγέλλομεν governs ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν in verse 3 [ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν], but nothing in verse 1. Look at the sentence!
(b) 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."

See, if only we would look at the sentence!, all would become clear.

We must also take this to heart:
"You must understand that a Greek parenthetical is not divorced from the grammatical structure of the sentence which it is clarifying"

And who can refute the following demonstration that τοῦ ... is the direct object of γράφω (so helpfully supplied by Isaac)?

"A direct object , which is what concerns us with the expression [γράφω] περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς answers the question "what" or "whom." Take the sentence "I bought the cow." Cow is the direct object, since it answers the question "what" ( I bought... what) . Similarly, in the sentence γράφω περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς , τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is the direct object because it answers the question "what" (I'm writing about... what)."

So many pearls of wisdom, cast among swine.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2807
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:31 pm

Jaihare,

Good afternoon, hope this day finds you well.

jaihare wrote:Indeed, Carl's statement insertion of "I'm talking" is similar to inserting "that is..." or "in other words..." into a text. It's an explanatory note. It does not mean that Carl thinks (or thought at that point) that a verb is essentially missing from the verse. His view is that περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is parenthetical, not that it is part and parcel of the main sentence of verse 1.


I'm afraid that you're mis-representing Carl Conrad . If the man meant "in other words" he would have said that. Beyond that, Conrad translates twice, both times with implied verbal forms , but nuanced differently. Had you taken the time to read his post carefully, you could not have missed this:

Translation (A):

"What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our own eyes, what we gazed upon and our hands have felt-to-touch
-- (I'm talking) of the WORD which is LIFE -- and this life became visible,
and we have seen it and we attest and report to you the eternal life which
existed in the pressence of the Father and (which) became visible to us ..."


Why would Carl need to say "in other words" or "to wit" here , just before the prepositional phrase ? Could you give us a reason ? :)

Translation (B):

"What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our own eyes, what we've gazed upon and our hands have felt--it's
the Word which is Life I refer to--and the Life became visible and we've
seen it and attest and report to you that everlasting life that existed in
the presence of the Father and became visible to us ..."


Again, what is Carl clarifying here with the words in bold? The fact is that Carl is taking the words in bold as an ellipsis , as being implied by the author.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:48 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
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:47 pm

John W. wrote:Isaac - thanks again. I'll go through your various points carefully, as they no doubt deserve, before responding substantively.

However, I'd be grateful for clarification of just one thing. What exactly is the 'Christological point' at issue here, and how does it bear on this passage? I've seen various references to this, but as I've said I'm no theologian (nor, believe it or not, do I have any theological axe to grind), nor am I versed in Unitarian teaching. Is it something to do with this business of neuter v. masculine, which in turn somehow relates to pre- and post-incarnation Christ?

I'm sorry to ask, and I really don't want to stir up a religious conflict, but as I sense this is somehow lurking in the background it would be interesting to understand the theological point at issue. But if you and/or others think it best left undisturbed, I'll understand.

Best,

John


Since you're not interested in such issues ( by your own reckoning), I shan't bother . You speak correctly, let those waters lie "undisturbed" for the moment, for even an explanation of said issue is likely to get certain folks here rather agitated.

On another note, are you aware that apostle John uses ellipsis more frequently than the other biblical writers ? Take a look at 1 John 2:19 for instane :


ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν· εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ’ ἡμῶν· ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν.


Do you know that the sentence as is, is incomplete and even ungrammatical ? Can you tell us where the implied verb fits in in the above , and what words are mandated by implication in above ?
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jaihare » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:21 pm

mwh,

Well put. Good night.

Jason
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Markos » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:49 pm

The only thing that could get me to renter this quagmire is my earnest desire to help others get out (and stay out) of it.
John W. wrote:
John W. wrote:Another point has started to worry me re verse 1:

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν ...

In Greek ἀκούω normally takes the genitive of the person from whom something is heard, and the accusative of the information heard. ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν here would be fine if it goes with περὶ etc. ('what we have heard concerning...'), but I'm not at all sure whether it can be applied to a person..

Does anyone have a NT equivalent of Betant's Lexicon Thucydideum, which might help us ascertain whether ἀκούω ever takes an accusative of person in the NT? In Classical Greek the only time it does that I can think of is when it is accompanied by a participle, in the sense 'I heard that person X did something'.

Best wishes,

John


I'm effectively reposting this because no one else has commented. It seems to me that there is an issue here. In English we say 'I heard him' with the accusative, but, as I said above, ἀκούω takes a genitive of person. The accusative is fine if (as I and others think) ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν refers to information heard, but I can't see at present how ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν can be applied to hearing a person.

John

I believe the only place in the GNT where ἀκούω takes an accusative of the person heard is Ephesians 4:20-21.
Eph 4:20-21:ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν, εἴ γε αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχθητε, καθώς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ...

But here probably the message about Jesus, and not his actual words, is meant.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2941
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:54 pm

It is rather telling that most trinitarian scholars of the older generation understood 1 John 1:1 in the way that I do, in that they saw the "Word of Life" as the antecedent of the relative pronouns. However when modern era trinitarian academics, starting in earnest with Wallace , finally began to realize the inexorable theological problems associated with neuter pronouns referring to τοῦ Λόγου (a masculine noun), they jettisoned this common sense and time honored reading in favor of the "dangling relative clauses" nonsense. Here's Matthew Henry for example (re-visit also Gill, whom I earlier furnished on this score):


"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1:1-4 That essential Good, that uncreated Excellence, which had been from the beginning, from eternity, as equal with the Father, and which at length appeared in human nature for the salvation of sinners, was the great subject concerning which the apostle wrote to his brethren. The apostles had seen Him while they witnessed his wisdom and holiness, his miracles, and love and mercy, during some years, till they saw him crucified for sinners, and afterwards risen from the dead. They touched him, so as to have full proof of his resurrection. This Divine Person, the Word of life, the Word of God, appeared in human nature, that he might be the Author and Giver of eternal life to mankind, through the redemption of his blood, and the influence of his new-creating Spirit. The apostles declared what they had seen and heard, that believers might share their comforts and everlasting advantages. They had free access to God the Father. They had a happy experience of the truth in their souls, and showed its excellence in their lives. This communion of believers with the Father and the Son, is begun and kept up by the influences of the Holy Spirit. The benefits Christ bestows, are not like the scanty possessions of the world, causing jealousies in others; but the joy and happiness of communion with God is all-sufficient, so that any number may partake of it; and all who are warranted to say, that truly their fellowship is with the Father, will desire to lead others to partake of the same blessedness."


He's got the gist of it of course when he sees τοῦ Λόγου as the antecedent of these relatives. Matthew Henry at the time of writing does not yet understand that this his reading, which he so passionately endorses discounts ,through the route of Greek grammar , the "personal" pre-existence of τοῦ Λόγου prior to it's becoming flesh. In this regard then, it is always amusing to watch how trinitarian scholars do about turns when the grammar finally catches up with some of their more outrageous doctrinal postulates.

The same is true with John 1:1c; the anarthrous θεὸς here for centuries was conceived by trinitarians to be most definitively "definite", until late 20th century grammar revealed that such an understanding inadvertently proved for Modalism , discounting trinitarianism in the process, a "double whammy". So Wallace comes up with the following priceless gem:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God."

He's also responsible of course for the "hanging relative clauses" fiasco at 1 John 1:1..
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:54 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: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby mwh » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:22 am

Isaac, I am less scornful than you of priceless gems. Here for instance is another gem from you that I consider beyond price:

"I've observed appeals to authority (especially to Wallace), to numbers, to ad hominems , to passion and to force of will, but not to real grammar."

I wish to thank you for showing us what real grammar is.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2807
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:00 am

mwh wrote:Isaac, I am less scornful than you of priceless gems. Here for instance is another gem from you that I consider beyond price:

"I've observed appeals to authority (especially to Wallace), to numbers, to ad hominems , to passion and to force of will, but not to real grammar."

I wish to thank you for showing us what real grammar is.


I have a simple grammatical question for you.

When exactly does the reader discover whether the 4 relative clauses are the object or the subject of what the author wishes to say ?
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: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:35 am

Isaac Newton wrote: Since you're not interested in such issues ( by your own reckoning), I shan't bother . You speak correctly, let those waters lie "undisturbed" for the moment, for even an explanation of said issue is likely to get certain folks here rather agitated.

On another note, are you aware that apostle John uses ellipsis more frequently than the other biblical writers ? Take a look at 1 John 2:19 for instane :


ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν· εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ’ ἡμῶν· ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν.


Do you know that the sentence as is, is incomplete and even ungrammatical ? Can you tell us where the implied verb fits in in the above , and what words are mandated by implication in above ?


Isaac - many thanks, and fair enough.

I'll be away from here for a few days on a small cultural expedition, but I'll look at the 1 John 2:19 quote when I can.

Two quick interim thoughts:

(i) if as you say this sentence is 'ungrammatical'', why are you ruling out our explanation of verse 1 on the grounds that it is ungrammatical?

(ii) You've expressed concern about the deferral of resolution of the verse 1 relative pronouns under our interpretation. But in Greek sometimes things get deferred far more. Take a look, for example, at this passage from Thucydides (4.73.4):

οἱ γὰρ Μεγαρῆς, ὡς οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐτάξαντο μὲν παρὰ τὰ μακρὰ τείχη ἐξελθόντες, ἡσύχαζον δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ μὴ ἐπιόντων, λογιζόμενοι καὶ οἱ ἐκείνων στρατηγοὶ μὴ ἀντίπαλον εἶναι σφίσι τὸν κίνδυνον, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὰ πλείω αὐτοῖς προυκεχωρήκει, ἄρξασι μάχης πρὸς πλέονας αὐτῶν ἢ λαβεῖν νικήσαντας Μέγαρα ἢ σφαλέντας τῷ βελτίστῳ τοῦ ὁπλιτικοῦ βλαφθῆναι, τοῖς δὲ ξυμπάσης τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ τῶν παρόντων μέρος ἕκαστον κινδυνεύειν εἰκότως ἐθέλειν τολμᾶν, χρόνον δὲ ἐπισχόντες καὶ ὡς οὐδὲν ἀφ᾽ ἑκατέρων ἐπεχειρεῖτο, ἀπῆλθον πρότερον οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐς τὴν Νίσαιαν καὶ αὖθις οἱ Πελοποννήσιοι ὅθενπερ ὡρμήθησαν. οὕτω δὴ τῷ μὲν Βρασίδᾳ αὐτῷ καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων ἄρχουσιν οἱ τῶν φευγόντων φίλοι Μεγαρῆς, ὡς ἐπικρατήσαντι καὶ τῶν Ἀθηναίων οὐκέτι ἐθελησάντων μάχεσθαι, θαρσοῦντες μᾶλλον ἀνοίγουσί τε τὰς πύλας καὶ δεξάμενοι καταπεπληγμένων ἤδη τῶν πρὸς τοὺς Ἀθηναίους πραξάντων ἐς λόγους ἔρχονται.

Here the subject - οἱ γὰρ Μεγαρῆς - is announced at the start, yet is then lost sight of in the subsequent parenthetical account of circumstances and the two sides' thinking which occupies the rest of the sentence; in fact, the subject is only taken up again (in partitive apposition) by οἱ τῶν φευγόντων φίλοι Μεγαρῆς in the next sentence, where the main verbs also appear! This is far more extreme than the relatively modest deferral of resolution of the opening relative clauses for which we are arguing in 1 John.

Best wishes,

John
John W.
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby mwh » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:13 pm

Isaac Newton wrote:
mwh wrote:Isaac, I am less scornful than you of priceless gems. Here for instance is another gem from you that I consider beyond price:

"I've observed appeals to authority (especially to Wallace), to numbers, to ad hominems , to passion and to force of will, but not to real grammar."

I wish to thank you for showing us what real grammar is.


I have a simple grammatical question for you.

When exactly does the reader discover whether the 4 relative clauses are the object or the subject of what the author wishes to say ?

Apparently it depends on who the reader is. For this unenlightened reader, for instance, it was initially obvious from the first few words that they would be the object of a verb, and this was definitively confirmed when I reached απαγγελλομεν later in the sentence.
But you have taught me better, with your twin pronouncements:
"1 John 1:1 is a complete sentence, and nothing is amiss from it."
“The bottom line is that the relative clauses in 1 John 1:1-4 are not the object of a verb.”

So enlighten me further, rabbi. When exactly does the reader discover?
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2807
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Andrew Chapman » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:34 pm

mwh wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:When exactly does the reader discover whether the 4 relative clauses are the object or the subject of what the author wishes to say ?

.. it was initially obvious from the first few words that they would be the object of a verb, and this was definitively confirmed when I reached απαγγελλομεν later in the sentence.

Michael, it has helped me to realise that in the normal reading these are (technically speaking) substantive clauses, rather than relative clauses per se - since we read τουτο ο κτλ. Would you agree with this? Since they are like nouns, it is easy to see that they can become the object of the sentence.

Also, would it be true to say that this only happens with the neuter relative pronoun - ie ος never stands for ουτος ος. This seems to be true in English too - we can say 'What I did on my holiday' for 'That which..', but there doesn't appear to be any equivalent for the masculine and feminine pronouns.

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

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby mwh » Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:03 pm

Andrew,

A bit of terminological confusion here I think. The clauses are relative clauses all right: they are introduced with a relative pronoun (nom. in ο ην απ’αρχης, acc. in the rest).

At the same time they could be said to be substantive, in the sense that they function as substantives, as quasi-nouns. They could in principle serve equally well as nominatives, as subjects (e.g. ο-ην-απ’αρχης [τουτο] ετι και νυν εστιν) or as accusatives, as objects (e.g. ο-ην-απ’αρχης [τουτο] απαγγελλομεν).

They have no antecedent; that is what makes them “substantive.” Smyth would say the antecedent is omitted. I in my literal-minded way prefer to say there is none; but if there were one, it would be neuter singular, in gender&number agreement with the relative ὅ.

It is in fact just the same with masc & fem. E.g. ὃς τοιαῦτα λέγει, (οὗτος) ἀπαίδευτός ἐστιν. If the case is different you’d be more likely to have the antecedent expressed, e.g. ὃς τοιαῦτα λέγει, τοῦτον ἀπαίδευτον νομίζω. As these examples show, the “antecedent” is antecedent only in terms of syntactical hierarchy; it doesn’t actually have to precede the relative.

Hope this helps.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2807
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Andrew Chapman » Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:18 pm

Thanks Michael, that's really helpful. I suppose I was thinking a bit like Smyth - if the antecedent is said to be omitted, then in a way it exists, and then if you write:

τουτο ο ην απ’αρχης

you have a substantive clause and not a relative one. But you must be right, that it's better to use terminology according to what is actually there.

Thanks for the reminder about the masculine and feminine - now I see it, I recognise it. We can't do that in English, can we, it's 'he who says such things etc'.

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

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby mwh » Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:23 pm

Smyth wouldn't say it's not a relative clause. It is, by definition. And I'm certainly not saying Smyth is wrong and I'm right; there's little substantive(!) difference between saying there's no antecedent and saying it's omitted. Either way it's not there.

In the sentence we're so exhaustively inspecting, it wouldn't make any effective difference (except perhaps to the tone) if there were a ταῦτ’ in front of απαγγελλομεν. It wouldn't change the nature of the relative clauses. Demonstratives are often used to signal the exit from the relative clause and the onset of the main clause.

Greek can even say ὃν οἱ θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν ἀποθνήσκει νέος (for ὃν οἱ θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν, οὗτος/ἐκεῖνος ἀποθνήσκει νέος) “(He) whom the gods love dies young.” Byron translated "Whom the gods love die young." But that's not a construction you'd expect to find in koine, any more than in contemporary English.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2807
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Andrew Chapman » Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:09 pm

Thanks again, Michael. I didn't mean to imply that Smyth might say it was not a relative clause, and I can see what you mean by saying that there's little substantive difference. Still for me, it makes a difference - perhaps I tend to think in a more abstract way than some - if it is functioning as a substantive, as you put it, then I can think of it more easily as a substantive which can serve as a subject or object of another clause. That's all I really wanted to say.

I am happy about the demonstrative showing up, or not, in the main clause. That makes sense to me, especially as I just came across two examples, one one way and one the other in Galatians 2.18 and 20.

And thanks for the English counter-example from Byron - that's pleasing in its brevity.

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

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:26 pm

Markos wrote:The only thing that could get me to renter this quagmire is my earnest desire to help others get out (and stay out) of it.
I believe the only place in the GNT where ἀκούω takes an accusative of the person heard is Ephesians 4:20-21.
Eph 4:20-21:ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν, εἴ γε αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχθητε, καθώς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ...

But here probably the message about Jesus, and not his actual words, is meant.


Markos - many thanks indeed for this, and apologies for the late reply (busy packing today).

I'm grateful to you for delving into this, but sorry for dragging you back into the quagmire (or perhaps the Slough of Despond?). I'll have a think about whether this example helps Isaac's angle - though ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν does seem to me a pretty odd way of referencing the disciples' listening to Jesus.

Best wishes,

John
John W.
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:29 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote: John, still trying to put my finger on what exactly the problem is with Isaac's reading ...

Andrew


Andrew - so sorry that I didn't get back to you on this in time. But I'm glad it has been clarified for you by mwh, who has done so far more lucidly and ably than I ever could.

Best wishes,

John
John W.
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:35 pm

Hi jaihare,

jaihare wrote:mwh,

Well put. Good night.

Jason


But you just mis-represented Carl Conrad. Silence does not make that wrong go away. Could you please either re-cant, or defend yourself on that score ?

By the way, I want to re-visit some of the other strange things which you have said :

(a) that the antecedent of αὐτὸν in John 1:10 is Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in verse 17.

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

(c) That σὰρξ in John 1:14 is a synecdoche meaning "a human being" but that σὰρξ at John 1:14 doesn't mean "a human being." :D

This, I'm afraid is just for starters...
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: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:50 pm

Hi John W,

John W. wrote:
(i) if as you say this sentence is 'ungrammatical'', why are you ruling out our explanation of verse 1 on the grounds that it is ungrammatical?


I think you mis-read me. I said that sentence would be ungrammatical if we didn't assume a verbal idea into it. In other words, the author is assuming that we shall assume . :D

(ii) You've expressed concern about the deferral of resolution of the verse 1 relative pronouns under our interpretation. But in Greek sometimes things get deferred far more. Take a look, for example, at this passage from Thucydides (4.73.4):


But you're comparing apples and oranges with that example, we have some instances of that type even in the GNT. I'm talking of relative clauses left dangling, and apparently looking forward to taking on the main verb of another relative clause removed from themselves . It's not even a serious proposal, as far as I can tell...
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: 957
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jaihare » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:03 am

Isaac Newton wrote:But you just mis-represented Carl Conrad. Silence does not make that wrong go away. Could you please either re-cant, or defend yourself on that score ?

I didn't realize that this was the Inquisition. "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Yeah, it sure comes out of nowhere.

Isaac Newton wrote:By the way, I want to re-visit some of the other strange things which you have said :

Nothing I've stated has been strange. You simply call things strange and deluded when your theological positions bring you to heads with them.

Isaac Newton wrote:(a) that the antecedent of αὐτὸν in John 1:10 is Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in verse 17.

I stated that the entirety of the prologue of John's gospel is talking about Jesus, so when αὐτόν appears in verse 10, it is referring to the yet un-named person that he would reveal in verse 17 as Jesus Christ. I didn't say that these two words are the antecedent of αὐτόν. It is rather the person in question (who had not yet been named) that was the referent of this pronoun.

Isaac Newton wrote:(b) that both Θεοῦ (Phil. 2:6) and δούλου (Phil. 2:7) are epexegetical genitives.

Yep. "God" was the form that he was in pre-incarnation, and "servant" was the form that he took. He existed in one form (God) and took on a different form (servant). They are certainly epexegeticals.

Isaac Newton wrote:(c) That σὰρξ in John 1:14 is a synecdoche meaning "a human being" but that σὰρξ at John 1:14 doesn't mean "a human being." :D

I said that σάρξ means "flesh" and that when it says that he became "flesh," it means that he became "human." You're the one who turned this into something weird by insisting that "human" and "human being" mean two different things.

Isaac Newton wrote:This, I'm afraid is just for starters...

Haven't seen anything to recant or be ashamed of until now.

This entire sheet of accusations is, of course, simple deflection. You have made yourself look the fool on this forum, and now you would turn that shame onto someone else. Well, my "friend," I have nothing to be ashamed of in all that I've written either on CARM or here. You let your theological assumptions and pet peeves control how you read the text. I let the text speak to me on its own terms and come away with the conclusions that it presents (even when they disagree with my own "theological" [humanistic] positions).
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel

PreviousNext

Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek