study a NT book

[GTM]

sid4greek

rightio...I'll do that as well to the best of my ability

Looking forward to your response.

Bubba

[GTM]

sid4greek

ο ηκουσατε απ αρχης 1 John 2:24

This is interesting. Did the writer have the Gospel Message in mind at this point in time. We see some what of a reverse order here? heard from the beginning verses what was from the beginning you heard.

I wonder what the implications are here?

ο ην απ αρχης ο ακηκοαμεν ο εωρακαμεν 1 John 1:1

In 1 John 1:1 we see the writer speaking of the idea of the historical fact of Christ but in light of 1 John 2:24 that idea might change.

GTM

[GTM]

kjsdfh23

Would be a great idea!

Could you expand on that thought?

GTM

[sid4greek]

sid4greek

ο ηκουσατε απ αρχης 1 John 2:24

This is interesting. Did the writer have the Gospel Message in mind at this point in time. We see some what of a reverse order here? heard from the beginning verses what was from the beginning you heard.

I wonder what the implications are here?

ο ην απ αρχης ο ακηκοαμεν ο εωρακαμεν 1 John 1:1

In 1 John 1:1 we see the writer speaking of the idea of the historical fact of Christ but in light of 1 John 2:24 that idea might change.

GTM

having reread 1 john 1:1

KJV 1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

and 2:24

24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.


I still think that "the neuter relative pronoun" would be referring to both Christ as a historical figure and his message/gospel. the author seems to move between the two options since Christ and his words are the same thing. It is true that a neuter relative pronoun cannot refer to a person, but here we have an example of how an author refers to a person by way of his actions (heard and seen)

[GTM]

sid4greek

the author seems to move between the two options since Christ and his words are the same thing

That is an excellent thought.

Thanks for the insight.

GTM

[jaihare]

still remains about what ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς was referring to in 1 John 1:1 and 2:24.
In 1:1, some have said that it refers to the beginning of the world. I think 2:24 and 1:1 refer to the same thing -- the inception of Christian faith both individually and collectively. These letters were written late in the first Century, and they were probably referring back to the beginning of the Christian message, those things which transpired early on regarding Jesus' life and death. He's encouraging the people to hold on to the original message rather than being carried off by what he called "antichrists" (ἀντίχριστοι) in 2:18, which would come and deny that Jesus existed in the flesh (2 John 1:7) and/or that he was the Christ (1 John 2:22). John's goal must have been to keep them faithful to the original message, what they had heard "from the beginning (of their believing)" and what was the message of Christianity "from the beginning" (i.e., from the time that the apostles saw and heard Jesus and witnessed what was going on at that time).

What do you think?

[GTM]

jaihare

still remains about what ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς was referring to in 1 John 1:1

I believe that it means the time before time which was when the Father and the Son were in intimate relationship before Creation began.

First: In the Gospel we see a sequence in the prologue. It begins with "εν αρχη " . It then speaks of the relationship between the Father and the Son.(Verse 1) "και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον" or "And the Word was with God". (Verse 2) the same was in the Beginning with God.(ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον) After that we see an account of creation. "δι αυτου" Jesus was the secondary agency by which creation was accomplished.

Since John was a writer who seems to want to keep things in order I would assume that this was a parrel to Genesis in a sense but with more understanding.

Second: 1 John 1:2 (Westcott Hort) ην προς τον πατερα is a perfect example.

According to Vincent "ην προς τον πατερα" speaks of eternity of relationship.

The preposition of motion with the verb or repose involves eternity.

GTM

[jaihare]

jaihare

still remains about what ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς was referring to in 1 John 1:1

I believe that it means the time before time which was when the Father and the Son were in intimate relationship before Creation began.

First: In the Gospel we see a sequence in the prologue. It begins with "εν αρχη " . It then speaks of the relationship between the Father and the Son.(Verse 1) "και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον" or "And the Word was with God". (Verse 2) the same was in the Beginning with God.(ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον) After that we see an account of creation. "δι αυτου" Jesus was the secondary agency by which creation was accomplished.

Since John was a writer who seems to want to keep things in order I would assume that this was a parrel to Genesis in a sense but with more understanding.

Second: 1 John 1:2 (Westcott Hort) ην προς τον πατερα is a perfect example.

According to Vincent "ην προς τον πατερα" speaks of eternity of relationship.

The preposition of motion with the verb or repose involves eternity.

GTM

Wow, I don't see that at all. It's amazing how we two can look at the same text and get such a different impression of it.

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.

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have beheld and our hands have touched concerning the word of life – and life has been revealed, and we have seen and are testifying and are announcing to you the eternal life which was with the father and has been revealed to us – what we have seen and heard, we proclaim also to you, so that you also might have fellowship with us."

I don't deny that this sentence has "life" as existing "in the beginning with the father", but the ὃ in each instance seems to be their own testimony -- what they have seen and heard and felt and touched and beheld. It is the basis of his own faith. The author is saying, "I know this because I've seen it, I've touched it, I've felt it." But it's certainly not true that the author was in the beginning. I think this "beginning" is referring to the beginning of the Christian account -- since the author is basically saying, "I was there in the beginning when this happened, and my eyes have seen it." The reason for the proclamation to the audience is so that they can share the expereince with those who actually had it first-hand.

"So that you might have fellowship" doesn't mean "so that we can eat bread and share together". It means "so that what I've experienced you can also experience -- and we will have this in common". The introduction is set up to cement the author's right to act as a witness to events that he saw in the beginning of the Christian era and has absolutely nothing to do with eternity. The only reference to eternity is when he mentions "eternal life" and says that it was "with the father", which is perfectly acceptable in this parenthetical without destroying the flow of the string of relative clauses.

I also don't see the value of using John 1:1 to interpret 1 John. They don't seem to be speaking of the same thing.

That's my take, anyway.

Thanks for the feedback.

Jason

[GTM]

but the ὃ in each instance seems to be their own testimony -- what they have seen and heard and felt and touched and beheld. It is the basis of his own faith. The author is saying, "I know this because I've seen it, I've touched it, I've felt it."

I agree! The statement seems to be a statement of reinforcement and strength. They heard Him first hand.They say the Christ in the flesh. They touched Him with their own hands and they saw Him after the resurrection. This is their testimony.

But it's certainly not true that the author was in the beginning.

I agree! However I understand the ο ην απ αρχης as being a type of direct object in apposition to απαγγελλομεν.

I think this "beginning" is referring to the beginning of the Christian account -- since the author is basically saying, "I was there in the beginning when this happened, and my eyes have seen it." The reason for the proclamation to the audience is so that they can share the experience with those who actually had it first-hand.

(In regards to the beginning) I believe that over the years this has been a highly debated topic by scholars. I have studied several views and It could go either way in my opinion.

Vincent makes this statement:

ην προς τον πατερα is a perfect example. According to Vincent "ην προς τον πατερα" speaks of eternity of relationship.The preposition of motion with the verb or repose involves eternity.

"So that you might have fellowship" doesn't mean "so that we can eat bread and share together". It means "so that what I've experienced you can also experience -- and we will have this in common". The introduction is set up to cement the author's right to act as a witness to events that he saw in the beginning of the Christian era and has absolutely nothing to do with eternity

.

This is one of those arguments that has been made in one of the many studies that I have done on the subject. I agree that it is a strong argument. But in light of what Vincent claims, eternity is in view in the mind of the writer.

The only reference to eternity is when he mentions "eternal life" and says that it was "with the father", which is perfectly acceptable in this parenthetical without destroying the flow of the string of relative clauses.

If Vincent is correct in his assertion then I would have to disagree. Of course that is with a reliance upon his claim.

GTM

[jaihare]

I agree! However I understand the ο ην απ αρχης as being a type of direct object in apposition to απαγγελλομεν.

I don't disagree with that assessment at all. I think the whole string of relative clauses that begin with ὅ should be understood as a very large compound direct object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν. Don't think there's any other way to read it!

What I disagree with, though, is setting the ἀρχή of this phrase (ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς) as the same as the parenthetical reference to eternal life, in which the relative clause ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα is used. While the latter is, I think indisputably, a reference to eternity past, the former I take as a reference to the same point as all of the other ὅ phrases in the string -- namely, to the inception of the Gospel period, the time in which the author claims participation in first-hand information concerning Jesus and his life. It is, after all, not the eternality that he's announcing but the message that was received from the beginning, as opposed to the "Johnny come lately" gospels that he was opposing, which were being proclaimed by the "antichrists" of chapter 2.

Do you see what I mean?

Regards,
Jason

[GTM]

jaihare

It is, after all, not the eternality that he's announcing but the message that was received from the beginning, as opposed to the "Johnny come lately" gospels that he was opposing, which were being proclaimed by the "antichrists" of chapter 2.

But the question that needs to be ask is, "what was the Message"? Was it ultimately about Jesus or was Jesus the message?

I am not saying that I disagree, but at first glance the first four verses which make up 1 sentence seem to be a mangled mess.I recognize that it isn't a mangled mess but it certainly offers up some difficulties.(Relative clauses with neuter pronouns are just one example) I believe that they were preaching Jesus ( not about Him) and if Jesus is eternal then it would stand to reason that eternity was on the mind of the writer but as you said,

What I disagree with, though, is setting the ἀρχή of this phrase (ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς) as the same as the parenthetical reference to eternal life, in which the relative clause ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα is used. While the latter is, I think indisputably, a reference to eternity past

You are most likely right. I have however read opposing views.

GTM