my name's Sidney; I have just registered and I was wondering whether someone is interested in starting to study a NT book verse by verse....
all the best
sidney

I'd love to lead this study, but I know by no means enough Greek to do so. Also, it doesn't really matter to me what book we're going to study.
GTM wrote:Ramses
quoteI'd love to lead this study, but I know by no means enough Greek to do so. Also, it doesn't really matter to me what book we're going to study.
I have no problem with you heading this study up. I am sure that those who are more polished in the Greek than I am will offer us guidance in this study. I would say, let's pick a text and begin.
GTM
GTM wrote:Let's start here:
ὃ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς,
ὃ = Relative pronoun, nominative singular neuter.
What was from the beginning. I guess the question I would have is, "why did the writer begin in this manner"? It seems as if the author wasn't speaking of Christ because if the writer were speaking of Christ would he not have written, "He who was from the beginning"? But then we see that which we have heard and seen and looked upon and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life.
GTM
Maybe he is not speaking directly about Christ but about something(s) concerning (περ́ι )him.
̔́ο does get used as personal too. Have a look at John 6:37 Πᾶν ̔́ο(accusative singular neuter) δ́ιδωσ́ιν μοι ὁ (nominative singular masculine) πατὴρ πρ̀ος ἐμ̀ε ̔́ηξει,
What are the reasons for taking λόγος here to be "Word"? That seems to be the mainstream reading, but I read it as just meaning "message" or something similar and so the relative clauses here would simply refer to things about the message of life. Grammatically at least, since as far as I can tell the author would have identified the message with eternal life with love and finally with Christ, so that directly or indirectly, Christ is being referred to.
You asked:
Does anyone think there is any significance to the use of the aorist with εθεασαμεθα and εψηλαφησαν? I was tempted to read them as meaning something different, as referring to specific historical events while the perfects were a more general "we have experienced as Christians".
Does anyone think there is any significance to the use of the aorist
GTM wrote:Second : εθεασαμεθα and εψηλαφησαν from other scriptures could lead us towards the conclusion that this segment was more in line with after Christs death and resurrection. They looked upon Him. It wasn't just a casual glance but it was a look of amazement. Then we have the John 20 event. Thomas touched Christs hands and said, "My Lord and My God".
My understanding of εθεασαμεθα and εψηλαφησαν is that they are in an indicative form.(first person aorist middle indicative plural). I am also under the impression that in the indicative form time is a consideration. I may be wrong and welcome correction on this idea. SO I do believe that the aorist tense here speaks of this second set of ideas as something different than the first and probably they happened at a different point in time.
I wonder if you both are missing something; The message is not just a message about the things concerning the message of life but concerning the message of Life.GTM wrote:modus.irrealis
You asked:What are the reasons for taking λόγος here to be "Word"? That seems to be the mainstream reading, but I read it as just meaning "message" or something similar and so the relative clauses here would simply refer to things about the message of life. Grammatically at least, since as far as I can tell the author would have identified the message with eternal life with love and finally with Christ, so that directly or indirectly, Christ is being referred to.
It seems to me that the author used the "ὃ" at lease three times. I am not sure if it was done for emphasis or if it were this writers style but it seems as if it was an attempt to convey the message. I agree with your assertion that this text is about the things concerning (peri) the message of life.
modus.irrealis wrote:.......... The thing for me was that the translations I looked at were translating the aorist as perfects as well. Now I know that there are many cases where a Greek aorist is equivalent to an English perfect, but I can't help but think that here the change in tense does make some difference.
you wrote:εθεασαμεθα and εψηλαφησαν from other scriptures could lead us towards the conclusion that this segment was more in line with after Christs death and resurrection. They looked upon Him. It wasn't just a casual glance but it was a look of amazement. Then we have the John 20 event. Thomas touched Christs hands and said, "My Lord and My God".
I hadn't thought about the importance of the difference tenses before but you may be right.I was tempted to read them as meaning something different, as referring to specific historical events while the perfects were a more general "we have experienced as Christians".
You quoted:
I wonder if you both are missing something; The message is not just a message about the things concerning the message of life but concerning the message of Life.
you wrote
That makes sense. It does seem that the wording here would allude to the resurrection.
GTM wrote:Let's start here:
ὃ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς,
ὃ = Relative pronoun, nominative singular neuter.
What was from the beginning. I guess the question I would have is, "why did the writer begin in this manner"? It seems as if the author wasn't speaking of Christ because if the writer were speaking of Christ would he not have written, "He who was from the beginning"? But then we see that which we have heard and seen and looked upon and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life.
GTM
you said:
That makes sense. It does seem that the wording here would allude to the resurrection.
Bert wrote:I wonder if you both are missing something; The message is not just a message about the things concerning the message of life but concerning the message of Life.
και η ζωη εφανερωθη και εωρακαμεν και μαρτυρουμεν και απαγγελλομεν υμιν την ζωην την αιωνιον ητις ην προς τον πατερα και εφανερωθη ημιν.
This Life was manifested to us and was seen.
sid4greek wrote:after sme changes in the control panel I can see some of the characters (Greek Polytonic) but I am still getting small squares between the characters....
for instance I can't see what the box is:
quote: "It seems to me that the author used the "ὃ" at lease three times"
cheers
GTM wrote:As we continue to unravel this text, it seems to me that if this text is about the Gospel Message then it would be more than just likely that the Death and Resurrection would be included as in integral part of that message. What Gospel message is complete with out it?
GTM wrote:Bert
You quoted:
I wonder if you both are missing something; The message is not just a message about the things concerning the message of life but concerning the message of Life.
I think that is an excellent thought. It seem to give a fuller understanding to the ideas in the first verse.
Just out of curiosity,how would you define the message of life?
GTM
modus.irrealis wrote:Bert wrote:I wonder if you both are missing something; The message is not just a message about the things concerning the message of life but concerning the message of Life.
και η ζωη εφανερωθη και εωρακαμεν και μαρτυρουμεν και απαγγελλομεν υμιν την ζωην την αιωνιον ητις ην προς τον πατερα και εφανερωθη ημιν.
This Life was manifested to us and was seen.
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 mean, I kind of see it as the author saying (ignoring the parenthetical verse 2) "Concerning the message of life (= Gospel), we declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our own eyes, what we beheld and what our hands touched, so that..." So in my reading, the initial ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς would not be personal (referring to the Son of God as existing from the beginning) but referring to their declaration being unchanged and being the same as the original gospel -- this idea seems to recur later in the epistle (2:7 e.g.). So the emphasis would be on what the author is declaring about the gospel, rather than about Chirst directly. I did some reading and some suggest the author here is establishing the authenticity of his message and there's an emphasis on being an eye-witness. But the grammar here seems to allow different interpretations (one commentary I found called it "grammatically incoherent"!), so I'm not sure.
* That also reminds me of one the reasons I found the translation of λόγος as "Word" a bit odd, since "Word" suggests to me that the translator took λόγος here to refer to Christ, but it's the ζωή that was manifested and which seems to be identified with Christ.
modus.irrealis wrote:It looks like a font problem, since I see the Greek character correctly in your post. If you don't have a font that has the Greek characters, you can download Gentium for free at http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page ... id=gentium and it's nice. If you do, then it's just a matter of getting your browser to use that font. What browser are you using? Newer ones usually substitute another font for characters that the current font lacks, so if you do have a font with Greek characters but have an older browser, updating your browser alone might work.
.content {
font-size: 11pt;
line-height: 14pt;
margin-bottom: 1em;
font-family: "Lucida Grande", "Trebuchet MS", Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
overflow: hidden;
}modus.irrealis wrote:Bert wrote:I wonder if you both are missing something; The message is not just a message about the things concerning the message of life but concerning the message of Life.
και η ζωη εφανερωθη και εωρακαμεν και μαρτυρουμεν και απαγγελλομεν υμιν την ζωην την αιωνιον ητις ην προς τον πατερα και εφανερωθη ημιν.
This Life was manifested to us and was seen.
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 mean, I kind of see it as the author saying (ignoring the parenthetical verse 2) "Concerning the message of life (= Gospel), we declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our own eyes, what we beheld and what our hands touched, so that..." So in my reading, the initial ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς would not be personal (referring to the Son of God as existing from the beginning) but referring to their declaration being unchanged and being the same as the original gospel -- this idea seems to recur later in the epistle (2:7 e.g.). So the emphasis would be on what the author is declaring about the gospel, rather than about Chirst directly. I did some reading and some suggest the author here is establishing the authenticity of his message and there's an emphasis on being an eye-witness. But the grammar here seems to allow different interpretations (one commentary I found called it "grammatically incoherent"!), so I'm not sure.
* That also reminds me of one the reasons I found the translation of λόγος as "Word" a bit odd, since "Word" suggests to me that the translator took λόγος here to refer to Christ, but it's the ζωή that was manifested and which seems to be identified with Christ.
jaihare wrote:The only problem is that the forum is set for Arial to be the default Greek font.
Return to Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests