Bert wrote:I don't think I agree Modus; If the passage is about the declaration instead of about Christ then the seeing, observing, touching and handling doesn't a lot of sense.
How do you mean? Just to be clear I'm not saying that it's "what we touched about the gospel" which wouldn't make sense, but "concerning the gospel, what we're declaring is just what we touched."
Are there any theories as to who the epistle was written to and why the slightly strange format -- no introductory salutation for example. I don't want to get too far ahead but I noticed that later on the author sometimes says γραφω and other times εγραψα and this made me think that is some kind of reply to a reply of an original letter and I have to admit that that's colouring my views here, so I'm thinking that perhaps the author is countering any objections to his teachings by saying that what's he saying about the gospel is what the gospel was from the start and it's what he saw with his own eyes and so on. The comments I read on this being partially about establishing the authenticity of the author's teaching have swayed me.
Taking Logos to mean Christ is not that strange; He is Life, and he is the Word. The Word = the Word of life.
I think I see what you mean. But doesn't it seem strange to have both λογος and ζωη mean Christ here? I would think that if λογος was meant to be taken as Christ then it would go και ο λογος εφανερωθη...