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 » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:36 pm

Isaac Newton wrote:
jaihare wrote:
But, all of you - Christian or otherwise - by your refusal to swallow everything that JM/IN says here are now part of the Occult and practice Witchcraft. Welcome aboard!


See what I mean ? Another strawman caricature of what I actually said.


Oh, your use of the words "Qabal" and "Coven" had nothing to do with that, did it?
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 jaihare » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:39 pm

Just in case you go back and delete the words, here is where they were used:

Isaac Newton wrote:It's rather obvious why you and your Cabal has resigned itself totally to ad hominems.

Because you have not a single example from the GNT of the type of grammar that you're proposing at 1 John 1:1-4 -- of a verb which governs it's own relative clause and also governs multiple other relative clauses separated from it.

This type of "grammar" has no precedent in the GNT. It is therefore "unbiblical."


Isaac Newton wrote:It doesn't bother me what term the Coven wishes to use for what it has started doing, -- the fact is ( and you just admitted to it) that it has stepped aside from the discussion of the Greek grammar and has started to rend me instead.

Also, your counter challenge ( if we can call it that) is a fake, a trick, since I can't possibly furnish an example for a strawman caricature of my position, and which doesn't even make any sense.

But this is the method of those who use Magick/Illusions to argue about the interpretation of biblical verses , those who willfully trample over the sacred word.


You used the words "Qabal" and "Coven" on purpose, to say that those who oppose you on this forum are engaged in occultism (Qabal) and witchcraft (Coven). I'm not misrepresenting you in the least. You simply don't like to be called out on the insults that you make.
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 » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:39 pm

jaihare wrote:Just in case you go back and delete the words, here is where they were used:

Isaac Newton wrote:It's rather obvious why you and your Cabal has resigned itself totally to ad hominems.

Because you have not a single example from the GNT of the type of grammar that you're proposing at 1 John 1:1-4 -- of a verb which governs it's own relative clause and also governs multiple other relative clauses separated from it.

This type of "grammar" has no precedent in the GNT. It is therefore "unbiblical."


Isaac Newton wrote:It doesn't bother me what term the Coven wishes to use for what it has started doing, -- the fact is ( and you just admitted to it) that it has stepped aside from the discussion of the Greek grammar and has started to rend me instead.

Also, your counter challenge ( if we can call it that) is a fake, a trick, since I can't possibly furnish an example for a strawman caricature of my position, and which doesn't even make any sense.

But this is the method of those who use Magick/Illusions to argue about the interpretation of biblical verses , those who willfully trample over the sacred word.


You used the words "Qabal" and "Coven" on purpose, to say that those who oppose you on this forum are engaged in occultism (Qabal) and witchcraft (Coven). I'm not misrepresenting you in the least. You simply don't like to be called out on the insults that you make.


I used the term "Coven" because it aptly describes the way you and your friends function at Text Kit. It's as though I used the term "section" ( a military word for a unit of about 9 men) and you accused me of calling you and your friends private soldiers. I think you're projecting your own occult ( pun intended) fears and propensities here more than anything else.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:35 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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby calvinist » Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:58 am

Isaac Newton wrote:You' are embellishing yet again Jason. I used the term "Coven" because it aptly describes the way you and your friends function at Text Kit.

You are something else. The people on here are connected by nothing more than their shared interest in Greek and/or Latin. Some are christian, some are not, and probably none of us agree on everything. There is no conspiracy here, you are simply paranoid. Maybe it feels like everyone is ganging up on you, but it's not because of your beliefs or your proposed readings of the text but simply because of your behavior. Everyone here recognizes that you are obsessed with one topic and everything you post is designed to lead into that topic.

You're a Unitarian. OK, we get it. And so was Isaac Newton and John Milton... cool. Some of us are trinitarians; some of us are not even christians and consider the NT an important historical document that has had a huge impact on Western history but nothing else. We are confident in whatever views we have and you are not going to convert us with a complex syntactical argument pertaining to one verse in the NT. It just doesn't work like that. If that is your end goal, you're wasting your time. This is what you look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI
User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jeidsath » Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:17 pm

Isaac clearly suffers from monomania. Those trying to argue with him about his idée fixe are at fault here. @mwh, @calvinist, @jaihare. In the past several years, he has written 32,000 posts at CARM (and elsewhere?) about this particular subject. His demon leaves him no time for work or friends or family. That he ignores paradoxes or contradictions in his position is not a fault of his civility, it’s that his brain literally doesn’t let him see anything impinging on this worldview. I would be extremely surprised if he does anything but skip over this current post of mine as incomprehensible or tangential to him. Attempts at reason are more than foolish. His family and close friends probably have a hard enough time dealing with the man in person. It’s certainly impossible to cure him of his fixation over the internet.

However, he does make this forum a difficult place for civilized conversation — even if he stays confined to his own threads. Ignoring him is fine, but if you wish to engage him, don’t do it head on. Be tangential and playful. Change the subject away from his mania. If he can’t talk about his idea, and if his threads about that one idea are sabotaged, he will go away.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:52 pm

jeidsath wrote:Isaac clearly suffers from monomania. Those trying to argue with him about his idée fixe are at fault here. @mwh, @calvinist, @jaihare. In the past several years, he has written 32,000 posts at CARM (and elsewhere?) about this particular subject. His demon leaves him no time for work or friends or family. That he ignores paradoxes or contradictions in his position is not a fault of his civility, it’s that his brain literally doesn’t let him see anything impinging on this worldview. I would be extremely surprised if he does anything but skip over this current post of mine as incomprehensible or tangential to him. Attempts at reason are more than foolish. His family and close friends probably have a hard enough time dealing with the man in person. It’s certainly impossible to cure him of his fixation over the internet.

However, he does make this forum a difficult place for civilized conversation — even if he stays confined to his own threads. Ignoring him is fine, but if you wish to engage him, don’t do it head on. Be tangential and playful. Change the subject away from his mania. If he can’t talk about his idea, and if his threads about that one idea are sabotaged, he will go away.


I "make this forum a difficult place" for bad grammatical arguments.

In this regard then -- I would like the members of this fraternity ( held together by a common hatred) to give us an example from the GNT of a verb which governs a relative clause, and also multiple other relative clauses removed from it.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:04 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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:02 pm

calvinist wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:You' are embellishing yet again Jason. I used the term "Coven" because it aptly describes the way you and your friends function at Text Kit.

You are something else. The people on here are connected by nothing more than their shared interest in Greek and/or Latin. Some are christian, some are not, and probably none of us agree on everything. There is no conspiracy here, you are simply paranoid. Maybe it feels like everyone is ganging up on you, but it's not because of your beliefs or your proposed readings of the text but simply because of your behavior. Everyone here recognizes that you are obsessed with one topic and everything you post is designed to lead into that topic.

You're a Unitarian. OK, we get it. And so was Isaac Newton and John Milton... cool. Some of us are trinitarians; some of us are not even christians and consider the NT an important historical document that has had a huge impact on Western history but nothing else. We are confident in whatever views we have and you are not going to convert us with a complex syntactical argument pertaining to one verse in the NT. It just doesn't work like that. If that is your end goal, you're wasting your time. This is what you look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI



You are the first to have admitted to the truth . I suppose that you deserve some credit for this realization -- :D
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Wed May 25, 2016 11:30 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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jaihare » Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:41 am

Isaac Newton wrote:So when I use terms like "clique", "Cabal", "Coven", "posse", "gang" etc. to describe your collective behaviour here , none of you should protest.

I've had interactions with you on three different forums (at least), and on each of them you eventually play the victim and say that everyone's ganging up on you. With a sane person, we would be able to disagree and let it be that. You take disagreement (or refusal to bow to the bullying argumentation that you throw out) as a personal attack. I don't think anyone here has anything against you personally (except perhaps myself). No one here would like to attack you or to argue with you. It is you who cause the arguments and bring derision upon yourself by your obsession and by your lack of respect for other people. The only victim here is the forum community that has to deal with your behavior.
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 mwh » Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:15 am

This is (I promise myself) my last post on this or any other of Isaac Newton’s threads. I address it to all who contribute to his threads.

I was about to write a post similar in thrust to jeidsath’s but (a) less about Isaac Newton’s personality and (b) advocating simple silence as the only way to deal with him. I agree that beating up on him will do no good to anyone, and making fun of him is both cruel and counterproductive. To engage with him at all is folly.

I think everyone but himself can see that his uniquely bizarre construal of the opening of “John”’s letter is palpably untenable, and it is a tribute to him (together with the extraordinary standing that the “New Testament” has achieved) that far from ending with the second post this thread has dragged on to such astounding length and has drawn such an astounding number of visits (drawn like moths to the flame, as I recall Qimmik once put it), defying all efforts to put it out of its misery. It will continue until either the world ends or everyone—everyone—stops responding, whichever comes first. (I have evidence to support this claim.)

It’s not easy to resist the impulse to respond to online insults, especially when coupled with insults to the Greek language, and I have set a poor example in this regard. But if we all exercise enough self-discipline to ignore the various forms of provocation that he is so expert in, maybe we can end this thing. Another of the hydra’s heads will no doubt pop up: it cannot be destroyed, but it can be starved.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Qimmik » Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:36 am

Just to set the record straight, I think it's John W. who should be credited with the "like a moth to the flame" simile.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:24 am

jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:So when I use terms like "clique", "Cabal", "Coven", "posse", "gang" etc. to describe your collective behaviour here , none of you should protest.

I've had interactions with you on three different forums (at least), and on each of them you eventually play the victim and say that everyone's ganging up on you. With a sane person, we would be able to disagree and let it be that. You take disagreement (or refusal to bow to the bullying argumentation that you throw out) as a personal attack. I don't think anyone here has anything against you personally (except perhaps myself). No one here would like to attack you or to argue with you. It is you who cause the arguments and bring derision upon yourself by your obsession and by your lack of respect for other people. The only victim here is the forum community that has to deal with your behavior.


The only accurate thing you said in this post, sadly enough, is that you have a personal grudge against me.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:05 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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:31 am

mwh wrote:This is (I promise myself) my last post on this or any other of Isaac Newton’s threads. I address it to all who contribute to his threads.

I was about to write a post similar in thrust to jeidsath’s but (a) less about Isaac Newton’s personality and (b) advocating simple silence as the only way to deal with him. I agree that beating up on him will do no good to anyone, and making fun of him is both cruel and counterproductive. To engage with him at all is folly.

I think everyone but himself can see that his uniquely bizarre construal of the opening of “John”’s letter is palpably untenable, and it is a tribute to him (together with the extraordinary standing that the “New Testament” has achieved) that far from ending with the second post this thhread has dragged on to such astounding length and has drawn such an astounding number of visits (drawn like moths to the flame, as I recall Qimmik once put it), defying all efforts to put it out of its misery. It will continue until either the world ends or everyone—everyone—stops responding, whichever comes first. (I have evidence to support this claim.)

It’s not easy to resist the impulse to respond to online insults, especially when coupled with insults to the Greek language, and I have set a poor example in this regard. But if we all exercise enough self-discipline to ignore the various forms of provocation that he is so expert in, maybe we can end this thing. Another of the hydra’s heads will no doubt pop up: it cannot be destroyed, but it can be starved.


Interesting that the reading of 1 John 1:1-4 which has no grammatical precedent in the GNT ( theirs) is called "normal," but mine ( which has grammatical precedent in the GNT, and which is rather unremarkable) is said to be "a bizarre construal."
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:08 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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby calvinist » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:00 pm

In solidarity with mwh and for the sake of humanity, this will be my last post on any of Isaac Newton's threads. I was late to the party, and slow to realize the extent of the problem. Before I go I feel it necessary to post what I found after just a few minutes of research and a calculator for the sake of anyone unacquainted with him (as I was) and for himself (if there is any possibility of introspection left in him).

I found him on the CARM forums where he goes by the username "John Milton" as Jason has pointed out and since joining in December 2009 he has posted 31,532 times (at the time of this post, it may have changed while typing this). Using just those numbers and not counting the doubtless thousands more on other forums we can do some quick calculations:

(1) 31,532 posts/5.5 years = 5733.09 posts/year
(2) 5733.09 posts/365 days = 15.7 posts/day
(3) 15.7 posts/16 waking hours = .98 posts/waking hour

So, across a span of 5.5 years he has averaged one post per waking hour. The conclusions are obvious and need not be stated. That's all.
User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:22 pm

calvinist wrote:In solidarity with mwh and for the sake of humanity, this will be my last post on any of Isaac Newton's threads. I was late to the party, and slow to realize the extent of the problem. Before I go I feel it necessary to post what I found after just a few minutes of research and a calculator for the sake of anyone unacquainted with him (as I was) and for himself (if there is any possibility of introspection left in him).

I found him on the CARM forums where he goes by the username "John Milton" as Jason has pointed out and since joining in December 2009 he has posted 31,532 times (at the time of this post, it may have changed while typing this). Using just those numbers and not counting the doubtless thousands more on other forums we can do some quick calculations:

(1) 31,532 posts/5.5 years = 5733.09 posts/year
(2) 5733.09 posts/365 days = 15.7 posts/day
(3) 15.7 posts/16 waking hours = .98 posts/waking hour

So, across a span of 5.5 years he has averaged one post per waking hour. The conclusions are obvious and need not be stated. That's all.


Why not instead calculate how much time you and your friends have spent discussing and insulting me ?

On another note, a large percentage of my time has been spent on a Grammar Thread at Carm. entitled "Verbs" which I started and where close to 30 000 people have learnt something, and counting. As for this thread, the number exceeds 20 000... I must be doing something right.
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jeidsath » Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:21 pm

A fair point, Isaac. I would be all for your starting a similar verb thread here, and would participate with you on it, as long as you are willing to leave all discussion of the Trinity to already-existing threads. Teaching Greek is a good work!
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:05 pm

jeidsath wrote:A fair point, Isaac. I would be all for your starting a similar verb thread here, and would participate with you on it, as long as you are willing to leave all discussion of the Trinity to already-existing threads. Teaching Greek is a good work!


Consider though that current thread has nothing to do with the Trinity , this doctrine is not even tangentially related to it .

This thread has to do with a point of Greek grammar concerning the antecedent of a relative pronoun, which had it not been for the majority Trinitarian preconceived notion that pre-flesh Logos is a "person," no one would imagine to deny that "the Word of Life" is it's antecedent..So if anyone is infusing doctrine into the interpretation of grammar here, it certainly is not me.
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jeidsath » Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:46 pm

No worries. Eusebius (not exactly an orthodox Trinitarian) makes a passing reference to the verse. Possibly the earliest quotation.

ἑαυτὸν προτάσσει· Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν
ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἐν τάχει,
καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ
τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ, ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν
λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ, ὅσα
εἶδεν· εἶτα καὶ ἐπιστολὴν γράφει· Ἰωάννης ταῖς
ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ
εἰρήνη. ὁ δέ γε εὐαγγελιστὴς οὐδὲ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐπιστο-
λῆς προέγραψεν ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ ἀπερίττως ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ
τοῦ μυστηρίου τῆς θείας ἀποκαλύψεως ἤρξατο ὃ ἦν ἀπ’
ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς
ἡμῶν· ἐπὶ ταύτῃ γὰρ τῇ ἀποκαλύψει καὶ ὁ κύριος τὸν
Πέτρον ἐμακάρισεν, εἰπών· μακάριος εἶ Σίμων βὰρ
Ἰωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι, ἀλλ’
ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ
φερομένῃ Ἰωάννου καὶ τρίτῃ, καίτοι βραχείαις οὔσαις
ἐπιστολαῖς, ὁ Ἰωάννης ὀνομαστὶ πρόκειται, ἀλλὰ ἀνωνύμως
ὁ πρεσβύτερος γέγραπται. οὗτος δέ γε οὐδὲ αὔταρκες
ἐνόμισεν εἰς ἅπαξ ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάσας διηγεῖσθαι τὰ ἑξῆς,
ἀλλὰ πάλιν ἀναλαμβάνει· ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης, ὁ ἀδελφὸς
ὑμῶν καὶ συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει καὶ βασιλείᾳ
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:05 pm

jeidsath wrote:No worries. Eusebius (not exactly an orthodox Trinitarian) makes a passing reference to the verse. Possibly the earliest quotation.

ἑαυτὸν προτάσσει· Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν
ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἐν τάχει,
καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ
τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ, ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν
λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ, ὅσα
εἶδεν· εἶτα καὶ ἐπιστολὴν γράφει· Ἰωάννης ταῖς
ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ
εἰρήνη. ὁ δέ γε εὐαγγελιστὴς οὐδὲ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐπιστο-
λῆς προέγραψεν ἑαυτοῦ τὸ ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ ἀπερίττως ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ
τοῦ μυστηρίου τῆς θείας ἀποκαλύψεως ἤρξατο ὃ ἦν ἀπ’
ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς
ἡμῶν· ἐπὶ ταύτῃ γὰρ τῇ ἀποκαλύψει καὶ ὁ κύριος τὸν
Πέτρον ἐμακάρισεν, εἰπών· μακάριος εἶ Σίμων βὰρ
Ἰωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι, ἀλλ’
ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ
φερομένῃ Ἰωάννου καὶ τρίτῃ, καίτοι βραχείαις οὔσαις
ἐπιστολαῖς, ὁ Ἰωάννης ὀνομαστὶ πρόκειται, ἀλλὰ ἀνωνύμως
ὁ πρεσβύτερος γέγραπται. οὗτος δέ γε οὐδὲ αὔταρκες
ἐνόμισεν εἰς ἅπαξ ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάσας διηγεῖσθαι τὰ ἑξῆς,
ἀλλὰ πάλιν ἀναλαμβάνει· ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης, ὁ ἀδελφὸς
ὑμῶν καὶ συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει καὶ βασιλείᾳ


Did you understand what you quoted above ? In this section ( which I read), Eusebius is calling into question whether apostle John was the author of the Revelation and of the First Epistle. He just quotes the first verse of this Epistle without giving us his or anyone's interpretation of it. How does this help or hurt anyone's cause here? How is this a useful piece of info.

On another note, have you read about Eusebius's opinion of the Ebionites? He chastised them for refusing to acknowledge Jesus as "God" and for denying his literal prexistence. He might not have been a "Trinitarian" by Chalcedonian standards, but he certainly was approaching Trinitarian Orthodoxy.
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jeidsath » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:51 pm

I thought it was interesting that Eusebius provides his own antecedent to the "ὃ" in the verse. Also, his aside in the introduction about John was "ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ." Which is more less the point that you tried to get across at the beginning. Whether or not John himself said it, Eusebius does here about John.

Now, I ask you as a Christian, start the verb thread. Avoid any mention of doctrine, because doctrines are always παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Instead, μαρτύρησον τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ with me and prove to those reading the board that we have learned love and peace from reading scripture, not strife and enmity. And we will each improve each other's knowledge of Greek.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:27 pm

jeidsath wrote:I thought it was interesting that Eusebius provides his own antecedent to the "ὃ" in the verse. Also, his aside in the introduction about John was "ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ." Which is more less the point that you tried to get across at the beginning. Whether or not John himself said it, Eusebius does here about John.

Now, I ask you as a Christian, start the verb thread. Avoid any mention of doctrine, because doctrines are always παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Instead, μαρτύρησον τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ with me and prove to those reading the board that we have learned love and peace from reading scripture, not strife and enmity. And we will each improve each other's knowledge of Greek.


Ah yes, this is an excellent point which I unfortunately overlooked . It goes to show that grammatically speaking Eusebius understood the relative pronoun in verse 1 as referring to "the Word of Life", exactly as I do . But since he came to the verse with the preconceived notion of the literal prexistence of the Word, he changed the neuter relative here to a masculine.

Nevertheless, this document fairly proves my point that the "normal" reading here , at least to those who were nearer contemporary readers of this First Epistle, is to take the relative pronoun as I do; the very reading which is being condemned as an "aberration" by our resident Cabal at Textkit.

I thank you for daring to break ranks with your own group by speaking with a semblance of objectivity at this point.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:37 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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jeidsath » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:36 pm

Not quite. Instead look at the "τὸ μυστηρίον τῆς θείας" preceding the quotation.

Now, the non-doctrinal verb thread, Isaac? I've called on you to do this as a Christian, there's no more that I can do after that.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:53 pm

jeidsath wrote:Not quite. Instead look at the "τὸ μυστηρίον τῆς θείας" preceding the quotation.

Now, the non-doctrinal verb thread, Isaac? I've called on you to do this as a Christian, there's no more that I can do after that.


I don't see how that changes anything ? I translate as follows:

-- ".. with no introduction he [writer of epistle] begins with the mystery of the divine revelation itself: 'HE WHO was from the beginning, whom we have heard, whom we have seen with our eyes.' 1 John 1:1 Indeed, on account of such a revelation the lord also blessed Peter, -- .."

Perhaps I was too quick to heap upon you a commendation of a semblance of impartiality and objectivity.
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:28 am

Notice how Eusebius interprets 1 John 1:1 --

ἀλλὰ ἀπερίττως ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μυστηρίου τῆς θείας ἀποκαλύψεως ἤρξατο ὃ ἦν ἀπ’
ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς
ἡμῶν· ἐπὶ ταύτῃ γὰρ τῇ ἀποκαλύψει καὶ ὁ κύριος τὸν
Πέτρον ἐμακάρισεν, εἰπών· μακάριος εἶ Σίμων βὰρ
Ἰωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι, ἀλλ’
ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος.

Translation --


"... but without much ado he began with the mystery of the divine revelation itself, ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.’ It was in regard to this revelation that the lord also called Peter blessed, saying, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you , but my heavenly Father has [done so].’..."


So Eusebius understands 1 John 1:1 in relation to Matthew 16:17. And why was Peter blessed by Jesus in Matthew ? Because Peter saw, touched and confessed Jesus, a "person.". Eusebius thinks that at 1 John 1:1 apostle John is similarly blessed by a similar confession .

So Eusebius is correct that the antecedent of ὃ is τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, but he goes wrong (grammatically and contextually) when he sees τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς at 1 John 1:1 as a "person" rather than as a thing . What he needed (and wanted) here was ὃς instead of ὃ.
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jeidsath » Sat Jun 27, 2015 6:32 pm

Oh, you haven't see ὅ used like that before? I think that we can clear all of this up right now. It's often used to refer to persons, but impersonally. Look:

John 4:22

ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν, ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν·


John 6:37

Πᾶν ὃ δίδωσίν μοι ὁ Πατὴρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει, καὶ τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρός με οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω,


John 17:2

καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.


Acts 17:23

διερχόμενος γὰρ καὶ ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν εὗρον καὶ βωμὸν ἐν ᾧ ἐπεγέγραπτο ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ. ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν.


Also, I have some more commentaries on the verse. This is Eusebius:

Τίς δὴ (ἂν) οὖν ἄλλος εἴη καὶ ὁ κατὰ τὴν προκειμένην περικοπὴν συμπαλαίων καὶ συναγωνιζόμενος καὶ ὡσπερεὶ συμμαχῶν τῷ Ἰακὼβ, ἢ ὁ πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως τοῖς πατράσι λαλήσας ὁ ἱερὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος, μόνος μετὰ τὸν Πατέρα Κύριος καὶ Θεὸς χρηματίζων, ὃς καὶ εὐλογήσας τὸν Ἰακὼβ Ἰσραὴλ αὐτὸν ὠνόμασεν, ἐπειπὼν, ὅτι ἐνίσχυσας μετὰ Θεοῦ; Οὕτως δὲ ἑώρων οἱ θεῖοι ἄνδρες τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον, ὡς καὶ οἱ φήσαντες τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἀπόστολοι· Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς· ὃν λόγον καὶ ζωὴν θεασάμενος ὁ Ἰακὼβ ἐπιφέρει λέγων, εἶδον γὰρ Θεὸν πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· καὶ ἐσώθη μου ἡ ψυχή.


And Athanasius:

(26)   Ἄτοπα μὲν οὖν ταῦτα. Ὅτι δὲ ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἀρχὴν
ἔχει τοῦ εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως παρὰ τῷ
πατρί ἐστιν, δηλοῖ ὁ Ἰωάννης ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἐπιστολῇ λέγων οὕτως·
«ὁ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς @1
ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ    (5)
λόγου τῆς ζωῆς· καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ
μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις
ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν». Ἐνταῦθα λέγων, ὅτι ἡ
ζωὴ οὐ γέγονεν, ἀλλ’ ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ἐν τῷ τέλει τῆς
ἐπιστολῆς τὸν υἱὸν εἶναί φησι τὴν ζωήν. Γράφει δ’ οὖν· «Καί   (10)
ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. Οὗτός
ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος». Εἰ δὲ ὁ υἱός ἐστιν ἡ
ζωὴ καὶ αὕτη πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, καὶ εἰ ὁ υἱὸς ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα,
λέγει δὲ ὁ αὐτός· «καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν», ὁ υἱὸς ἂν εἴη
ὁ λόγος ὁ ἀεὶ ὢν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. Ὥσπερ δὲ ὁ υἱὸς λόγος    (15)
ἐστίν, οὕτως ὁ θεὸς ὁ αὐτὸς ἂν εἴη ὁ πατήρ. Ὁ μέντοι υἱὸς καὶ
κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννην θεὸς οὐχ ἁπλῶς, ἀλλ’ ἀληθινὸς θεός ἐστιν.
Καὶ γὰρ κατ’ αὐτὸν τοῦτον «καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος»· ἔλεγέ τε ὁ
υἱός· «ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ζωή». Οὐκοῦν ὁ υἱὸς λόγος ἐστὶ καὶ ζωὴ ἡ
οὖσα παρὰ τῷ πατρί. Πάλιν δὲ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ Ἰωάννῃ εἰρη-   (20)
μένον «ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς» δείκνυσι
τὸν υἱὸν ἀεὶ εἶναι. Ὃν γὰρ υἱὸν λέγει ὁ Ἰωάννης, τοῦτον χεῖρα
ὁ Δαβὶδ ψάλλει λέγων· «ἵνα τί ἀποστρέφεις τὴν χεῖρά σου καὶ
τὴν δεξιάν σου ἐκ μέσου τοῦ κόλπου σου». Οὐκοῦν εἰ ἡ χεὶρ ἐν
τῷ κόλπῳ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ, ὁ υἱὸς ἂν εἴη ἡ χείρ, καὶ ἡ    (25)
χεὶρ ἂν εἴη ὁ υἱός, δι’ οὗ ἐποίησε τὰ πάντα ὁ πατήρ. «Ἡ χείρ
σου γάρ», φησιν, «ἐποίησε ταῦτα πάντα» καὶ «τῇ χειρὶ ἐξήγαγε
τὸν λαόν»· οὐκοῦν διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ. Εἰ δὲ καὶ «αὕτη ἡ ἀλλοίωσις
τῆς δεξιᾶς τοῦ ὑψίστου», καὶ πάλιν «εἰς τὸ τέλος ὑπὲρ τῶν @1
ἀλλοιωθησομένων, ᾠδὴ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ», ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἄρα    (30)
ἐστὶν ἡ χεὶρ ἀλλοιωθεῖσα, περὶ οὗ καὶ λέγει ἡ θεία φωνή·
«οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός». Ἴσον ἄρα ἐστὶν ‚αὕτη ἡ
χείρ μου‛ τῷ «οὗτος ὁ υἱός μου».


I have much much more where that came from, but these were the best.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jaihare » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:26 pm

You must stress the fact that this is not direct language... He'll take your statement that ὅ can be used of people and insist that it's the case in every situation.
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 » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:34 pm

jeidsath wrote:Oh, you haven't see ὅ used like that before? I think that we can clear all of this up right


Well at least you now have attained enough insight to acknowledge that Eusebius is taking τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς as the antecedent of ὅ. That's a good start.

It's often used to refer to persons, but impersonally.


What exactly is that supposed to mean ?




John 4:22

ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν, ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν·


Here ὃ refers to a generic entity. Jesus is telling her that their object of her worship, whatever or whoever it is, is unknown to them. The ὃ is not referring to a particular person or particular Personality, hence the neuter .



John 6:37

Πᾶν ὃ δίδωσίν μοι ὁ Πατὴρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει, καὶ τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρός με οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω,


Here again a particular individual is not in view.

John 17:2

καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.


Same here..

Acts 17:23

διερχόμενος γὰρ καὶ ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν εὗρον καὶ βωμὸν ἐν ᾧ ἐπεγέγραπτο ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ. ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν.


Same 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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:35 pm

jaihare wrote:You must stress the fact that this is not direct language... He'll take your statement that ὅ can be used of people and insist that it's the case in every situation.


This is prima facie , not even a sensible thing to say. So I would certainly not insist upon it. But it seems as though you wish that I did. :)
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:40 am

So it is now clear that even the profane ancients understood the antecedent of ὅ at 1 John 1:1 to be τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, the way I'm suggesting it be so. Yet this is precisely the grammar which is said to be an "aberration " and "virtually impossible" by the eight or nine majority here.

Here's my translation of the [most of it anyway] Eusebius portion (I'm assuming it is correct):

"..or in the manifold ways and means by which the Sacred Word of God spoke to the Fathers , the Lord alone with the Father and publicly declared by God, who also having blessed Jacob, 'Israel' him he called by name, because he prevailed against God ? Thus Godly men having seen the Word of God, who (ὡς) also was affirmed by the apostles of our Savior : 'He who was from the beginning, who our eyes saw, and whom we beheld, and our hands felt, concerning the Word of Life, WHICH [ masculine, ὃν] Word, and Life also Jacob having beheld, saying upon arriving, for I saw God face to face.'..."



Notice especially the masculine ὃν (instead of ὃ) --

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς· ὃν λόγον καὶ ζωὴν θεασάμενος


Which clearly proves that he is (a) taking τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς as the antecedent of ὃ, yet (b) reading this neuter ὃ as if it were a masculine ὃν, thereby brutalizing the text.

Here now is the testimony of the black dwarf , the portion as presented in this thread . (FWIW, his Greek here is simpler than the portion from Eusebius I just translated , IMHO):



"..That the Son has not a beginning of existence, but before he was made man was always (ἀεὶ) with the Father, John makes certain in his first Epistle writing thusly : He who was was from the beginning, whom we have heard, whom we have seen with our eyes, whom we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of Life; and the Life was made manifest, and we have seen him; and we bear witness and declare unto you that Eternal Life, who was with the Father, and who was manifested unto us ,1 John 1:1-2.' Here he [apostle John] asserts that 'the Life,' 'was with the Father,' not that it "became." In the end of his epistle he says the Son is the Life, writing, 'and we are in him that is True, even in his Son, Jesus Christ; this is the true God and Eternal Life. ' But if the son is the Life and the Life was with the Father, so that if the Son was with the Father, and if the same Evangelist says 'and the Word was with God John 1:1' then the Son must be the Word who is always with the Father. And because the Son is [the] 'Word' it follows that God must be 'the Father.'...."


And he rambles on. The important thing is that he too takes τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς as being the antecedent of ὃ, yet incredibly enough identifying τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς at 1 John 1:1 as an eternally Existing person.
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:28 am

Here are some modern trinitarian academics who assert as I also do that the antecedent of the neuter ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is ὁ λόγος . The big difference between me and these trinitarians of course is that they have no grammatically valid explanation as to why apostle John uses the neuter relative pronoun to refer to ὁ λόγος, which they insist is an eternally existing person..

Adam Clarke:


Verse 1
That which was from the beginning - That glorious personage, Jesus Christ the Lord, Who was from eternity; him, being manifested in the flesh, we have heard proclaim the doctrine of eternal life; with our own eyes have we seen him, not transiently, for we have looked upon him frequently; and our hands have handled - frequently touched, his person; and we have had every proof of the identity and reality of this glorious being that our senses of hearing, ὁ ακηκοαμεν, seeing, ὁ ἑωρακαμεν τοις οφθαλμοις ἡμων, and feeling, και αἱ χειρες ἡμων εψηλαφησαν could possibly require.


Barnes:


Verse 1. That which was from the beginning. There can be no doubt that the reference here is to the Lord Jesus Christ, or the "Word" that was made flesh. See Barnes "John 1:1". This is such language as John would use respecting him, and indeed the phrase "the beginning," as applicable to the Lord Jesus, is peculiar to John in the writings of the New Testament: and the language here may be regarded as one proof that this epistle was written by him, for it is just such an expression as he would use, but not such as one would be likely to adopt who should attempt to palm off his own writings as those of John. One who should have attempted that would have been likely to introduce the name John in the beginning of the epistle, or in some way to have claimed his authority. The apostle, in speaking of "that which was from the beginning," uses a word in the neuter gender instead of the masculine, (\~o\~.) It is not to be supposed, I think, that he meant to apply this term directly to the Son of God, for if he had he would have used the masculine pronoun; but though he had the Son of God in view, and meant to make a strong affirmation respecting him, yet the particular thing here referred to was whatever there was respecting that incarnate Saviour that furnished testimony to any of the senses, or that pertained to his character and doctrine, he had borne witness to. He was looking rather at the evidence that he was incarnate; the proofs that he was manifested; and he says that those proofs had been subjected to the trial of the senses, and he had borne witness to them, and now did it again. This is what is referred to, it seems to me, by the phrase "that which," (\~o\~.)


John Gill:

Verse 1
That which was from the beginning,.... By which is meant not the Gospel, as if the apostle's design was to assert the antiquity of that, and clear it from the charge of novelty; for though that is called the word, and the word of life, and is the Spirit which gives life, and is the means of quickening dead sinners, and brings the report of eternal life and salvation by Christ, yet the seeing of it with bodily eyes, and handling it with corporeal hands, do not agree with that; but Jesus Christ is here intended, who in his divine nature was, really existed as a divine person, as the everlasting Jehovah, the eternal I AM, which is, and was, and is to come, and existed "from the beginning"; not from the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel by John only, for he was before the Gospel was preached, being the first preacher of it himself, and before John was; yea, before the prophets, before Abraham, and before Adam, and before all creatures, from the beginning of time, and of the creation of the world, being the Maker of all things, even from everlasting; for otherwise he could not have been set up in an office capacity so early, or God's elect be chosen in him before the foundation of the world, and they have grace and blessings given them in him before the world began, or an everlasting covenant be made with him; see John 1:1;

which we have heard; this, with what follows, proves him to be truly and really man; for when the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among men, the apostles heard, and saw, and handled him; they not only heard a voice from heaven, declaring him to be the Son of God, but they often heard him speak himself, both in private conversation with them, and in his public ministry; they heard his many excellent discourses on the mount, and elsewhere, and those that were particularly delivered to them a little before his death; and blessed were they on this account, Matthew 13:16;

which we have seen with our eyes: with the eyes of the body, with their own, and not another's; and they saw him in human nature, and the common actions of life he did, as eating, drinking, walking, &c. and his many miracles; they saw him raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, restore sight to the blind, cause the lame to walk, the dumb to speak, and the deaf to hear; and they saw him transfigured on the mount. John was one that was present at that time, and saw his glory, as he also was when he hung upon the cross, and saw him bleeding, gasping, and dying there; they saw him after his resurrection from the dead, he showed himself to them alive, and was seen of them forty days; they saw him go up to heaven, and a cloud receiving him out of their sight:

which we have looked upon; wistly and intently, once and again, and a thousand times, and with the utmost pleasure and delight; and knew him perfectly well, and were able to describe exactly his person, stature, features, and the lineaments of his body:

and our hands have handled of the Word of life; as Peter did when Jesus caught him by the hand on the water, when he was just ready to sink; and as this apostle did, when he leaned on his bosom; and as Thomas did, even after his resurrection, when he thrust his hand into his side; and as all the apostles were called upon to see and handle him, that it was he himself, and not a spirit, which has not flesh and bones as he had. Now as this is said of Christ, the Word of life, who is so called, because he has life in himself, as God, as the Mediator, and as man, and is the author of life, natural, spiritual, and eternal, it must be understood as he, the Word, is made manifest in the flesh; for he, as the Word, or as a divine person, or as considered in his divine nature, is not to be seen nor handled: this therefore is spoken of the Word, or of the person of Christ, God-man, with respect to his human nature, as united to the Logos, or Word of God; and so is a proof of the truth and reality of his human nature, by several of the senses.



Wesley's Notes for 1 John 1:1:

1:1 That which was - Here means, He which was the Word himself; afterwards it means, that which they had heard from him. Which was - Namely, with the Father, ver.#2|, before he was manifested. From the beginning - This phrase is sometimes used in a limited sense; but here it properly means from eternity, being equivalent with, in the beginning, #John 1:1|. That which we - The apostles. Have not only heard, but seen with our eyes, which we have beheld - Attentively considered on various occasions. Of the Word of life - He is termed the Word, #John 1:1|; the Life, #John 1:4|; as he is the living Word of God, who, with the Father and the Spirit, is the fountain of life to all creatures, particularly of spiritual and eternal life.


There are ofcourse more ....
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:01 pm

Something interesting I found in a 1998 discussion at the old B-Greek. Carl W. Conrad seems to agree with what I have long suspected, that the author at 1 John 1:1 assumes a verb :

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-arch ... 23338.html

The fact of the matter is, I think, that the Greek text as the MSS give it
to us lacks a verb
--and ESTI can only be supplied to link the sequence of
relative clauses beginning with hO to PERI TOU LOGOU in a very
unsatisfactory way. I think that the UBS committee has done the right
thing by punctuating after ZWHS with a dash; what this means is that we
have an anacoluthon--an incomplete sentence,
and that after the sentence
gets this far, the writer starts over with a new subject and predicate in
verse 2
.
How to translate this, i.e., whether to carry the anacoluthon
over into English and so to reproduce the structure of the Greek, is a
different question altogether from analyzing and understanding the Greek
text. It appears to me that the commentators cited above are really
confusing the very different matters of understanding how the Greek works
(insofar as it does work) and of conveying what the writer meant with his
Greek to say into English.
I don't like to be so redundant, but I don't think the point can be
overemphasized: the FIRST step is to understand the Greek; only AFTERWARDS
can one go on and decide how best to convey the MEANING of the Greek into
another language. It is fundamentally wrong to attempt to force the
structure of a meaningful translation onto the syntactic structure of the
Greek text, and to do so will only render the Greek text into gibberish.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018


---

Carl Conrad and Benjamin Raymond senior, Harding University School of Biblical Studies also echo me with the following :



CC: >Each instance of hO is a
>relative pronoun: the first is nominative and the subject of HN, then
>second is accusative and the object of hEWRAKAMEN, the third an accusative
>object of AKHKOAMEN, and the last an accusative object of EQEASAMEQA
.

BR: Thank you! Nice to know I'm not crazy :-)


--


CC >There is no way to distinguish morphologically between the accusative and
>the nominative of any pronoun or noun; the likely linguistic reason for
>this is that the accusative form serves as a nominative in the case of a
>neuter, but it's beside the point why the forms are identical. Only the
>context will clarify for you what the neuter form must be in any particular
>case--accusative or nominative. So here, the first must be the subject of
>HN and the others must be the objects of those 1st person plural verbs
.


BR Excellent.


Ref: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-arch ... 23332.html
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:35 am

Carl Conrad, on target once more --

Well, yes, I guess it does indicate that verse 2 is an interruption and
that there's another interruption after verse 2; but I'd say that verse 3
does in fact start over from the beginning in a way that removes all
grammatical problems, in that it repeats hO hEWRAKAMEN KAI AKHKOAMEN as a
single object to APAGGELLOMEN, so that syntactically the construction
begins anew with a nod in the direction of the uncompleted phraseology in
verse 1 that helps the reader see that the writer has now simplified and
clarified that phraseology. At least that's the way I'd understand it: not
that verse 2 is a parenthesis so much,
but rather that verses 1-3 as a unit
are broken three times and that the connection between verse 3 and verse 1
is logical rather than syntactical.
Although one might conceivably argue
that the object clause hO hEWRAKAMEN KAI AKHKOAMEN in verse 3 is in
apposition to all of verse 1 understood as a complex object clause, I think
it is more accurate to say that verse 3 starts over by ALLUDING to verse 1
rhetorically without really completing it grammatically
.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:27 am

I was looking at 1 Timothy chapter 3 verse 16 just now....


καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.


Notice that Ὃς is masculine yet it's antecedent is neuter . It's obvious why, because the author is here thinking of τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον as an individual ("a person", if you like), namely Jesus Christ .

Now, let's look at John 1:5...

καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν
.


Here the pronoun αὐτὸ and it's antecedent are both neuter. Again, it's obvious why.. Because the author is not at this time thinking of τὸ φῶς as an individual. Had John believed τὸ φῶς to be an actual individual in verse 5, surely he would have used the masculine form of the pronoun (αὐτὸν ) to refer to it's neuter antecedent.... just as the author of 1 Tim. 3:16 did .
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:45 pm

Gal. 3:16 is another example:

τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. οὐ λέγει Καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός Καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός.


Here the antecedent of the masculine pronoun (ὅς) is a neuter noun (τό σπέρμα) because the inspired author sees Χριστός , i.e. ὅς as an actual individual.

Caveat: Though I would concede that at Gal. 3:16 the masculine could be a result of "attraction" to the gender of the predicate nominative (Χριστός) . It is likely however that constructio ad sensum is predominantly informing the author's choice of the gender of the pronoun here IMHO. Most likely both ("attraction" and "ad sensum").

Here's another one --


καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου λέγει αὐτῇ Ταλιθὰ κούμ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Τὸ κοράσιον, σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε.


Mark 5:41

A feminine pronoun refers to a neuter noun ( τό παιδίον) because a little girl is in the author's mind when he writes out the word αὐτῇ .
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:43 am

Previously in this thread the poster Jaihare vehemently chided me for assuming a verb into the text of 1 John 1:1 before the prepositional phrase. He called it "an addition into the text out of thin air." It seems that Jaihare has had a change of heart. See here his post, going by the pseudonym "Jameson" (at Carm):

10-20-15, 02:47 PM
No. I don't read the NET Bible. Thanks, though. I'm curious why you always state that "this requires either a yes or a no [answer]." (I don't think you meant "question" there.) It seems like a rhetorical bullying strategy.


What he had in his hand, what he had taken from the table and held at his side, what he had earlier received from his wife - I'm talking about the letter that came in the mail the day before - what he had in his hand, he gave to his boss and hoped that it would be received well.

I admit that my original sentence wasn't structurally identical to 1 John 1.1-3, but surely this one is. If you can disconnect the first relative clauses from "gave," then I'll pat you on your back.
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:44 pm

So this is the correct translation of 1 John 1:1-3:

[I'm writing ] About the Word of Life Which was from the beginning, Which we have heard, Which we have seen with our eyes, Which we have beheld and [Which] our hands have felt. And this Life was manifested, and we heard and testified to It and we announce to you this Eternal Life, Which was towards the Father and [Which] was revealed to us.

That Which we have seen and heard, we announce even unto you, so that all of you might have fellowship with us also. And our fellowship moreover is with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ.


ref: Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς,—καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν,—ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ’ ἡμῶν. καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
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: 949
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Previous

Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek