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 Markos » Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:01 pm

John W. wrote:Isaac wishes to print a full stop at the end of verse 1, as follows:

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.

As per the version quoted by Andrew above (but not translating the concluding words, to avoid getting drawn into the sub-debate about them), this would have to mean something like:

'What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.'

In view of Isaac's apparent fondness for grammatical correctness, can he tell us how this constitutes a complete sentence?

Let's give Isaac the benefit of the doubt. (If we don't he will just take it anyway.) Let's assume that in the text above, the opening ὃ is short for τὸ ὃ, and the sentence is a type of dangling nominative title to the Epistle, with the Epistle proper beginning in verse 2. (You do have something similar to this in the opening of Mark's Gospel:
Mk 1:1 Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ. 2 Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ, Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου: Note the period after verse 1.)

Under this scenario, we concede that the first ὃ is NOT the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3. I still don't see why this strengthens Isaac argument that the first ὃ does not refer to Jesus as person. You can announce the non-person Logos just as much as you can announce the message about him, can't you?

In other words, rather than trying to get Isaac to concede that what he is saying about the relative clauses is wrong, maybe we can get him to see that it is unnecessary?
John W. wrote:I really was going to stay away from this traincrash of a thread, but its grisly fascination has once again drawn me like a moth to a flame - and I'll probably end up experiencing the same fate as the unfortunate creature ...

To me it is more like the Vietnam War. I'm not really sure why I am here in the first place, but, being here, I just want to declare victory and go home.
Markos
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Qimmik » Tue Sep 09, 2014 3:17 pm

Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ.

This isn't a statement or a complete sentence with an understood verb--it's an incipit, i.e., a title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incipit

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't written by Mark--it was probably added at a later date to identify the text. I don't really think this is quite analogous to the first sentence of 1 John, which derives its rhetorical effectiveness by announcing (ἀπαγγέλλομεν) what he's going to talk about by launching, out of nowhere, right into a long breathless sentence interrupted by a parenthesis that conveys the author's inability to contain his enthusiasm.

Update: I should have read Markos' post more carefully--he recognizes that it's a title.
Last edited by Qimmik on Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Tue Sep 09, 2014 4:23 pm

Markos, Qimmik - many thanks.

While I'd be only too happy to cut Isaac some slack if I could see a reasonable way of doing so, I tend to agree with Qimmik re the start of Mark. Matthew of course begins 'ΒΙΒΛΟΣ γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυεὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβρααμ.', which should presumably be regarded in the same light. However, the start of 1 John doesn't look to me like a title/incipit along the lines of these two, but instead plunges straight into the text itself - rather, I suppose, like John's Gospel.

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 09, 2014 8:22 pm

Good afternoon jaihare,

jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:In this regard then, can you perhaps show us an example from the GNT of your grammar ? That is, of a verb which governs a relative clause, and then governs more relative clauses separated from it ? It is quite a remarkable thing that you're suggesting here, IMHO.

One would just as aptly say that stating that finite verbs must agree with their subjects in person and number (with the exception of neuter plurals in Greek, of course) is remarkable and requires justification. Just because you say that it’s “quite a remarkable thing” doesn’t mean that it is.



I really don't see how this statement is in any way relevant to what you're doing at 1 John 1:1 .


Relative clauses do not stand on their own –


I don't suggest otherwise though. As you know, a relative clause is a "dependent" or "subordinate" clause . There seems to be some confusion about how relatives work amongst some posters here . So a quick summary is in order here;

(a) The gender and number of relative pronouns, just like all other pronouns, are determined by thei antecedent .

(b) Their case is determined by their function in the relative clause.

(c)A relative clause is always a dependent clause, so it cannot contain the main subject and verb of the sentence.

(d) Relative pronouns do not introduce questions (that is the province of the interrogative pronoun). They always refer to a noun or to a noun prase.

(e)A relative pronoun introduces a clause that usually modifies a noun.

(f) A relative clause is the relative pronoun + the clause it introduces.

(g) A relative clause can be the subject, direct object, or the object of a preposition.

(h) The number and gender of a relative pronoun must match those of it's antecedent (whether grammatical gender or actual gender).

If anyone does not know these basics, I suggest you thoroughly familiarize yourself with the above points before engaging this discussion.




and I never used the word “govern” with regard to this relationship (I only use the word “govern” with regard to how many arguments a verb can take or with regard to the case that a specific preposition calls for). Relative clauses can replace regular nouns in most constructions. They can be subjects: “whoever lives in this house (= this person) has a lot of money.” They can be direct objects objects: “I hope you remember what I said to you (= my words to you).” They can be indirect objects: “I gave money to whomever I came across (= everyone).” In every case, the relative clause is embedded within an independent clause.

In this case, “we announce even to you what we have seen (= our own experience), etc.” The relative clauses are dependent on the main verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν. This is obvious and true. Your refusal to open up your mind and consider this doesn’t negate its simplicity or its obviousness.


O.K., so let's use the word "object of" then. My problem with your post is that you once again very nicely and forcefully explained your position but you have not furnished any example from the GNT which cause cause me to honestly agree that relative pronouns can work with a verb in the way that you're saying they do in verse 1. I think you threw in your lot with Wallace at 1 John 1:1 without carefully thinking through this issue. Bear in mind that Wallace has some terrible biblical exegesis and translation of the Greek , his translation of John 1:1c a case in point.
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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby mwh » Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:01 pm

Good morning Vietnam.

If I were still posting here, I would point out that Markos’ suggestion, generously but misguidedly meant as a concession to Isaac, has another strike against it too. What kind of letter begins καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη?

Where I do agree with Markos is that we should give up “trying to get Isaac to concede that what he is saying about the relative clauses is wrong.” We must all know now that he will not be budged. Let me pose a question. Is there anyone here (or anywhere), apart from Isaac (and possibly Markos), who does not recognize that the opening relative clauses are objects of apaggellomen? If not, let me pose another question. Why are we wasting our time? Don’t we all have better things to do? (Sorry, that’s two.) The more we continue, the more opportunity we provide for Isaac to pick holes in what I think we all recognize is really a united front. Let’s adopt another of Markos’ suggestions: declare victory — or defeat for all I care — and go home.

No answers please. Silence speaks louder than words.
Last edited by mwh on Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Qimmik » Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:04 pm

"Why are we wasting our time?"

Because we're moths drawn to the flame--in more senses than one.

But I agree, let's let Isaac have the last word and be done with it.
Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby mwh » Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:07 pm

Moths don't know any better.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:46 pm

Hi John W,

John W. wrote:In view of Isaac's apparent fondness for grammatical correctness, can he tell us how this constitutes a complete sentence? He makes it so in his own translation by adding a main verb ('I'm writing about ...'), which is a curious strategy for someone who so strenuously objects to Wallace's simply repeating at the start a verb which does at least (unlike Isaac's) appear later in the sentence. Conrad (whom Isaac cites) also interpolates a main verb, in his case 'I'm talking'; again, one would expect Isaac - as the sworn enemy of verbs which are not in the Greek text - to object to this. The 'God's Word Translation', which Isaac also cites with approval, circumvents the problem in another way, by ignoring the relative pronouns ('The Word of Life existed ...' etc.). In accepting such stratagems only when it suits him, Isaac seems to apply double standards.

Finally, since Isaac is so keen on requiring others to adduce Biblical parallels, presumably he himself can offer us one of a 'sentence' consisting solely of a series of relative clauses - unless here too he is setting the bar differently for himself and others.

Best wishes,

John


In Koine a verb , a pronoun etc. is sometimes implied. In other words, it is not explicitly expressed. This is sometimes true with περὶ. Look at Acts 24:24 for instance:


Μετὰ δὲ ἡμέρας τινὰς παραγενόμενος ὁ Φῆλιξ σὺν Δρουσίλλῃ τῇ ἰδίᾳ γυναικὶ οὔσῃ Ἰουδαίᾳ μετεπέμψατο τὸν Παῦλον, καὶ ἤκουσεν αὐτοῦ περὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν πίστεως.


New International Version
Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus.

English Standard Version
After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.



NET Bible
Some days later, when Felix arrived with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.


GOD'S WORD® Translation
Some days later Felix arrived with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him talk about faith in Christ Jesus.

etc.

The verb (in bold above) in all those translations is not in the original 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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Wed Sep 10, 2014 6:34 am

Each verb forms it's own clause , and we cannot have a clause without a verb. A relative clause, if it is the object of a verb, must be contextually and grammatically related to it. But ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 doesn't fill these criteria. In fact it relates itself only to what follows in typical fashion as a "hinge" word (in addition to the immediately preceding ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν ofcourse):

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.


This verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 "governs" nothing in verse 1, as far as I can tell.
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:13 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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:13 am

Isaac - thank you for your replies.

I'm afraid that I cannot accept the relevance of your examples involving ἀκούω. If you read the entry on this verb in Liddell-Scott-Jones' Lexicon, you will see that it can take various constructions, including, very commonly, the genitive of the person from whom something is heard. At Acts 24.24, the sense of καὶ ἤκουσεν αὐτοῦ περὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν πίστεως is '... and heard from him about faith in Jesus Christ'. There is, in fact, no verb missing in the Greek; the fact that the translations you cite choose to add one in English is a completely different matter. One could insert all sorts of verbs in various places in translating from Greek if one chose, and sometimes it is helpful to do so in making the sense clear in English, but one shouldn't confuse that with a verb's actually being missing in the Greek original.

In your lecture to Jaihare yesterday on relative clauses, you agreed with him that relative clauses 'do not stand on their own', and added that 'A relative clause is a "dependent" or "subordinate" clause'. Yet in the sentence as you punctuate it, viz.

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.

there is nothing for the relative clauses to depend on , or be subordinate to. You are thus forced to fabricate a verb (for which there is not the slightest evidence in the Greek) to fulfil this function; the rest of us, however, can point to a verb - ἀπαγγέλλομεν - which does appear later in the sentence as punctuated in editions of the Greek New Testament.

So - again - I ask: can you point to another sentence in the Bible which consists simply of a string of relative clauses?

Turning now to your second post to me, you simply assert as a fact that ἀπαγγέλλομεν cannot be 'contextually and grammatically related' to the relative clauses in verse 1, but you offer no evidence for this. Since you have pressed others for evidence of their statements to the contrary, might I ask you to do the same in respect of your assertion?

Here's another way of looking at it: if the text omitted the bit I've placed in square brackets below:

Ο ΗΝ ΑΠ᾽ ΑΡΧΗΣ, 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 ἀπαγγέλλομενὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν,— ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν] ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ...

would you still argue that the relative clauses at the start cannot depend on ἀπαγγέλλομεν? And if you would then accept that they do, why is it so very difficult to accept what mwh and others have said about the effect on the sentence of the parenthetical — καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομενὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν — , which leads to ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν being restated by way of recapitulation immediately prior to the main verb? What, in your view, is wrong with this analysis?

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 10, 2014 9:56 am

Hi John W,

John W. wrote:Isaac - thank you for your replies.

I'm afraid that I cannot accept the relevance of your examples involving ἀκούω. If you read the entry on this verb in Liddell-Scott-Jones' Lexicon, you will see that it can take various constructions, including, very commonly, the genitive of the person from whom something is heard. At Acts 24.24, the sense of καὶ ἤκουσεν αὐτοῦ περὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν πίστεως is '... and heard from him about faith in Jesus Christ'. There is, in fact, no verb missing in the Greek; the fact that the translations you cite choose to add one in English is a completely different matter. One could insert all sorts of verbs in various places in translating from Greek if one chose, and sometimes it is helpful to do so in making the sense clear in English, but one shouldn't confuse that with a verb's actually being missing in the Greek original.

In your (quite unneccessary) lecture to Jaihare yesterday on relative clauses, you agreed with him that relative clauses 'do not stand on their own', and added that 'A relative clause is a "dependent" or "subordinate" clause'. Yet in the sentence as you pu8nctuate it, viz.

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.

there is nothing for the relative clauses to depend on , or be subordinate to. You are thus forced to fabricate a verb (for which there is not the slightest evidence in the Greek) to fulfil this function; the rest of us, however, can point to a verb - ἀπαγγέλλομεν - which does appear later in the sentence as punctuated in editions of the Greek New Testament.

So - again - I ask: can you point to another sentence in the Bible which consists simply of a string of relative clauses?

Turning now to your second post to me, you simply assert as a fact that ἀπαγγέλλομεν cannot be 'contextually and grammatically related' to the relative clauses in verse 1, but you offer no evidence for this. Since you have pressed others for evidence of their statements to the contrary, might I ask you to do the same in respect of your assertion?



I don't know why you would think that my "examples" (though I gave only one example) "involve" "ἀκούω" . The verb that the Greek assumes here is not ἀκούω but λέγω ("speak"), otherwise you would have an incomplete and incoherent sentence. Remember, Greek is not English; while English could not get away with assuming such a verb in such an [English] sentence, a Greek sentence like this can. Try reading that verse again in Greek without assuming the verb "speak".

If you look at John 2:21, on the other hand, the verb is not implied but explicitly stated:

ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.


In Greek (as also in English) sometimes pronouns and or verbs are not directly stated, just implied. I'm not making this up, but it's an elementary truth of their grammar. Here's another example, John 14:31:


ἀλλ’ ἵνα γνῷ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ καθὼς ἐνετείλατο (ἔδωκέν) μοι ὁ Πατὴρ, οὕτως ποιῶ. Ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦθεν.


The word ἔδωκέν is implied in some manuscripts.

Peace in the will of God, the Father of Jesus,
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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby John W. » Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:50 am

Isaac - many thanks. This has been a most interesting discussion, but it seems that neither side will ever be able to convince the other, despite having set out our respective positions very fully; I think, therefore, subject to the views of others, that the debate has now probably run its useful course. Thank you again for taking the time to discuss this interesting passage.

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 10, 2014 9:40 pm

Hi John W,

John W. wrote:Isaac - many thanks. This has been a most interesting discussion, but it seems that neither side will ever be able to convince the other, despite having set out our respective positions very fully; I think, therefore, subject to the views of others, that the debate has now probably run its useful course. Thank you again for taking the time to discuss this interesting passage.

Best wishes,

John


I don't think your "side" [of 4 or 5 ] (committed trinitarians, friends and sympathizers ) has done that. In this thread, 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. In any case, I thank you for taking the time to participate in this passage.

In the peace of the only God, the Father of Jesus
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:23 pm, edited 3 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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:14 pm

jaihare wrote:
Yes, 1 John opens with a relative clause. Every relative clause is a dependent or embedded clause and must hang on a finite verb form. In this case, the finite verb to which every single one of these relative clauses (introduced by ὅ) is connected is ἀπαγγέλλομεν. We can move this verb to the beginning of the sentence and clarify the intention perfectly and without destroying the essential syntactic relationship between the subordinate/dependent/embedded clauses and the independent/main clause, which we find in verse 3. It is the insertion of the parenthetical that drove the author to repeat part of the relative clause string before finally overtly revealing the main verb.

.


Bold above is the fatal flaw of jaihare's argument. Because in truth there is no repetition of "a partial relative clause string" since relative clause strings left dangling without a verb to hang on to are ungrammatical nonsense, they are nothing at all. Now had the author used the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 1 in the same relationship as he does in verse 3, then yes of course a case could be made that he repeats a portion of the "relative clause string" to resume a train of thought apparently broken by an apparent parenthetical. Think about it: what is "a dangling clause" if not an euphemism for "an ungrammatical clause" ? Now had the author done something like this, jaihare would have a point:

ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν 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.


Everything inside [... ] we are asked to imagine is a parenthetical.


Notice that only by the addition of ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν in verse 1 can we (grammatically) say that the author is "repeating a part of the relative clause string," or resuming a broken thought in verse 3. Jaihare's read simply put, brutalizes the prologue of the epistle.
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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Andrew Chapman » Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:01 am

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς
Isaac Newton wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:Would you agree that verse 1 in the NASB:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—

is incomplete as it stands, and that it needs something else to complete it? If so, what do you think that something is?

Andrew


No. Why would John pen an incomplete verse , at the beginning of his epistle at that ?

I would like to come back to this, since I may not have made myself clear. What I meant was, do you agree that this verse in the NASB is incomplete in English as it stands. (I realise now that in your answer, you restated your view that the Greek verse one is complete, but I was asking about this English verse 1).

I am going to assume that your answer to this question is yes, since everybody who speaks English knows that. OK, now the next question is, how might we make this into a complete English sentence. Here are two suggestions:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, was concerning the Word of Life.

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerned the Word of Life

Now you have a main verb, and a main clause and a sentence.

So coming back to the Greek, what you have to do to make verse 1 complete is to read in a verb, like εἰμί. This is very crude, I think, but let's stick ἦν in there:

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


I suspect that is pretty bad Greek, (I am not sure how bad, perhaps somebody could advise) - but at least it is a sentence. It seems to me that that is how you are reading it. Do you agree?

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 Isaac Newton » Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:53 am

Andrew,

Andrew Chapman wrote:So coming back to the Greek, what you have to do to make verse 1 complete is to read in a verb, like εἰμί. This is very crude, I think, but let's stick ἦν in there:

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


I suspect that is pretty bad Greek, (I am not sure how bad, perhaps somebody could advise) - but at least it is a sentence. It seems to me that that is how you are reading it. Do you agree?

Andrew


That's quite ungrammatical.. Here's how the sentence is to be read with the implied verb embedded in brackets:

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν [λέγω / γράφω] περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.



I have a sneaking suspicion that at least half of you (2 out of 4) here championing jaihare's reading of the text have no idea what it actually is but you're nevertheless in agreement with it because it is trinitarian friendly.
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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jaihare » Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:59 am

Isaac Newton wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion that at least half of you (2 out of 4) here championing jaihare's reading of the text have no idea what it actually is but you're nevertheless in agreement with it because it is trinitarian friendly.

I have a hard time understanding what is trinity-friendly or trinity-unfriendly in how we are discussing this text. There is literally no advantage in your reading to someone who might hold your position.
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 Andrew Chapman » Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:32 am

Isaac Newton wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:So coming back to the Greek, what you have to do to make verse 1 complete is to read in a verb, like εἰμί. This is very crude, I think, but let's stick ἦν in there:

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


I suspect that is pretty bad Greek, (I am not sure how bad, perhaps somebody could advise) - but at least it is a sentence. It seems to me that that is how you are reading it. Do you agree?

That's quite ungrammatical.. Here's how the sentence is to be read with the implied verb embedded in brackets:
Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν [λέγω / γράφω] περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.


OK, I had:

Subject [the relative clause/clauses] Supplied Verb [ἦν] Predicate [ περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς]

You have:

Supplied Subject [ἐγώ] Supplied Verb [γράφω] Then the object must be the relative clause/clauses I think - ie the ὃ's are accusative - and then περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς would be a prepositional phrase modifying the object, so far as I can see. As in, say:

I write/ an article/ about hairdressing.

OR

I wrote down/ what I saw/ about the future.

'About the future' tells me more about 'what I saw'.

But I actually thought that you want the relative to be ὁ λόγος τἥς ζωἥς (or something like that)?

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 jaihare » Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:47 am

Andrew Chapman wrote:OK, I had:

Subject [the relative clause/clauses] Supplied Verb [ἦν] Predicate [ περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς]

You have:

Supplied Subject [ἐγώ] Supplied Verb [γράφω] Then the object must be the relative clause/clauses I think - ie the ὃ's are accusative - and then περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς would be a prepositional phrase modifying the object, so far as I can see. As in, say:

I write/ an article/ about hairdressing.

OR

I wrote down/ what I saw/ about the future.

'About the future' tells me more about 'what I saw'.

But I actually thought that you want the relative to be ὁ λόγος τἥς ζωἥς (or something like that)?

Andrew

I really don't understand how adding λέγω/γράφω would make sense at all of the relative clauses. I understand that it could be inserted to make sense of περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς - "I am speaking/writing concerning the word of life." If we take the relative clauses as the objects of λέγω/γράφω, this would produce the following, moving the verb for English:

I am speaking/writing... what we have have heard and seen with our own eyes... concerning the word of life.

What does this mean to speak or write what one has seen. You can write about what you have seen or heard. I don't see how Isaac really makes sense of this by inserting either of these verbs. I mean, if nothing else, since all of the verbs are in the plural ("we saw with our hands," "we heard," "we proclaim," etc.) we would expect the assumed verb to be either λέγομεν or γράφομεν rather than λέγω or γράφω (which are both singular).

I cannot understand how adding a verb here is really going to help make sense of this passage.
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 » Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:24 am

jaihare wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:OK, I had:

Subject [the relative clause/clauses] Supplied Verb [ἦν] Predicate [ περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς]

You have:

Supplied Subject [ἐγώ] Supplied Verb [γράφω] Then the object must be the relative clause/clauses I think - ie the ὃ's are accusative - and then περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς would be a prepositional phrase modifying the object, so far as I can see. As in, say:

I write/ an article/ about hairdressing.

OR

I wrote down/ what I saw/ about the future.

'About the future' tells me more about 'what I saw'.

But I actually thought that you want the relative to be ὁ λόγος τἥς ζωἥς (or something like that)?

Andrew

I really don't understand how adding λέγω/γράφω would make sense at all of the relative clauses. I understand that it could be inserted to make sense of περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς - "I am speaking/writing concerning the word of life." If we take the relative clauses as the objects of λέγω/γράφω, this would produce the following, moving the verb for English:

I am speaking/writing... what we have have heard and seen with our own eyes... concerning the word of life.

What does this mean to speak or write what one has seen. You can write about what you have seen or heard. I don't see how Isaac really makes sense of this by inserting either of these verbs. I mean, if nothing else, since all of the verbs are in the plural ("we saw with our hands," "we heard," "we proclaim," etc.) we would expect the assumed verb to be either λέγομεν or γράφομεν rather than λέγω or γράφω (which are both singular).

I cannot understand how adding a verb here is really going to help make sense of this passage.


How about we do it this way -- Look at the following:

γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς


How would you translate this sentence into English ?
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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jaihare » Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:32 am

Isaac Newton wrote:How about we do it this way -- Look at the following:

γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς


How would you translate this sentence into English ?

I'm not sure it's grammatical. Do you mean "I'm writing about the Logos which was from the beginning"? Be clear about what you mean, and then we can determine if it's grammatical in Greek or not. There are two different ways to transform what you just wrote to make it grammatical (using either οὗ or ὃς in place of ὃ - the former is by attraction to the antecedent in the genitive case, the second is the standard grammatical rule whereby the masculine pronoun acts as the subject of the relative clause). If this isn't what you mean, perhaps you can clarify. Perhaps you meant the prepositional phrase to be separate from the relative clause. Or, perhaps you mean to insert the prepositional phrase into the relative clause: "I am writing to you what was from the beginning concerning [as it concerns] the Logos."

Tell me what you mean, and I'll tell you what I think about 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 Isaac Newton » Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:49 am

jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:How about we do it this way -- Look at the following:

γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς


How would you translate this sentence into English ?

I'm not sure it's grammatical. Do you mean "I'm writing about the Logos which was from the beginning"?


Yes.


Be clear about what you mean, and then we can determine if it's grammatical in Greek or not. There are two different ways to transform what you just wrote to make it grammatical (using either οὗ or ὃς in place of ὃ - the former is by attraction to the antecedent in the genitive case, the second is the standard grammatical rule whereby the masculine pronoun acts as the subject of the relative clause). If this isn't what you mean, perhaps you can clarify. Perhaps you meant the prepositional phrase to be separate from the relative clause. Or, perhaps you mean to insert the prepositional phrase into the relative clause: "I am writing to you what was from the beginning concerning [as it concerns] the Logos."

Tell me what you mean, and I'll tell you what I think about it. ;)



There is a third. The writer is jettisoning grammatical gender for the natural gender (ὃ ) of λόγος (pre-flesh) here. It is this possibility, which you refuse to entertain, which is causing you so much trouble. It's the only real possibility 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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jaihare » Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:51 am

Isaac Newton wrote:There is a third. The writer is jettisoning grammatical gender for the natural gender (ὃ ) of λόγος (pre-flesh) here. It is this possibility, which you refuse to entertain, which is causing you so much trouble. It's the only real possibility here.

Constructio ad sensum would not take place in a case like this. Your Greek sentence is ungrammatical. It should either be οὗ or ὅς. Either way, you're not reading the text correctly - and this has nothing to do with your religious views.
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 Andrew Chapman » Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:29 am

One of the problems with Isaac's view, which I now think I understand - and also the reason for it which is that he doesn't believe in the eternal Son, but does believe in the eternal Word, so he wants to prove that the Son is referred to in a neuter case 'in the beginning' (the Word being potentially neuter in conception at least, whereas the Son is not) - ..

is that the supplied verb is the one that needs emphasis - it's the one you're waiting for - and it never comes with his view.

I also agree with jaihare that the change in gender looks impossible. The word order looks difficult to say the least - it was helpful for Isaac to write it as:

γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

Let's rewrite that as:

γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ὃς ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

Could that really be rewritten as:

ὃς ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ?

Could a postcedent like that exist?

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 jaihare » Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:33 am

Andrew Chapman wrote:ὃς ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ?

Could a postcedent like that exist?

Andrew

Absolutely not. :)

Perhaps we might see περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς γράφομεν. That would state what Isaac wants it to say. But, this isn't what the text says or even what it means.
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 » Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:13 pm

By the way, what I meant about οὗ and ὅς is that both of the following sentences are grammatical, though neither is connected to the text of the passage:

γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς οὗ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς...
γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, ὃς ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς...

Both are grammatical. The first has the relative pronoun changed by analogy to the case of the antecedent. The second is technically more "correct" in that the case of the relative pronoun is determined by its function in the embedded sentence - the subject of the verb ἦν.
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 » Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:10 pm

jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:There is a third. The writer is jettisoning grammatical gender for the natural gender (ὃ ) of λόγος (pre-flesh) here. It is this possibility, which you refuse to entertain, which is causing you so much trouble. It's the only real possibility here.

Constructio ad sensum would not take place in a case like this.


But this is an argument by "because I say so" though. Furthermore, 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, even if they would consider it a bit odd. Re-visit my citation of Herbert W. Bateman in page 1 in this regard.

Your Greek sentence is ungrammatical.


But as I recall, you're the one with the dangling relative clauses without a main verb .

It should either be οὗ or ὅς. Either way, you're not reading the text correctly - and this has nothing to do with your religious views.


I'm afraid this is juvenile .
Last edited by Isaac Newton on Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:20 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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm

Andrew Chapman wrote:One of the problems with Isaac's view, which I now think I understand - and also the reason for it which is that he doesn't believe in the eternal Son, but does believe in the eternal Word, so he wants to prove that the Son is referred to in a neuter case 'in the beginning' (the Word being potentially neuter in conception at least, whereas the Son is not) - ..

is that the supplied verb is the one that needs emphasis - it's the one you're waiting for - and it never comes with his view.

I also agree with jaihare that the change in gender looks impossible. The word order looks difficult to say the least - it was helpful for Isaac to write it as:

γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

Let's rewrite that as:

γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ὃς ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

Could that really be rewritten as:

ὃς ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ?

Could a postcedent like that exist?

Andrew


Well, at least you're honest about the ax you're grinding here (though there is in scripture no such expression as the "eternal Son.") By the way, you must not forget that it is apostle John who refers to a masculine noun with a neuter pronoun in the epistle, not me. If this is true, then your 4th century Chalcedonian Creed cannot be,and that is why you must deny it even though you have no working knowledge of Greek grammar. Yet , as I pointed out all sober scholarship concedes such a reading to be a distinct possibility. Here again is A Workbook for Intermediate Greek: Grammar, Exegesis, and Commentary on 1-3 John, by Herbert W. Bateman, IV:


(A) The relative pronoun could refer to "the Word" in the phrase "the Word of life". "This "Word," like the "Word" in John's Gospel ( 1:1) was from the beginning. But as you already know, the relative in the phrase is neuter and not the masculine form you might expect in order to be in agreement with Logos. This view is not impossible (W 336-45), but it remains an awkward grammatical construction (HJS, 21-22).

(B) Another possibility is that the relative pronoun refers to "life," which also occurs in the prepositional phrase of verse 1. However "life" also lacks agreement with the pronoun , and this along with the awkward grammatical construction, may argue against this view.

(C) It is probable that the relative pronoun refers to Jesus and his whole career (perhaps as it is described in the GJohn). All the relative pronouns in vv. 1-3 appear to be a comprehensive reference to the Incarnation of Jesus, whose existence as a man and career the author "witnessed" and thereby bears "testimony" about to his readers (Brown, 154). Thus the object of the author's proclamation is the person, words, and deeds of Jesus (NET). So then, in your own words, what do the relative clauses refer to in vv. 1-3?
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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Andrew Chapman » Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:21 pm

Well, at least you're honest about the ax you're grinding here (though there is in scripture no such expression as the "eternal Son.")

I didn't mean to give any indication as to my own views. I was attempting to give a fair outline, using well-known terms, of what I think may be your way of looking at things, partly informed by a little I happen to know of the views of the UPC.
you have no working knowledge of Greek grammar

I took the basic proficiency test at B-Greek a few months ago, got one of the academics to mark it for me, and was told - despite making a couple of mistakes - that I obviously had no difficulty at that level. I recommend it to you too.

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 Isaac Newton » Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:15 pm

ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἀκηκόαμεν, ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς,


Translation:

[I'm writing] about the Word , the life, which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched.
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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby mwh » Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:57 am

As someone with an interest in titles and quasi-titles and beginnings, I find Rev. quite interesting. The letter proper doesn’t begin till v.4, with a perfectly conventional kind of opening: sender in nom., addressee in dat., greeting: “John to the 7 churches of Asia, grace to you and peace” (a Pauline modification of the very traditional “X to Y greetings”). Prefaced to that, however, we have two separate items: an extended heading (vv.1-2), kicking off with the de facto title “Revelation of Jesus Christ”; and appended to that a makarismos of the 3rd-person reader (v.3).

1 Jn. takes very different epistolary form, with neither sender/writer nor addressee identified (just “we” and “you” pl., later subdivided into male age-groups), and its imposing opening, “What was from (the) beginning” etc., evidently harking back to the socalled “Gospel acc. to John.” It represents itself as a report (απαγγέλλομεν), a message (αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία)—cognate with Mark’s ευαγγελιον (the only actual gospel of the canonical four) but not evangelistic.

What 1 Jn. and Rev. most have in common is a sense of urgency, due to the widespread eschatological belief that the end is nigh (1 Jn. “It’s the last hour,” Rev.”the time is near”).

EDIT: This post was inspired (not quite the word) by a post which appears to have been deleted. But in any case it's meant to stand on its own, not to participate in the sterile ongoing slugfest, so I let it stay. It’s just for anyone who might be interested.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:58 am

Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is not the most reliable or scholarly resource because of it's overt trinitarian leanings, but even he agrees that relative pronouns not infrequently do not follow gender agreement due to constructio ad sensum.

"Not infrequently relative pronouns do not follow the basic rules of agreement. Sometimes the gender of the RP does not match that of the antecedent, usually because of sense agreement superseding syntactical agreement (constructio ad sensum.) As you recall, the rules of agreement do not normally involve case for the RP. Yet sometimes the case of the relative is attracted to that of the antecedent (known as attraction or direct attraction); at other times,though much less often, the antecedent is drawn to the case of the RP (known as inverse or indirect attraction).

To make matters more difficult, the relation of the RP to its antecedent is sometimes complicated: the antecedent may be lacking, or the relative phrase may be adverbial and thus not refer to a noun or other substantive. As with the demonstratives, the discovery of these syntactical 'glitches' occasionally yields a point of exegetical value as well."


Apostle John is very fond of constructio ad sensum in his epistles (also in the prologue of his Gospel) as often as opportunity presents him. Just as in the opening verse of the 1st Epistle, there is constructio ad sensum in his Second Epistle, verse 1:


Ο ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΣ ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν,


This is what Wallace himself says concerning this verse:


74. 2 John 1 even goes beyond this:

ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς ("to the elect lady and her children, whom")
, for the feminine singular noun and neuter
plural are together picked up by the masculine pronoun! But if "lady" is a metaphor
for the church, the reason for the masculine pronoun is due to
constructio ad sensum .
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Andrew Chapman » Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:36 am

I did a quick search for relatives with postcedents in Greek, and found this case at http://classics.kenyon.edu/assop/2005-6 ... rW20-1.pdf

ἐπορεύετο σὺν ᾗ εἲχε δυνάμει = σὺν δυνάμει ᾗ εἶχε (attraction!) = σὺν δυνάμει ἣν εἶχε

He was marching with the forces he had.

So it features the relative pronoun coming before the noun to which it refers. I am not sure whether this happens in the New Testament - sometimes, rarely, never?

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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:46 am

Andrew Chapman wrote:
OK, I had:

Subject [the relative clause/clauses] Supplied Verb [ἦν] Predicate [ περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς]

You have:

Supplied Subject [ἐγώ] Supplied Verb [γράφω] Then the object must be the relative clause/clauses I think - ie the ὃ's are accusative..

Let me be the first to correct my poor grammar above - I said that in Isaac's take on it 'the ὃ's are accusative' because they stand as the object of his main verb γράφω. But this is wrong (unless there is attraction), their case depends on their role in the relative clauses, so the first is nominative and the rest are accusative.

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 jaihare » Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:12 pm

Isaac Newton wrote:[I'm writing] about the Word , the life, which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched.

This would be:

[γράφω]* περὶ τοῦ λόγου - τοῦτ᾿ ἐστιν ἡ ζωή - ὃς ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃν ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃν ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃν ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν...

* I don't get why you're using γράφω instead of γράφομεν as your implied verb, since all of the verbs in the relative clauses and even in the independent sentence are in the plural. Personal pronouns (such as ἡμῶν) are also in the plural. Where do you get the singular here?
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 Andrew Chapman » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:34 pm

To correct myself again, I looked up antecedents in Robertson and Smyth, and it looks like they may be placed either before or after the relative clause eg Smyth 2492:

ὅ τι βούλεται, τοῦτο ποιείτω

This is still referred to as the antecedent. So I guess it's a logical antecedence (or somesuch) rather than a positional one?

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 Isaac Newton » Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:33 pm

jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:[I'm writing] about the Word , the life, which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched.

This would be:

[γράφω]* περὶ τοῦ λόγου - τοῦτ᾿ ἐστιν ἡ ζωή - ὃς ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃν ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃν ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃν ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν...

* I don't get why you're using γράφω instead of γράφομεν as your implied verb, since all of the verbs in the relative clauses and even in the independent sentence are in the plural. Personal pronouns (such as ἡμῶν) are also in the plural. Where do you get the singular here?


Because only the apostle John is writing / speaking. If you had read and re-read this epistle (in Greek) to the point of memorizing portions of it, as I have, you would have instinctively recognized that he does this constantly in chapter 2 -- 1 John 2:1, 7,8,12,13 (twice), 14 (3 times),21, 26,...
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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby jaihare » Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:53 pm

Isaac Newton wrote:
jaihare wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote:[I'm writing] about the Word , the life, which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched.

This would be:

[γράφω]* περὶ τοῦ λόγου - τοῦτ᾿ ἐστιν ἡ ζωή - ὃς ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃν ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃν ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃν ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν...

* I don't get why you're using γράφω instead of γράφομεν as your implied verb, since all of the verbs in the relative clauses and even in the independent sentence are in the plural. Personal pronouns (such as ἡμῶν) are also in the plural. Where do you get the singular here?


Because only the apostle John is writing / speaking. If you had read and re-read this epistle (in Greek) to the point of memorizing portions of it, as I have, you would have instinctively recognized that he does this constantly in chapter 2 -- 1 John 2:1, 7,8,12,13 (twice), 14 (3 times),21, 26,...

Well, by writing to his audience, John was the only one making any announcements to them, but he certainly said "we are announcing" (ἀπαγγέλλομεν) and not "I am announcing" (ἀπαγγέλλω). The entire passage is in the plural, yet you think that the "missing word" is in the singular? Yes, he switches to the singular in chapter two, but not in chapter one. Odd...
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 Sep 13, 2014 12:29 am

jaihare wrote:
* I don't get why you're using γράφω instead of γράφομεν as your implied verb, since all of the verbs in the relative clauses and even in the independent sentence are in the plural. Personal pronouns (such as ἡμῶν) are also in the plural. Where do you get the singular here?




Jameson, while it is true that the apostles were eye witnesses and making announcements and so forth, only apostle John wrote this epistle, hence γράφω and not γράφομεν. Though (now that I really think about it) I would grant that γράφομεν here is a distinct possibility ( in light of καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν ἡμεῖς) if we take γράφομεν as the general testimony of the apostles and not as a collective writing of this particular epistle . Also, you have to remember that verse 2 starts a new sentence and a new thought process (καὶ is a good indicator) .

This is how I would translate the first few verses of the epistle :

[I am writing] about the Word, the Life, which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and [which] our hands have touched.

And the Life was made manifest , and we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the Eternal Life, which was towards the Father and which was manifested to us. That which we have seen and [which] we have heard, we proclaim also to you , so that you too may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship indeed is with the Father and with his son, Jesus Christ.

And these things we write, so that out joy may be complete.

And this is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all....


One consistency in these verses is that the writer uses the conjunction καὶ every time he wants to change thoughts (though obviously this doesn't mean that every time he uses καὶ he is changing a thought).
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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Postby Isaac Newton » Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:51 am

Andrew Chapman wrote:
Andrew Chapman wrote:
OK, I had:

Subject [the relative clause/clauses] Supplied Verb [ἦν] Predicate [ περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς]

You have:

Supplied Subject [ἐγώ] Supplied Verb [γράφω] Then the object must be the relative clause/clauses I think - ie the ὃ's are accusative..

Let me be the first to correct my poor grammar above - I said that in Isaac's take on it 'the ὃ's are accusative' because they stand as the object of his main verb γράφω. But this is wrong (unless there is attraction), their case depends on their role in the relative clauses, so the first is nominative and the rest are accusative.

Andrew


You got it..

(a) As you correctly noted, and as I pointed out earlier, the case of a relative pronoun is determined by it's role in a relative clause.

(b) The subject of a verb is the person or thing performing the action of the verb (or sentence).

(c) The thing on which a verb performs an action is called a direct object of a verb .

(d) a subject of a verb is in the nominative. (So the nominative case's main function is to show the subject of the verb.)

(e) a direct object of a verb is in the accusative. (So the accusative case's main function is to show the direct object of a verb.)

(f) Ὃ is the neuter form of the relative pronoun, therefore in the nominative and accusative it looks identical.

---

Two examples --

(1) Τιμόθεον, ὅς ἐστίν μου τέκνον (1 Cor. 4:17)

ὅς is nominative because it is the subject of the verb ἐστίν

(2) ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ

οὓς is accusative because it is the direct object of the verb ἀγαπῶ (notice also the constructio ad sensum here)

So...

(a) ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆ ...ὃ is the subject of the verb (i.e. it acts upon it), therefore ὃ is nominative

(b) ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν... ὃ is the direct object of the verb (i.e. it is acted upon by the verb) , therefore it is accusative

(c) ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν.. ὃ is the direct object of the verb , therefore it is accusative

(d) ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν...ὃ is the direct object of the verb , therefore it is accusative
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: 917
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: npc and 30 guests