Textkit Logo

study a NT book

Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

Re: study a NT book

Postby modus.irrealis » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:15 am

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...
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:18 am

modus.irrealis

you wrote

I agree that ζωή here is Life and that it's identified with Christ*, but I think Christ is one step removed in a sense


I think that one of the necessary elements of this letter or sermon that we need to understand is its purpose. Why did the writer develop this letter or as some say, sermon? I strongly lean towards the idea that the Gnostic's were creating major problems in a certain Church or region. This address could have been developed in an effort to clarify the Church position concerning Christ.

Your statement clearly supports that idea.

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby modus.irrealis » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:27 am

sid4greek wrote:I think we are dealing here with two types of knowledge represented by two words: logos vs zoe; perhaps the" word" and the "living word (life)" respectively....

That seems to be the problem with logos -- it can mean so many things from the mundane all the way up (literally). How would you view it here with peri tou logou tes zoes? I'm still not sure even exactly where the peri goes, and I'm certainly not sure that I'm right in taking it with the angellomen in verse 3.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:28 am

Bert

you responded

You mean how would I define the message of life (lower case l)? I don't know; I don't think the text is speaking about it. If we take it that way we could end up with a passage that teaches some moral instead of giving us the gospel.
A very short description of the message of Life (upper case L) possibly is that it is the basis of our fellowship. (verse 3)


I have some ideas on this but will wait till we move further in the study. I lean more towards the Westcott Hort text and in verse 4 I see a variant from other texts. it has to do with fellowship.

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:31 am

modus.irrealis

you said:

That seems to be the problem with logos


The semantic range for this term is quite broad and definitely covers a large area. One would find it very difficult to clealry define that semantic range.


GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby jaihare » Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:05 am

modus.irrealis wrote:But a good browser should be able to make up for any deficiencies in the default font by using other fonts for those characters. For example, here are some Armenian letters: աբգդե. Of these it seems that դ exists in Verdana but the others aren't in any of the fonts that in are in the stylesheet (and that I have), and in fact it looks like my browser (Firefox) is using Verdana for դ and some other font for the other ones. That's why I thought getting Gentium and having a newer browser should be enough to view the Greek on the site.

Since even the basic Arial font has the Modern Greek characters, what he would end up with is a mix of fonts. The Arial font will cover the characters that it contains, and the Gentium font would take over on the letters with diacritics. It will make it pretty unattractive, but that's better than having little boxes show up! I would definitely go along with downloading the Gentium font package. Also, if he can get his hands on Palatino Linotype, that would help him out too. (I thought Palatino Linotype came standard with XP, though. If he has Palatino Linotype and it doesn't show the Greek characters on his system, it may be because it is designated SERIF rather than SANS-SERIF. The stylesheet limits the display to SANS-SERIF fonts. This might also rule out Gentium, but it's worth a try!)
Jason Hare
jaihare@gmail.com

τοὺς θεοὺς εὔχομαί σοι διδόναι ὑγίειαν καὶ σωτηρίαν καὶ ἀγαθὰ πολλά.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Israel

Re: study a NT book

Postby Bert » Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:38 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:
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."
I think I get it. He is not directly speaking about Christ, nor is he directly speaking about the message but he is speaking about the evidence, the proofs, that the living Word is in the flesh. We saw, looked at, touched and felt. That makes sense. That also gives a more satisfying explanation for the neuter pronoun.
modus.irrealis wrote:

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...

I guess it is strange and I don't think I can explain it.
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Fri May 01, 2009 1:04 am

Bert

you quoted:

I think I get it. He is not directly speaking about Christ, nor is he directly speaking about the message but he is speaking about the evidence, the proofs, that the living Word is in the flesh. We saw, looked at, touched and felt. That makes sense. That also gives a more satisfying explanation for the neuter pronoun.


Very well said!

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Fri May 01, 2009 1:08 am

ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς

I was wondering! Why did the writer choose the term ἦν in this text?

It has been said that this is a verb of being. In what ways does it influence the term ἀρχῆς?

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby sid4greek » Fri May 01, 2009 9:50 am

GTM wrote:Bert

you quoted:

I think I get it. He is not directly speaking about Christ, nor is he directly speaking about the message but he is speaking about the evidence, the proofs, that the living Word is in the flesh. We saw, looked at, touched and felt. That makes sense. That also gives a more satisfying explanation for the neuter pronoun.


Very well said!

GTM



I agree with you, too!
phpbb
sid4greek
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:15 am

Re: study a NT book

Postby sid4greek » Fri May 01, 2009 10:16 am

GTM wrote: ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς

I was wondering! Why did the writer choose the term ἦν in this text?

It has been said that this is a verb of being. In what ways does it influence the term ἀρχῆς?

GTM



mmmm....interesting point here: I've had a look at different translations:

a) in English (NIV)= was
b) in Spanish (Nacar-Colunga)= era [was]
c) in Catalan (SBU) =existia [existed]
d) in Latin = fuit [has been]

if in the Greek text we have "en", it does make sense to translate it as "was", but how come Latin uses a "present perfect"?
If we are talking about the message, which is defined by the nueter relative pronoun, then using a a "present perfect" would make sense since we are talking about an event starting in the past (the message) which has consequences for the present.


As far as I'm concerned, Greek doesn't have a specific form for our "present perfect", so do you think that the past form of the verb to be in Greek (en) could also be translated as either "was" or "has been" dependng on the context. If so, I'd be inclined to translate it as "has been" since
(i) the following verbs in the verse seem to have been expressed in the "present perfect" (have seen/have heard).
(ii) the present perfect fits better with "arché" since it highlights the fact that the message started some time ago and is still present now.
phpbb
sid4greek
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:15 am

Re: study a NT book

Postby jaihare » Fri May 01, 2009 10:19 am

GTM wrote: ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς

I was wondering! Why did the writer choose the term ἦν in this text?

It has been said that this is a verb of being. In what ways does it influence the term ἀρχῆς?

GTM

Strangely enough, I would read this as a perfect in English: "what has been from the beginning." The appearance of ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς gives me the feeling of "was then and still is," which to me is the perfect sense — not "what was from the beginning" but "what has been from the beginning."

I don't know what you mean about ἦν having an "influence" on the object of the preposition. I mean, technically this prepositional phrase is subordinate to the verb phrase ([Τ [NP' [Pro-Rel ὁ]][VP [V ἦν][PrepP [Prep ἀπ᾿][NP [N ἀρχῆς]]]]]]), but it doesn't have any "influence" on it at all. What do you mean exactly?
Jason Hare
jaihare@gmail.com

τοὺς θεοὺς εὔχομαί σοι διδόναι ὑγίειαν καὶ σωτηρίαν καὶ ἀγαθὰ πολλά.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Israel

Re: study a NT book

Postby jaihare » Fri May 01, 2009 10:25 am

sid4greek wrote:mmmm....interesting point here: I've had a look at different translations:

a) in English (NIV)= was
b) in Spanish (Nacar-Colunga)= era [was]
c) in Catalan (SBU) =existia [existed]
d) in Latin = fuit [has been]

if in the Greek text we have "en", it does make sense to translate it as "was", but how come Latin uses a "present perfect"?
If we are talking about the message, which is defined by the nueter relative pronoun, then using a a "present perfect" would make sense since we are talking about an event starting in the past (the message) which has consequences for the present.


As far as I'm concerned, Greek doesn't have a specific form for our "present perfect", so do you think that the past form of the verb to be in Greek (en) could also be translated as either "was" or "has been" dependng on the context. If so, I'd be inclined to translate it as "has been" since
(i) the following verbs in the verse seem to have been expressed in the "present perfect" (have seen/have heard).
(ii) the present perfect fits better with "arché" since it highlights the fact that the message started some time ago and is still present now.

Hey, Sid. We were typing up our responses at the same time. I would go with the present perfect here, as I said just above. I don't think that the present perfect fits with ἀρχή necessarily, but definitely with the sense of ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, since it is expressing something that the author sees as being "from the beginning" but also still existing. In English, I wouldn't say that in the past. You know?

These other translations are probably trying to maintain some kind of allegiance to the Greek tense in their rendering, which is completely unnecessary when making sensible translations.
Jason Hare
jaihare@gmail.com

τοὺς θεοὺς εὔχομαί σοι διδόναι ὑγίειαν καὶ σωτηρίαν καὶ ἀγαθὰ πολλά.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Israel

Re: study a NT book

Postby sid4greek » Fri May 01, 2009 2:25 pm

jaihare wrote:
sid4greek wrote:mmmm....interesting point here: I've had a look at different translations:

a) in English (NIV)= was
b) in Spanish (Nacar-Colunga)= era [was]
c) in Catalan (SBU) =existia [existed]
d) in Latin = fuit [has been]

if in the Greek text we have "en", it does make sense to translate it as "was", but how come Latin uses a "present perfect"?
If we are talking about the message, which is defined by the nueter relative pronoun, then using a a "present perfect" would make sense since we are talking about an event starting in the past (the message) which has consequences for the present.


As far as I'm concerned, Greek doesn't have a specific form for our "present perfect", so do you think that the past form of the verb to be in Greek (en) could also be translated as either "was" or "has been" dependng on the context. If so, I'd be inclined to translate it as "has been" since
(i) the following verbs in the verse seem to have been expressed in the "present perfect" (have seen/have heard).
(ii) the present perfect fits better with "arché" since it highlights the fact that the message started some time ago and is still present now.

Hey, Sid. We were typing up our responses at the same time. I would go with the present perfect here, as I said just above. I don't think that the present perfect fits with ἀρχή necessarily, but definitely with the sense of ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, since it is expressing something that the author sees as being "from the beginning" but also still existing. In English, I wouldn't say that in the past. You know?

These other translations are probably trying to maintain some kind of allegiance to the Greek tense in their rendering, which is completely unnecessary when making sensible translations.



oh what a coincidence
:lol:

I guess that the present perfect form in English already includes the idea of "arche", so it would be either:

what has been....
what was from the beginning...

perhaps if we use the present perfect plus "from the beginning", we are just putting more emphasis on the time frame of the sentence "from the beginning to now".

cheers
phpbb
sid4greek
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:15 am

Re: study a NT book

Postby modus.irrealis » Fri May 01, 2009 7:42 pm

It's interesting that later on (2:7) there's ἐντολὴν παλαιὰν ἣν εἴχετε ἀπ’ άρχῆς, where some translations "which you have had from the beginning." And this use of the imperfect is mentioned in Burton's Moods and Tenses of New Testament Greek (#28). So it may just be an issue of translation.

But it does seem kind of odd (for me) that the imperfect would be used that way. The normal tense for things that started in the past but continue into the present is the present tense, as in 3:8 ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει where lots of translations have a present perfect, e.g. "has been sinning from the beginning." I think the use of the imperfect must put some focus on some time in the past.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: study a NT book

Postby sid4greek » Fri May 01, 2009 9:30 pm

I agree with you modus.irrealis

:?
phpbb
sid4greek
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:15 am

Re: study a NT book

Postby modus.irrealis » Mon May 04, 2009 6:23 pm

I'm not sure how quickly we're moving through the epistle, but since it's been a little quiet I thought I could skip a few verses and ask about 1:6.

What exactly does ποιειν την αληθηειαν mean?

The only other place I found in the NT is John 3:20-21 where ο ποιων την αληθειαν is contrasted with ο φαυλα πρασσων so it would seem do mean something like "do what is right". But in 1:6 it seems to me to make more sense if it meant "not say the truth" and thus be repeating ψευδομεθα. But I don't know.

Edit: I thought it might be a semitism and a google search seems to confirm that. And I was led to Gen. 47:29 και ποιησεις επ' εμε ελεημοσυνην και αληθειαν and Neh. 9:33 αληθειαν εποιησας, and although translation seem to differ a bit, it seems that it means something like "act faithfully". Is that right?

And could the presence of the article make any difference? Is their an article in the Hebrew?
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: study a NT book

Postby jaihare » Mon May 04, 2009 7:50 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:I'm not sure how quickly we're moving through the epistle, but since it's been a little quiet I thought I could skip a few verses and ask about 1:6.

What exactly does ποιειν την αληθηειαν mean?

The only other place I found in the NT is John 3:20-21 where ο ποιων την αληθειαν is contrasted with ο φαυλα πρασσων so it would seem do mean something like "do what is right". But in 1:6 it seems to me to make more sense if it meant "not say the truth" and thus be repeating ψευδομεθα. But I don't know.

Edit: I thought it might be a semitism and a google search seems to confirm that. And I was led to Gen. 47:29 και ποιησεις επ' εμε ελεημοσυνην και αληθειαν and Neh. 9:33 αληθειαν εποιησας, and although translation seem to differ a bit, it seems that it means something like "act faithfully". Is that right?

And could the presence of the article make any difference? Is their an article in the Hebrew?

I would probably understand it as a semitism, too. It would correspond in Hebrew to לעשות אמת (la'asot emet) — as it is found in both Neh. 9:33 (אמת עשית - "you have done truth") and Gen. 27:29 (ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת - "and do with me faithfulness and truth"). The Genesis reference confirms what I would take it as — that is, that the noun takes on an adverbial quality and tells how one deals with his fellow.

Thus, for me, it means that you deal with people truthfully. You do not deceive others or (in this case) ourselves. The exact phrase οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν would mean that we are not acting truthfully, meaning that we are simply deceiving ourselves or lying to ourselves.

What do you think?

ἔρρωσθε,
Ἰήσων
Jason Hare
jaihare@gmail.com

τοὺς θεοὺς εὔχομαί σοι διδόναι ὑγίειαν καὶ σωτηρίαν καὶ ἀγαθὰ πολλά.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Israel

Re: study a NT book

Postby modus.irrealis » Mon May 04, 2009 8:56 pm

Thanks. That makes sense in both contexts.

I also found in Proverbs 12:22 ο ποιων πιστεις. Does the Hebrew have "truth" there?
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: study a NT book

Postby jaihare » Mon May 04, 2009 9:11 pm

modus.irrealis wrote:Thanks. That makes sense in both contexts.

I also found in Proverbs 12:22 ο ποιων πιστεις. Does the Hebrew have "truth" there?

It's similar. There are similarities between all of these expressions of "do" (ποιέω/עשה) and some noun expression. Just in the exchange in this thread, we have already seen three:

ποιεω πιστεις - לעשות אמונה (from Prov. 12:22) = "deal truthfully"
ποιεω την αληθειαν - לעשות אמת = "deal truthfully"
ποιεω ελεημοσυνην - לעשות חסד = "deal faithfully/mercifully" (This is like the phrase in the Ten Commandments, also.)

It really seems that "doing X" (when X is an abstract noun) can be translated from Hebrew as "deal with someone in an X way." I hadn't really thought about this aspect of Hebrew, though it has come up in verses time and again. I just never went into it. I appreciate the fresh look at the expression. :)
Jason Hare
jaihare@gmail.com

τοὺς θεοὺς εὔχομαί σοι διδόναι ὑγίειαν καὶ σωτηρίαν καὶ ἀγαθὰ πολλά.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Israel

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Tue May 05, 2009 2:45 am

modus.irrealis

you asked:
What exactly does ποιειν την αληθηειαν mean?


Is it possible that this(ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν) was an idiom and the native speakers could have understood it several ways?

Just a thought?

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby sid4greek » Tue May 05, 2009 11:27 pm

GTM wrote:modus.irrealis

you asked:
What exactly does ποιειν την αληθηειαν mean?


Is it possible that this(ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν) was an idiom and the native speakers could have understood it several ways?

Just a thought?

GTM


oú ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν = not do the truth

Latin also: non facimus veritatem

looks like an idom...

the Catalan version translates this part as "no viuríem d'acord amb la veritat" (we would not live according to the truth).

as for this being an idiom, if this is an idiom it should not have different meanings, just one (e.g. "to feel under the weather" is an idiom and it's the same for everyone who speaks English)
phpbb
sid4greek
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:15 am

Re: study a NT book

Postby Bert » Wed May 06, 2009 1:35 am

Doing the truth sounds foreign but practicing the truth sounds natural.
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Re: study a NT book

Postby jaihare » Wed May 06, 2009 11:42 am

sid4greek wrote:oú ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν = not do the truth

Latin also: non facimus veritatem

looks like an idom...

the Catalan version translates this part as "no viuríem d'acord amb la veritat" (we would not live according to the truth).

as for this being an idiom, if this is an idiom it should not have different meanings, just one (e.g. "to feel under the weather" is an idiom and it's the same for everyone who speaks English)

As we were saying above, it appears time and again in the Hebrew Bible. It is surely a Hebraism, since it appears in the Septuagint also. This could be discounted if anyone could find a reference for ποιεω την αληθειαν outside of Jewish/Christian religious writings — that is, uninfluenced Greek literature. Do you know of any?
Jason Hare
jaihare@gmail.com

τοὺς θεοὺς εὔχομαί σοι διδόναι ὑγίειαν καὶ σωτηρίαν καὶ ἀγαθὰ πολλά.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Israel

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Fri May 08, 2009 11:48 pm

jaihare wrote:
sid4greek wrote:oú ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν = not do the truth

Latin also: non facimus veritatem

looks like an idom...

the Catalan version translates this part as "no viuríem d'acord amb la veritat" (we would not live according to the truth).

as for this being an idiom, if this is an idiom it should not have different meanings, just one (e.g. "to feel under the weather" is an idiom and it's the same for everyone who speaks English)

As we were saying above, it appears time and again in the Hebrew Bible. It is surely a Hebraism, since it appears in the Septuagint also. This could be discounted if anyone could find a reference for ποιεω την αληθειαν outside of Jewish/Christian religious writings — that is, uninfluenced Greek literature. Do you know of any?



I am out of town this week and am not in front of my computer. While I agree that an idiom might have onlyI believe that it can be used in various applications. I believe that the writer had a interesting idea when he made this statement. But since I find it difficult to use this computer I will wait until Tuesday when I am in front of my system.


God Bless

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Thu May 14, 2009 2:25 am

jaihare,

One more thought on idioms before I go in a different direction

This one is: keep tabs on.

This idiom clearly could be used in various ways. Here are a couple possibilities

To watch a Child.
To control a Bank account.

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Thu May 14, 2009 2:28 am

ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς

ἦν is a verb of being. Should it be understood that this text implies, based on the word usage here, that ἀρχῆς suggests a time before creation?

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby sid4greek » Thu May 14, 2009 9:17 am

GTM wrote:jaihare,

One more thought on idioms before I go in a different direction

This one is: keep tabs on.

This idiom clearly could be used in various ways. Here are a couple possibilities

To watch a Child.
To control a Bank account.

GTM


sure, but the core meaning remains the same...TO CONTROL STH/SB
phpbb
sid4greek
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:15 am

Re: study a NT book

Postby Bert » Thu May 14, 2009 10:31 pm

GTM wrote: ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς

ἦν is a verb of being. Should it be understood that this text implies, based on the word usage here, that ἀρχῆς suggests a time before creation?

GTM

We sort of came to the conclusion that the focus of this verse was not so much Christ but the evidence that Christ is the Word come in the flesh. If we were correct in this than I don't think ἀπ' ἀρχῆς would mean from before creation. The incarnation wasn't "from before creation" so that which we have heard, which we have seen... which we looked upon and have touched etc wasn't present from before creation. However, I am not comfortable with saying that ἀπ' ἀρχῆς refers to the birth of Christ or to the conception. I hope someone can shed some light on it.
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Thu May 14, 2009 10:44 pm

Bert

Thank you for your reply.

We sort of came to the conclusion that the focus of this verse was not so much Christ but the evidence that Christ is the Word come in the flesh. If we were correct in this than I don't think ἀπ' ἀρχῆς would mean from before creation. The incarnation wasn't "from before creation" so that which we have heard, which we have seen... which we looked upon and have touched etc wasn't present from before creation. However, I am not comfortable with saying that ἀπ' ἀρχῆς refers to the birth of Christ or to the conception. I hope someone can shed some light on it.


The verb form here (ἦν) is a form of eimi which is in the imperfect tense which implies an abiding state in the past. If the writer were speaking of something that came into being, it would seem as if the writer would use the verb form ginomai. But then again maybe not.

But you are right. We must wait for others to weigh in and maybe we can make sense of this.

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby Bert » Fri May 15, 2009 9:07 pm

GTM wrote:
The verb form here (ἦν) is a form of eimi which is in the imperfect tense which implies an abiding state in the past. If the writer were speaking of something that came into being, it would seem as if the writer would use the verb form ginomai.

GTM

Yes. That also makes me uncomfortable with our conclusion that ̔́ο refers to the evidence and not to Christ.
The Son of God has always existed. ἦν fits well for that, but ̔́ο doesn't make much sense there. ̔́ο makes sense if the subject is the evidence of the incarnation but then ̓̀ην ἀπʼ ἀρχ́ης is hard to explain.
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Fri May 15, 2009 10:05 pm

Bert

Yes. That also makes me uncomfortable with our conclusion that ̔́ο refers to the evidence and not to Christ.


It certainly creates some difficulties and I would be interested to hear what others have to say about this difficulty.

The Son of God has always existed. ἦν fits well for that, but ̔́ο doesn't make much sense there. ̔́ο makes sense if the subject is the evidence of the incarnation but then ̓̀ην ἀπʼ ἀρχ́ης is hard to explain.


I think that we must come to the conclusion that this text transcends our original idea in some way. I believe that our original idea is right but maybe it isn't complete. :?

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby modus.irrealis » Sat May 16, 2009 2:16 pm

I don't understand the difficulty here. The Greek seems a lot like the English "that which was from the start" which seems to me to work with any interpretation. It still seems to me that the emphasis is on the author's message being the same as the original message and not having been changed, i.e. being the one that was from the start.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Sat May 16, 2009 3:46 pm

modus.irrealis

I don't understand the difficulty here. The Greek seems a lot like the English "that which was from the start" which seems to me to work with any interpretation. It still seems to me that the emphasis is on the author's message being the same as the original message and not having been changed, i.e. being the one that was from the start.


There seemed to be a consensus in earlier posts that the neuter pronoun in verse 1 implied "things about" rather than" He who was. ". We then move to the eimi in an imperfect form which imples preexistence.

The question that I present to you is, how did what they hear and they saw, preexist the life of those that heard it?

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby sid4greek » Sat May 16, 2009 6:26 pm

GTM wrote:modus.irrealis

I don't understand the difficulty here. The Greek seems a lot like the English "that which was from the start" which seems to me to work with any interpretation. It still seems to me that the emphasis is on the author's message being the same as the original message and not having been changed, i.e. being the one that was from the start.


There seemed to be a consensus in earlier posts that the neuter pronoun in verse 1 implied "things about" rather than" He who was. ". We then move to the eimi in an imperfect form which imples preexistence.

The question that I present to you is, how did what they hear and they saw, preexist the life of those that heard it?

GTM



perhaps the writer is referring to both the things they have seen with their own eyes concerning the message and the things they have heard/read in Scripture (Old Testament)...., which all points to the same person/message (Christ)
phpbb
sid4greek
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:15 am

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Sat May 16, 2009 7:02 pm

sid4greek

perhaps the writer is referring to both the things they have seen with their own eyes concerning the message and the things they have heard/read in Scripture (Old Testament)...., which all points to the same person/message (Christ)


That is a good possibility.

I was also thinking that the main idea in the first 4 verses of 1 John 1 is seen in verse 3 ὃ— ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν,

I believe that they main idea is the ἀπαγγέλλομεν or the proclamation. In many other text we see that the Gospel message included Christ and weren't just about Christ. Paul said I preach Christ crucified.

1 Corinthians 1:23-24.
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The main theme in 1 John 1 is the message which could conceivably be a neuter form and we might also be forced to assume that they (the recipients of this letter) already knew that the message was Christ. This would go a long way in resolving the word conflict in verse 1.
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby modus.irrealis » Sat May 16, 2009 11:17 pm

GTM wrote:There seemed to be a consensus in earlier posts that the neuter pronoun in verse 1 implied "things about" rather than" He who was. ". We then move to the eimi in an imperfect form which imples preexistence.

The question that I present to you is, how did what they hear and they saw, preexist the life of those that heard it?

Why preexistance, though? I don't see why that's implied.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: study a NT book

Postby Bert » Sun May 17, 2009 12:21 am

modus.irrealis wrote:
GTM wrote:There seemed to be a consensus in earlier posts that the neuter pronoun in verse 1 implied "things about" rather than" He who was. ". We then move to the eimi in an imperfect form which imples preexistence.

The question that I present to you is, how did what they hear and they saw, preexist the life of those that heard it?

Why preexistance, though? I don't see why that's implied.

ἀπʼ ἀρχ́ης does imply (in my mind anyways) the beginning of time rather than the beginning of the incarnation. We sort of came to the conclusion that ̔́ο refers to the evidence of the Word having come in the flesh. The Word came in the flesh during the generation of the writer; it certainly was not ἀπʼ ἀρχ́ης.
So maybe our original conclusion was wrong.
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Re: study a NT book

Postby GTM » Sun May 17, 2009 2:08 am

Bert

your said:

ἀπʼ ἀρχ́ης does imply (in my mind anyways) the beginning of time rather than the beginning of the incarnation.


I agree! I kicked the dust off of some of my old books and Wuest and several others seem to think this way also.

But, I could be wrong and I am very interested in what the scholarson this forum understand this text to mean.

GTM
GTM
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Postby modus.irrealis » Sun May 17, 2009 3:46 am

I associate this use of ἀπ' ἀρχῆς with its use in 2:7, 2:24, and 3:11, where ἀρχή seems to refer to some recent period, perhaps the start of the ministry to the group the letter is addressed to. ἀρχή can of course refer to the beginning, but I don't see anything in 1:1 that forces such an interpretation.

My own understanding is that he's proclaiming what was from the start in the sense that nothing is changed, what he's proclaiming is the same as the original message. I can see other ways of interpreting it, but I was convinced by the idea that the emphasis here is on establishing the authenticity of what is being proclaimed. It would be nice to know more about the external context of the letter -- I get the feeling that it's a response of sorts but we don't have the points that are being responded to, which may have made interpreting the letter easier.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

PreviousNext

Return to Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests