So your reading begins / is to be understood like so, -- ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆςjaihare wrote: Nominative.
Correct ?
So your reading begins / is to be understood like so, -- ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆςjaihare wrote: Nominative.
My reading? The text has ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς as the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν. The relative pronoun is nominative because it is functioning as the subject of ἦν, but the entire clause is accusative when arranged like this - since it is the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν.Isaac Newton wrote:So your reading begins / is to be understood like so, -- ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆςjaihare wrote: Nominative.
Correct ?
Answer my question. Are you arguing that the text should be understood as follows -- ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς...jaihare wrote:My reading?Isaac Newton wrote:So your reading begins / is to be understood like so, -- ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆςjaihare wrote: Nominative.
Correct ?
You have ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς as the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν. It's doubtful that the text does.The text has ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς as the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν.
Yes, I get that.The relative pronoun is nominative because it is functioning as the subject of ἦν,
When arranged like what exactly ? You seem to be hesitant to show us exactly how your sentence looks like after ἀπαγγέλλομεν has been re-arranged from verse 3 and into verse 1? Isn't that what you're doing ?but the entire clause is accusative when arranged like this - since it is the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν.
I don't think that's right. 'Your husband is not the man you have now' implies that some other man is her husband. But Jesus is saying that none of the five men/husbands is in fact her husband, is he not?Isaac Newton wrote: What I'm trying to point out to the two of you is that νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [The man you have now] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] σου ἀνήρ [ your husband] means the same thing as σου ἀνήρ [Your husband] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [the man you have now].
Agreed.Andrew Chapman wrote:I don't think that's right. 'Your husband is not the man you have now' implies that some other man is her husband. But Jesus is saying that none of the five men/husbands is in fact her husband, is he not?Isaac Newton wrote: What I'm trying to point out to the two of you is that νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [The man you have now] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] σου ἀνήρ [ your husband] means the same thing as σου ἀνήρ [Your husband] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [the man you have now].
Andrew
Isaac Newton wrote: What is the case of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 (Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς,) according to your reading ?
Correct.jaihare wrote: Nominative.
That's exactly what Jesus' sentence implies Mr. Chapman.Andrew Chapman wrote:I don't think that's right. 'Your husband is not the man you have now' implies that some other man is her husband.Isaac Newton wrote: What I'm trying to point out to the two of you is that νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [The man you have now] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] σου ἀνήρ [ your husband] means the same thing as σου ἀνήρ [Your husband] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [the man you have now].
No...But Jesus is saying that none of the five men/husbands is in fact her husband, is he not?
Andrew
Actually γράφω ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς is not grammatical , you need a preopsition and a stative verb , something as follows --γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς to make it legible. Your other sentence is also ungrammatical, since you're basing that reading on the argument that ἀπαγγέλλομεν from verse 3 is the "main verb" governing all of the relative clauses in verse one. Had you argued that the author was assuming the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 1 instead, it would be a different story. Also, you're chopping off the prepositional phrase from the relative clauses so that the relative pronoun ὃ is not connected to τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. The correct reading here is as follows:jaihare wrote:You really cannot tell me that you have not understood the position of everyone on this thread up to this point! If you do not understand, you have a comprehension issue that we probably will never work past.
The string of relative clauses that opens the letter are all connected to the main verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3. They are simply interrupted by a parenthetical in verse 2, and then are resumed (and encapsulated) by a restatement of two of the clauses before being attached directly to the verb. In fact, what do you think the theological different is between γράφω ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς and ἀπαγγέλλομεν (ἐν γράμμασιν) ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς? Is there a different in meaning between "we announce to you what was from the beginning" and "I am writing to you what was from the beginning"? What is so different here that could pack all of the punch that you want to put into this verse?
Is it simply turning ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς into an apositive for "the word" that interests you? Why do you fight so much about what you think and believe and reject what everyone that you dialogue with would offer you in one voice together?
It's a very simple sentence, but you're needlessly making it complicated (and ungrammatical) because it refutes the theology of your on-line coven.[γράφω] περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.....
Read John 4:16.jaihare wrote:Agreed.Andrew Chapman wrote:I don't think that's right. 'Your husband is not the man you have now' implies that some other man is her husband. But Jesus is saying that none of the five men/husbands is in fact her husband, is he not?Isaac Newton wrote: What I'm trying to point out to the two of you is that νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [The man you have now] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] σου ἀνήρ [ your husband] means the same thing as σου ἀνήρ [Your husband] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [the man you have now].
Andrew
You write γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς and criticize me for contributing something ungrammatical (which was perfectly grammatical)? What you've presented here doesn't allow περί to govern its most natural case - the genitive. In the Koine, especially, we would not find περὶ ὃ but rather περὶ οὗ. Either way, it wouldn't be grammatical in the way that you're attempting to construct it.Isaac Newton wrote:Actually γράφω ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς is not grammatical , you need a preopsition and a stative verb , something as follows --γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς to make it legible. Your other sentence is also ungrammatical, since you're basing that reading on the argument that ἀπαγγέλλομεν from verse 3 is the "main verb" governing all of the relative clauses in verse one. Had you argued that the author was assuming the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 1 instead, it would be a different story. Also, you're chopping off the prepositional phrase from the relative clauses so that the relative pronoun ὃ is not connected to τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς. The correct reading here is as follows:
It's a very simple sentence, but you're needlessly making it complicated (and ungrammatical) because it refutes the theology of your on-line coven.[γράφω] περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.....
It must be pointed out that I do not endorse γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς for 1 John 1:1, it was rather an attempt to mend your ungrammatical sentence (γράφω ὃ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ) as succinctly as I could. Having said that, the amended sentence is not ungrammatical.jaihare wrote:
You write γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς and criticize me for contributing something ungrammatical (which was perfectly grammatical)? .
περὶ can (and sometimes) does take the accusative (and in classical Greek even the dative), so once again you're engaging in confidence trickery with your willful denials (perhaps lay off Nietzsche and Crowley for a while).. The sentence γράφω περὶ ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς is not ungrammatical as far as I can tell ( ὃ is in the accusative.)What you've presented here doesn't allow περί to govern its most natural case - the genitive. In the Koine, especially, we would not find περὶ ὃ but rather περὶ οὗ. Either way, it wouldn't be grammatical in the way that you're attempting to construct it.
[γράφω] περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.....
Isaac Newton wrote:That's exactly what Jesus' sentence implies Mr. Chapman.Andrew Chapman wrote:I don't think that's right. 'Your husband is not the man you have now' implies that some other man is her husband.Isaac Newton wrote: What I'm trying to point out to the two of you is that νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [The man you have now] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] σου ἀνήρ [ your husband] means the same thing as σου ἀνήρ [Your husband] οὐκ ἔστιν [is not] νῦν ὃν ἔχεις [the man you have now].
No...But Jesus is saying that none of the five men/husbands is in fact her husband, is he not?
Andrew
So you think that when Jesus said 'call your man/husband' that was a different man from 'the one you have now'? That's unusual to say the least. OK, so let's say the man she was to call was the one Jesus considered to be her real husband. Perhaps she had once been married, and then had four other men since. Let's say it was the former husband was the first of the five, and that he is still alive. How exactly is she going to call him? Is he going to respond to a call from his former wife, who seems to have been disgracing herself for a long time?Isaac Newton wrote: Read John 4:16.
Yes.Andrew Chapman wrote: So you think that when Jesus said 'call your man/husband' that was a different man from 'the one you have now'? That's unusual to say the least. OK, so let's say the man she was to call was the one Jesus considered to be her real husband. Perhaps she had once been married, and then had four other men since. Let's say it was the former husband was the first of the five, and that he is still alive.
That's her problem, isn't it , which she has now been urged to acknowledge and [hopefully] confront.How exactly is she going to call him? Is he going to respond to a call from his former wife, who seems to have been disgracing herself for a long time?
I looked this up in the old commentaries which I have to hand. Starting with Alford, it is suggested that Jesus is forcing her to face her sin by telling her to bring her man (the one she has). I haven't seen any suggestion that he is saying call your real husband (who she now longer has and cannot easily call).
Andrew
OK fine, I think that may be possible grammatically. I would be interested to know if there is another person on the planet who agrees with you (that Jesus is telling her to call some other man than the one she now has).Isaac Newton wrote: That's her problem, isn't it , which she has now been urged to acknowledge and [hopefully] confront.
ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς ... Where are you going with all this ?Andrew Chapman wrote:OK fine, I think that may be possible grammatically. I would be interested to know if there is another person on the planet who agrees with you (that Jesus is telling her to call some other man than the one she now has).Isaac Newton wrote: That's her problem, isn't it , which she has now been urged to acknowledge and [hopefully] confront.
Let's take another example, not with a copulative/equative verb. How about John 3.34a, for example:
ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, ..
Who or what is the subject of λαλεῖ ?
Andrew
We were debating whether relative clauses are always adjectival or whether sometimes they are substantival. Here it is substantival. Or if you prefer, and this is perhaps the more common way of looking at it, there is a 'hidden' demonstrative: οὗτος ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ. Then one could say that it is adjectival, modifying the (non-existent) demonstrative, and the demonstrative could be considered to be the subject of λαλεῖ.Isaac Newton wrote:ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς ... Where are you going with all this ?Andrew Chapman wrote:OK fine, I think that may be possible grammatically. I would be interested to know if there is another person on the planet who agrees with you (that Jesus is telling her to call some other man than the one she now has).Isaac Newton wrote: That's her problem, isn't it , which she has now been urged to acknowledge and [hopefully] confront.
Let's take another example, not with a copulative/equative verb. How about John 3.34a, for example:
ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, ..
Who or what is the subject of λαλεῖ ?
Andrew
Rev. 2:7φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
1 John 1:1[γραφω] περι του λογου της ζωης, ο ην απ αρχης
King James 2000 Bibleἀλλ’ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ Θεῷ θύουσιν· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.
These two sentences are not syntactically similar, since ὁ λόγος is masculine and τὸ ξύλον is neuter. It is correct of the writer to use the neuter relative pronoun directly following ξύλον. It is incorrect to use it directly following λόγος. How can you propose that masculine and neuter are grammatical and syntactic equivalents in Greek?Isaac Newton wrote:I was reading through Revelation this evening, and I came across the following, which is structurally identical to what I'm proposing for 1 John 1:1 --
Rev. 2:7φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
1 John 1:1[γραφω] περι του λογου της ζωης, ο ην απ αρχης
Notice also that the relative clause is substantival, functioning as the object of the second θύουσιν.Isaac Newton wrote: Also notice that sometimes a verbal idea is implied in a construction with conjunction and relative pronoun as in 1 Cor. 10:20 --
King James 2000 Bibleἀλλ’ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ Θεῷ θύουσιν· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that you should have fellowship with demons.
I don't know what you mean by "not syntactically similar." The sentences are structurally identical; the only appreciable difference between the two is that in 1 John 1:1 the relative pronoun ὅ is referring to it's antecedent by constructio ad sensum.jaihare wrote:These two sentences are not syntactically similar, since ὁ λόγος is masculine and τὸ ξύλον is neuter.Isaac Newton wrote:I was reading through Revelation this evening, and I came across the following, which is structurally identical to what I'm proposing for 1 John 1:1 --
Rev. 2:7φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ.
1 John 1:1[γραφω] περι του λογου της ζωης, ο ην απ αρχης
This is false, since there is a feature called constructio ad sensum in Greek.It is correct of the writer to use the neuter relative pronoun directly following ξύλον. It is incorrect to use it directly following λόγος. How can you propose that masculine and neuter are grammatical and syntactic equivalents in Greek?
"Word" does not have natural gender. Constructio ad sensum is when GRAMMATICAL gender/number (the gender expected because of grammar) is overridden by NATURAL gender/number. λόγος does not have a natural gender. Ugh.Isaac Newton wrote:This is false, since there is a feature called constructio ad sensum in Greek.jaihare wrote:It is correct of the writer to use the neuter relative pronoun directly following ξύλον. It is incorrect to use it directly following λόγος. How can you propose that masculine and neuter are grammatical and syntactic equivalents in Greek?
jaihare wrote: "Word" does not have natural gender. Constructio ad sensum is when GRAMMATICAL gender/number (the gender expected because of grammar) is overridden by NATURAL gender/number. λόγος does not have a natural gender. Ugh.
Your theological propositions aside, there is no natural gender to λόγος. It's like thinking that "thought" has a natural gender. No natural gender would override the grammatical gender. Constructio ad sensum occurs when the natural gender of what is being spoken of (most generally, a group of people) overrides the gender (and/or number) of the word used to refer to them. For example, the words for "people" (as in a group) in both Hebrew (עם) and Greek (either λαός or δῆμος) are masculine singular, yet the peoples being referred to are masculine plural. Thus, it is natural for λαός/δῆμος (as well as עם) to switch to the masculine plural when being the subject of thought - and this happens a lot. Similarly, τέκνα is neuter plural (of τέκνον) and naturally switches to the masculine plural frequently, since the natural gender of a group of children is masculine.Isaac Newton wrote:"The Word" or ὁ Λόγος (prior to it's becoming a human being ) is an entity / a peculiar thing, not a "person." One way the Greek allows us to bring this out grammatically is through constructio ad sensum ( i.e. to refer to it with a neuter pronoun even though it's grammatical gender is masculine. )jaihare wrote: "Word" does not have natural gender. Constructio ad sensum is when GRAMMATICAL gender/number (the gender expected because of grammar) is overridden by NATURAL gender/number. λόγος does not have a natural gender. Ugh.
Jameson, to begin with, I did not say Logos in John 1 and in 1 John 1 is an "abstract concept." Secondly, constructio ad sensum does not just occur in conjunction with "a group of people." I think the word "natural" (as in natural gender) or "actual" (as in actual gender) is causing you conceptual confusion. Think rather in the following terms : when the main idea of a noun is not a "person" or "personality", that is, when it's a thing rather than an individual or an intelligent being, the Greek mind sometimes tends to refer to such things with neuter pronouns even though their grammatical gender may be masculine or feminine. For instance the grammatical gender of τράπεζα is feminine, but it is not uncommon in Greek to refer to it with a neuter form of the pronoun. This in a nutshell is constructio ad sensum. If you won't take it from me, then at least do so from a Trinitarian . Here's Dr. Luginbill:jaihare wrote:Your theological propositions aside, there is no natural gender to λόγος. It's like thinking that "thought" has a natural gender. No natural gender would override the grammatical gender. Constructio ad sensum occurs when the natural gender of what is being spoken of (most generally, a group of people) overrides the gender (and/or number) of the word used to refer to them. For example, the words for "people" (as in a group) in both Hebrew (עם) and Greek (either λαός or δῆμος) are masculine singular, yet the peoples being referred to are masculine plural. Thus, it is natural for λαός/δῆμος (as well as עם) to switch to the masculine plural when being the subject of thought - and this happens a lot. Similarly, τέκνα is neuter plural (of τέκνον) and naturally switches to the masculine plural frequently, since the natural gender of a group of children is masculine.Isaac Newton wrote:"The Word" or ὁ Λόγος (prior to it's becoming a human being ) is an entity / a peculiar thing, not a "person." One way the Greek allows us to bring this out grammatically is through constructio ad sensum ( i.e. to refer to it with a neuter pronoun even though it's grammatical gender is masculine. )jaihare wrote: "Word" does not have natural gender. Constructio ad sensum is when GRAMMATICAL gender/number (the gender expected because of grammar) is overridden by NATURAL gender/number. λόγος does not have a natural gender. Ugh.
Constructio ad sensum happens with references to people, not to abstract concepts (like "words" or "love"). "Love" (whether ἡ ἀγάπη(σις), ἡ φιλία or ὁ ἔρως) will always maintain its grammatical gender. There is no reason to expect it to EVER switch to something else. The same is true of λόγος. It will not have a natural gender that is neuter nor feminine. It has only grammatical gender, and it will not switch to something else. You're abusing the concept of constructio ad sensum.
hope this helps to clarify things for you,Case in point is the whole issue of gender. This is one the areas where my Latin students who have grown up in a world where grammar is a mystery have quite a large amount of trouble. The notion that a table can be feminine in gender so that it is possible to refer to it with feminine pronouns even though everyone understands it is a "thing" devoid of any sexuality is a tough concept for many of them to grasp. However, in Latin, and even more so in Greek, it is not uncommon for an author to shift to the neuter in such cases, since the main idea of the object is indeed neuter.
Isaac Newton wrote:Jameson, to begin with, I did not say Logos in John 1 and in 1 John 1 is an "abstract concept." Secondly, constructio ad sensum does not just occur in conjunction with "a group of people." I think the word "natural" (as in natural gender) or "actual" (as in actual gender) is causing you conceptual confusion. Think rather in the following terms : when the main idea of a noun is not a "person" or "personality", that is, when it's a thing rather than an individual or an intelligent being, the Greek mind sometimes tends to refer to such things with neuter pronouns even though their grammatical gender may be masculine or feminine. For instance the grammatical gender of τράπεζα is feminine, but it is not uncommon in Greek to refer to it with a neuter form of the pronoun. This in a nutshell is constructio ad sensum. If you won't take it from me, then at least do so from a Trinitarian . Here's Dr. Luginbill:Case in point is the whole issue of gender. This is one the areas where my Latin students who have grown up in a world where grammar is a mystery have quite a large amount of trouble. The notion that a table can be feminine in gender so that it is possible to refer to it with feminine pronouns even though everyone understands it is a "thing" devoid of any sexuality is a tough concept for many of them to grasp. However, in Latin, and even more so in Greek, it is not uncommon for an author to shift to the neuter in such cases, since the main idea of the object is indeed neuter.
hope this helps to clarify things for you,
jaihare wrote: What it helps clarify for me is that you think in English. In English, a table is neuter. In Greek, it is feminine. I have not yet seen an example in which a table becomes neuter. It has no natural gender (gender in nature - sex).
Let's just say that you treating other people as children because they reject your authoritarian statements doesn't come as a surprise. I don't need to accept something on the basis of hearsay.Isaac Newton wrote:You want to be treated like a child? O.K., let's do it your way:
It's not "hearsay" though. Not infrequently, relative pronouns do not follow basic rules of agreement . Take a look at the following instances of constructio ad sensum associated with relative pronouns , will you (for starters) ? --John 4:22,1 Cor. 15:10, Acts 26:17,1 Cor. 4:17,col. 2:19,Gal. 4:19, 2 Peter 2:17, 2 John 1, Rev. 13:14jaihare wrote:Let's just say that you treating other people as children because they reject your authoritarian statements doesn't come as a surprise. I don't need to accept something on the basis of hearsay.Isaac Newton wrote:You want to be treated like a child? O.K., let's do it your way:
(Rev. 13:14)καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης καὶ ἔζησεν.
(2 John 1)Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν,
(Col. 3:14)ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος.
οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν Θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε· ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν.
Incidently, I came across the following just now quite by chance :πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει.
[B-Greek] Neuter Pronoun 1 John 2:8
Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Oct 26 09:41:26 EDT 2005
Previous message: [B-Greek] Neuter Pronoun 1 John 2:8
Next message: [B-Greek] Neuter Pronoun 1 John 2:8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear Charles,
>In 1 John 2:8 the author writes hO ESTIN ALHQES EN AUTW KAI EN hUMIN
>hOTI hH SKOTIA PARAGETAI KAI TO FWS TO ALHQINON HDH QAINEI. To what
>does the hO refer? One author had the unique approach (at least to
>me) of saying that hO was a postcedent and it related to all the
>phrase following hOTI because hOTI is considered to take a neuter
>nominative article. Most everyone else said that it related to the
>precedent clause (PALIN ENTOLHN KAINHN GRAFW hUMIN). But the
>difficult part for me was that some said it could not relate to
>ENTOLHN because it was feminine and others said even though it was
>feminine it still related to it because sometimes the neuter would
>do this.
HH: I think the majority is right, and the neuter can take a compound
or complex idea as its antecedent. I am just guessing, but it seems
that complexity could arise if John were referring to the content of
the command more than just the command itself. Loving one another as
Jesus loved us (John 13:34) is something that is true in us because
of new covenant realities such as the indwelling Spirit and the
example of Jesus.
Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (p 337), notes: "Not
infrequently relative pronouns do not follow the basic rules of
agreement. Sometimes the gender of the relative pronoun does not
match that of the antecedent, usually because of sense agreement
superceding syntactical agreement (constructio ad sensum)."
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
Well, just as the neuter ὅ in Col. 3:14 grammatically betrays the fact that the writer did not consider τὴν ἀγάπην to be an individual personality, so too the ὅ in 1 John 1:1 tells us that the author did not imagine τοῦ Λόγου / τῆς ζωῆς (prior to it's becoming a human being, i.e. ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ) to be a personality, but rather an inanimate thing (quite possibly even an abstraction).jaihare wrote:Well, let's suppose that you're right. How does constructio ad sensum create a situation in which this verse somehow strengthens your argument? What weight is riding on the constructio ad sensum argument?
ref. http://books.google.ca/books?id=lwAOAAA ... sensum&f=fSo the neuter ὅ often refers to a masc. or fem. antecedent, taken in the general sense of thing, Matth. #439. comp. Buttm. # 129. 6. So in explanations Matt. 1:23 Ἐμμανουήλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον , 27: 33 , Mark 3:17. 12:42 λεπτὰ δύο, ὅ ἐστιν κοδράντης 15:16, 42. John 1:39. Col. 1:24. Heb. 7:2. al ( otherwise Acts 9:39). Also where neuter ὅ refers to a whole preceding clause, Mark 15:34. 1 John 2:8
Do you have any examples of an adjectival relative clause being situated so far prior to its antecedent as it is in your understanding of 1 John 1.1:Isaac Newton wrote:I cited 1 John 2:8 earlier in this regard, but since memories are short, I shall do so again :
πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει.
The pronoun is actually situated in the immediacy of it's antecedent. There are four relative clauses each referring to the same thing. Move the prepositional phrase to the front of the sentence and τοῦ Λόγου / τῆς ζωῆς comes immediately before the first prepositional phrase (Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς), leave it as is, and it comes immediately after the last (ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν ).Andrew Chapman wrote: Do you have any examples of an adjectival relative clause being situated so far prior to its antecedent as it is in your understanding of 1 John 1.1:
[adjectival clause(s) modifying λόγου] (γράφω) περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.
You could not write, say:
τοῦ ἁγίου (γράφω) περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.
And I very much doubt that you can do this with an adjectival relative clause instead of an adjective.
Andrew
Catechism of the Catholic Church
250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people's sense of the faith.
251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82
252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.
I hope you're not suggesting that the main topic of this thread (grammatical analysis of 1 John 1:1) is for a theology forum.demetri wrote:Sigh...old heresies die hard. This is a topic for a theology forum. Here it just serves as a Soap Opera - entertaining but useless.