Inspecting 1 John 1:1

[Isaac Newton]

I fail to see how sophistry and rhetoric implies "being knowledgeable". You are pressing your belief agenda and, as I think I have tried to point out, ignore the understanding of those who historically did not need translations. This is theater.

What exactly do you find objectionable about my understanding and grammatical analysis of 1 John 1:1 ?

[jaihare]

I fail to see how sophistry and rhetoric implies "being knowledgeable". You are pressing your belief agenda and, as I think I have tried to point out, ignore the understanding of those who historically did not need translations. This is theater.

Absolutely.

[Isaac Newton]

I fail to see how sophistry and rhetoric implies "being knowledgeable". You are pressing your belief agenda and, as I think I have tried to point out, ignore the understanding of those who historically did not need translations. This is theater.

Absolutely.

If nothing else jaihare, I've shown you that the neuter ὅ can (and does) refer to a masc. or fem. antecedent, taken in the general sense of thing. So you have learnt something from this thread so far.

[Andrew Chapman]

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

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 ).

With regard to: '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)'

Yes, if you moved it then there would no longer be a positional problem, obviously!

(γράφω) περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς κ.τ.λ.

could be debated on its own terms.

But we can't move it, since it's already been written, so let's take your second option: 'leave it as is, and it comes immediately after the last (ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν)'.

No, it doesn't come 'immediately' after. It comes after (γράφω) περὶ. So I am asking if you have any examples of an adjectival relative clause coming so far before its antecedent. It's a genuine question,

Andrew

[Isaac Newton]

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

Gy
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 ).

With regard to: '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)'

Yes, if you moved it then there would no longer be a positional problem, obviously!

(γράφω) περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, ὃ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς κ.τ.λ.

could be debated on its own terms.

But we can't move it, since it's already been written, so let's take your second option: 'leave it as is, and it comes immediately after the last (ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν)'.

No, it doesn't come 'immediately' after. It comes after (γράφω) περὶ. So I am asking if you have any examples of an adjectival relative clause coming so far before its antecedent. It's a genuine question,

Andrew

You're mistaken to suggest that we can't move it. Word order in Greek is much more flexible, and is often redundant .

On top of that, the idea of distance in this case is an illusion which you're creating since the relative ὃ is repeated 4 times. In fact this is one of those Greek sentences , even if we left the word order as is, it would still make sense in English..Consider :

"The thing which was from the beginning, which we heard (or have heard), which we saw with our own eyes , which we beheld and our hands touched, [I'm writing ] concerning the Word , the Life."

A little bit choppy, but by no means ungrammatical even in English, as is.

[Andrew Chapman]

Consider :

"The thing which was from the beginning, which we heard (or have heard), which we saw with our own eyes , which we beheld and our hands touched, [I'm writing ] concerning the Word , the Life."

A little bit choppy, but by no means ungrammatical even in English, as is.

Excellent, you have added an antecedent, 'the thing', for the relative clauses. And it is placed directly before them, which I think is the normal position.

Now you have effectively a long substantive clause - the substantive 'the thing', modified by four adjectival relative clauses. All you need is a main verb to connect it with, and you will be there.

In your sentence, 'I'm writing' doesn't connect properly with 'the thing', and this is not in fact a grammatical sentence as it stands, so far as I can see. You would need to say:

'The thing.. is the word of Life, and this is what I am writing about.' or something like that.

Andrew

[Isaac Newton]

Consider :

"The thing which was from the beginning, which we heard (or have heard), which we saw with our own eyes , which we beheld and our hands touched, [I'm writing ] concerning the Word , the Life."

A little bit choppy, but by no means ungrammatical even in English, as is.

Excellent, you have added an antecedent, 'the thing', for the relative clauses. And it is placed directly before them, which I think is the normal position.

Now you have effectively a long substantive clause - the substantive 'the thing', modified by four adjectival relative clauses. All you need is a main verb to connect it with, and you will be there.

In your sentence, 'I'm writing' doesn't connect properly with 'the thing', and this is not in fact a grammatical sentence as it stands, so far as I can see. You would need to say:

'The thing.. is the word of Life, and this is what I am writing about.' or something like that.

Andrew

Chapman,that's an English translation, you can't use it to argue against the Greek grammar. The word "thing" was added merely to smooth out the English, for the English readership, it has no actual standing in the original Greek. If it bothers you, discard it.

On another note, what precisely do the four relative pronouns Ὃ mean in 1 John 1:1 according to your understanding ? It's interesting that after eight pages no one has been able to answer this question. Perhaps you can be the first to do so other than me ?

[mwh]

On another note, what precisely do the four relative pronouns Ὃ mean in 1 John 1:1 according to your understanding ? It's interesting that after eight pages no one has been able to answer this question. Perhaps you can be the first to do so other than me ?

Way to go, Newton!

It's a great procedure: give the answer; ask the question; reject all answers as non-answers.

[jaihare]

On another note, what precisely do the four relative pronouns Ὃ mean in 1 John 1:1 according to your understanding ? It's interesting that after eight pages no one has been able to answer this question. Perhaps you can be the first to do so other than me ?

Way to go, Newton!

It's a great procedure: give the answer; ask the question; reject all answers as non-answers.

Hey, mwh. What does "what" mean in this sentence:

I love what you've done with the place!

If you don't answer that it means "the Word" and is in appositional relationship to "the Christ," then you don't know what "what" means! So, what exactly does "what" mean in that sentence? Perhaps you can be the first to tell me what "what" means.

[mwh]

jaihare,

I'm afraid you're confusing meaning with reference. Isaac doesn't do that, he's told us.

[Isaac Newton]

Hi Jaihare,

I don't think your example is analogous.

On another note, what precisely do the four relative pronouns Ὃ mean in 1 John 1:1 according to your understanding ? It's interesting that after eight pages no one has been able to answer this question. Perhaps you can be the first to do so other than me ?

Way to go, Newton!

It's a great procedure: give the answer; ask the question; reject all answers as non-answers.

Hey, mwh. What does "what" mean in this sentence:

I love what you've done with the place!

If you don't answer that it means "the Word" and is in appositional relationship to "the Christ," then you don't know what "what" means! So, what exactly does "what" mean in that sentence? Perhaps you can be the first to tell me what "what" means.

Is "what" in your sentence a relative pronoun ? Are you suggesting that the grammatical role and function of "what" in both these sentences is identical ?

(A)"I love what you've done with the place!"

And

(B) "We announce to you what was from the beginning.."

Also, could you please give us an example of how you're taking the relative pronoun with an example from the bible, instead of an example in English ?



Just a reminder. The following is Jaihare's reading, which has been widely adopted by his on-line friends here:

"This is what we proclaim to you: (words in bold have been invented out of thin air) what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life-"

[Isaac Newton]

Crunch time --

There are 247 occurrences of the relative pronoun ὅ in the GNT. I would like Jaihare and friends to use one of these 247 examples (instead of just an English example as jaihare earlier used) as a parallel sentence to show us their understanding of the relative pronoun at 1 John 1:1 (a), -- Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς. Would they consider Matthew 10:27 to be similar to what they're doing with ὃ at 1 John 1:1a ?

ὃ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτί· καὶ ὃ εἰς τὸ οὖς ἀκούετε, κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων.

But even here ὃ can be identified, as "the words", "the teachings" etc. So it seems to me that every occurrence of ὃ has a specific meaning, if not an explicit antecedent, except apparently at 1 John 1:1, ...

I think it's time to declare this reading to be what it actually is -- a scam.

[mwh]

Has it really taken you all this time to figure out that every single person who has contributed to this thread, with the exception of yourself, is a scam artist?

[Isaac Newton]

Has it really taken you all this time to figure out that every single person who has contributed to this thread, with the exception of yourself, is a scam artist?

No, not at all, the scammed perhaps.

But back on point, could you please show us a verse from the GNT which parallels your understanding of Ὃ at 1 John 1:1a ?...

[Andrew Chapman]

ὃ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτί· καὶ ὃ εἰς τὸ οὖς ἀκούετε, κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων.

You have provided a good example yourself of this very common use of the relative pronoun.

Changing the word order around, in the same way as you want to do, we would have:

εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτί, ὃ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ

and

κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων, ὃ εἰς τὸ οὖς ἀκούετε

And to be consistent, I think you would have φωτί and δωμάτων as the antecedents: Speak in the light, which I say to you in the darkness; and proclaim on the housetops, which your hear in the ear.

Is this your understanding of Matthew 10.27?

I think you have Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. On page 340 (in my edition) there is a section called Embedded Demonstratives, which is helpful. Or just look up ὅς in a lexicon. If you have BAGD, say, Section 2 begins: 'A demonstrative pronoun is frequently concealed within the relative pronoun' and then there are many examples of different types.

Or Thayer, II.6, writes: 'The relative pronoun very often so includes the demonstrative οὗτος or ἐκεινος that for the sake of perspicuity a demonstrative pronoun must be in thought supplied, either in the clause preceding the relative clause or in that which follows it.'

Andrew

[Isaac Newton]

ὃ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτί· καὶ ὃ εἰς τὸ οὖς ἀκούετε, κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων.

You have provided a good example yourself of this very common use of the relative pronoun.

Changing the word order around, in the same way as you want to do, we would have:

εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτί, ὃ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ

and

κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων, ὃ εἰς τὸ οὖς ἀκούετε

And to be consistent, I think you would have φωτί and δωμάτων as the antecedents: Speak in the light, which I say to you in the darkness; and proclaim on the housetops, which your hear in the ear.

Is this your understanding of Matthew 10.27?

I think you have Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. On page 340 (in my edition) there is a section called Embedded Demonstratives, which is helpful. Or just look up ὅς in a lexicon. If you have BAGD, say, Section 2 begins: 'A demonstrative pronoun is frequently concealed within the relative pronoun' and then there are many examples of different types.

Or Thayer, II.6, writes: 'The relative pronoun very often so includes the demonstrative οὗτος or ἐκεινος that for the sake of perspicuity a demonstrative pronoun must be in thought supplied, either in the clause preceding the relative clause or in that which follows it.'

Andrew

Please answer the following two questions :

(a) Does ὃ in 1 John 1:1 have an antecedent ?

(b) Who or what exactly does ὃ identify at 1 John 1:1 ?

[jaihare]

You have provided a good example yourself of this very common use of the relative pronoun.

Changing the word order around, in the same way as you want to do, we would have:

εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτί, ὃ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ

and

κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων, ὃ εἰς τὸ οὖς ἀκούετε

And to be consistent, I think you would have φωτί and δωμάτων as the antecedents: Speak in the light, which I say to you in the darkness; and proclaim on the housetops, which your hear in the ear.

Is this your understanding of Matthew 10.27?

I think you have Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. On page 340 (in my edition) there is a section called Embedded Demonstratives, which is helpful. Or just look up ὅς in a lexicon. If you have BAGD, say, Section 2 begins: 'A demonstrative pronoun is frequently concealed within the relative pronoun' and then there are many examples of different types.

Or Thayer, II.6, writes: 'The relative pronoun very often so includes the demonstrative οὗτος or ἐκεινος that for the sake of perspicuity a demonstrative pronoun must be in thought supplied, either in the clause preceding the relative clause or in that which follows it.'

Andrew

Please answer the following two questions :

(a) Does ὃ in 1 John 1:1 have an antecedent ?

(b) Who or what exactly does ὃ identify at 1 John 1:1 ?

I find it fascinating how he just ignores everything you say and says "answer the questions!" In other words, what you've just spent time discussing has no importance to this conversation. He does this to me all the time. Just answer the question, Andrew! LOL

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Just look where I want you to look. Think what I want you to think. Answer what I want you to answer. Do what I want you to do. Else, you aren't playing right. You're being scammed and fooled, and you're both scamming and fooling others!

[Isaac Newton]

You have provided a good example yourself of this very common use of the relative pronoun.

Changing the word order around, in the same way as you want to do, we would have:

εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτί, ὃ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ

and

κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων, ὃ εἰς τὸ οὖς ἀκούετε

And to be consistent, I think you would have φωτί and δωμάτων as the antecedents: Speak in the light, which I say to you in the darkness; and proclaim on the housetops, which your hear in the ear.

Is this your understanding of Matthew 10.27?

I think you have Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. On page 340 (in my edition) there is a section called Embedded Demonstratives, which is helpful. Or just look up ὅς in a lexicon. If you have BAGD, say, Section 2 begins: 'A demonstrative pronoun is frequently concealed within the relative pronoun' and then there are many examples of different types.

Or Thayer, II.6, writes: 'The relative pronoun very often so includes the demonstrative οὗτος or ἐκεινος that for the sake of perspicuity a demonstrative pronoun must be in thought supplied, either in the clause preceding the relative clause or in that which follows it.'

Andrew

Please answer the following two questions :

(a) Does ὃ in 1 John 1:1 have an antecedent ?

(b) Who or what exactly does ὃ identify at 1 John 1:1 ?

I find it fascinating how he just ignores everything you say and says "answer the questions!" In other words, what you've just spent time discussing has no importance to this conversation. He does this to me all the time. Just answer the question, Andrew! LOL

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Just look where I want you to look. Think what I want you to think. Answer what I want you to answer. Do what I want you to do. Else, you aren't playing right. You're being scammed and fooled, and you're both scamming and fooling others!

It seems to me that had you answers to those two simple questions, you would have expeditiously furnished them long ago. On another note, what Chapman spent "time discussing" with that Matthew example which I furnished is irrelevant to my own understanding of the text. Nor was his line of inquiry particularly sensible, since he was trying there to develop a strawman caricature of my own position with it. So no response required. I think you should re-read my post and find out why I furnished Matt. 10:27.

[Isaac Newton]

The only "argument" I've seen so far by the members of this on-line coven is that their reading is true because all of them are unified in believing in it, and my reading is false because all of them are unanimously opposed to it. Unfortunately however, this is an argumentum ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum ( "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. The basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

This is dangerous, especially since Christ had the following to say about mob appeal -- Εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης· ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν, καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι’ αὐτῆς·

[mwh]

Isaac,

It’s not "daring" to ask these questions, just rather foolish to continue doing so. In the very first reply to your very post on this thread I told you that the ὃ has no antecedent. In return you told me that the antecedent is λόγος (a proposition which no-one who knows Greek will accede to).

Nothing has changed since then (except for your telling me that I've been scammed by the Prince of Darkness).

[Isaac Newton]

Hi mwh,

Isaac,

It’s not "daring" to ask these questions, just rather foolish to continue doing so. In the very first reply to your very post on this thread I told you that the ὃ has no antecedent. In return you told me that the antecedent is λόγος (a proposition which no-one who knows Greek will accede to).

Nothing has changed since then (except for your telling me that I've been scammed by the Prince of Darkness).

ὃ is used about 250 times in the GNT. Could you show us an example from the GNT (other than 1 John 1:1, which would be a logical fallacy ofcourse, circulus in probando) . It would be rather "foolish" to just take your word for it, wouldn't it ? We want proof from the GNT that what you're saying is even possible.

[mwh]

Anything to oblige. From November of last year(!):

In an earlier post in this thread you made the following assertion : "The ὃ has no antecedent, just "what we have heard" etc., '(the thing) which we have ...'. "

I'm trying to understand this. Could you please elaborate ?..For example, when we come across ὃ, what exactly are we supposed to conceptualize ? In other words, what does "what" mean in each of the clauses ?

Well there's nothing really to elaborate. "what" in a relative clause means just that. "what" can be singular or plural; here it's singular. As I said (as a plain statement of fact), it has no antecedent for it to be referred to. Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απεγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report" (never mind that he interrupts himself -- you have a potential object, well, a whole series of potential objects, and you have to wait for the verb to appear, which eventually it does as he recaps the main objects again in 3 and resumes the original construction). In the case of "what I have written," we know what the thing in question is, because it's already been stated in the narrative. In the case of "what we have heard" etc we have to wait for him to tell what that is. We're not supposed to conceptualize anything. It's meaningless to ask what "what" means when we haven't yet been told. All we can infer from ο ακηκοαμεν is that he's heard something. We just wait for him to explain what that something is.

Feel free to repost what you posted in reply to that.

[Isaac Newton]

Anything to oblige. From November of last year(!):

In an earlier post in this thread you made the following assertion : "The ὃ has no antecedent, just "what we have heard" etc., '(the thing) which we have ...'. "

I'm trying to understand this. Could you please elaborate ?..For example, when we come across ὃ, what exactly are we supposed to conceptualize ? In other words, what does "what" mean in each of the clauses ?

Well there's nothing really to elaborate. "what" in a relative clause means just that. "what" can be singular or plural; here it's singular. As I said (as a plain statement of fact), it has no antecedent for it to be referred to. Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απεγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report" (never mind that he interrupts himself -- you have a potential object, well, a whole series of potential objects, and you have to wait for the verb to appear, which eventually it does as he recaps the main objects again in 3 and resumes the original construction). In the case of "what I have written," we know what the thing in question is, because it's already been stated in the narrative. In the case of "what we have heard" etc we have to wait for him to tell what that is. We're not supposed to conceptualize anything. It's meaningless to ask what "what" means when we haven't yet been told. All we can infer from ο ακηκοαμεν is that he's heard something. We just wait for him to explain what that something is.

Feel free to repost what you posted in reply to that.

This seems to be your way of conceding that you don't have a single parallel example from the GNT of your rather weird understanding of the relative pronoun at 1 John 1:1. I rest my case.

[Paul Derouda]

How about ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα? John 19:22.

[mwh]

Paul - Evidently you didn't read my post!

Isaac - You rest your case. That is excellent news.

[Paul Derouda]

You're post was actually pretty long, several lines, so I thought there's a chance that someone might not bother to read it all. So I decided to reiterate.

[Isaac Newton]

Hi Paul,

How about ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα? John 19:22.

ὃ refers to the words which Pilate had written on Jesus' cross, Ὁ Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων.

[Isaac Newton]

You're post was actually pretty long, several lines, so I thought there's a chance that someone might not bother to read it all. So I decided to reiterate.

Which( ironically enough) proves that he has nothing, for no one with verse and chapter goes on a long tirade, they just furnish it.

[mwh]

Well if that was too long for you, try this bite-sized excerpt from it:

'Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απαγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report".'

Now you can make your endlessly reiterated point about the distance separating the relative clauses from the verb, and round and round we go.

[Isaac Newton]

Hi mwh,

Well if that was too long for you, try this bite-sized excerpt from it:

'Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απαγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report".'

Now you can make your endlessly reiterated point about the distance separating the relative clauses from the verb, and round and round we go.

ὃ in John 19:22 refers to Ὁ Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, but you're saying ὃ in 1 John 1:1 has no referent. So this is not a parallel example to what you're doing with ὃ at 1 John 1:1. It is a false analogy.

[Andrew Chapman]

The referent of the second ὅ (in ὅ ἀκηκόαμεν), for example, is what they heard. They heard something, right? And it was about the word of life, as we are told later in the verse. This is the referent - it's what they heard.

Taking this a bit further, consider being having been a witness to a murder.

'I told the police what I saw and what I heard'.

Perhaps you had seen him lift the knife. This is part of 'what I saw.'

You heard the victim scream. This is part of 'what I heard.'

So at one level, the referent of 'what I saw' is the visual data which you received, and likewise with what you heard.

But at another level one could say that you saw and heard a murder. One could definitely say, 'I saw a murder' and in principle one might say 'I heard a murder' - although that sounds strange on its own, the reason being, I think, that you wouldn't know it was a murder from the hearing alone. So at this level, it seems to me that the referent is the murder - I saw and heard a murder.

Is the referent of 'what I saw' the same as that of 'what I heard'? In one way, no, because one is visual data, and one is auditory. In one way, yes, it's the murder.

I think it is a bit like that with 1 John 1.1. The first relative is referring to the One who is later revealed as the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He whom they proclaim. The other relatives seem to refer mainly to the content of the witness - what they saw etc. And this witness they are faithfully transmitting to others. And this witness of course is of Jesus Christ, who they had been with face to face. So there is a dual referent of the witness itself and the One to whom they are bearing witness. Or so it seems to me.

Andrew

[jaihare]

Well if that was too long for you, try this bite-sized excerpt from it:

'Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απαγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report".'

Now you can make your endlessly reiterated point about the distance separating the relative clauses from the verb, and round and round we go.

I don't think you should take Paul in an offensive way. When he said "someone" there, I think he was referring to the "someone" with whom you are exchanging. That it is this "someone" who does not bother to read your full post and needs tidbits thrown his way.

[Isaac Newton]

Hi jaihare,

Well if that was too long for you, try this bite-sized excerpt from it:

'Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απαγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report".'

Now you can make your endlessly reiterated point about the distance separating the relative clauses from the verb, and round and round we go.

I don't think you should take Paul in an offensive way. When he said "someone" there, I think he was referring to the "someone" with whom you are exchanging. That it is this "someone" who does not bother to read your full post and needs tidbits thrown his way.

You seem to be trying to change the subject with ad hominems and with appeals to mob passions. Unfortunately (for you) it doesn't detract from the fact that you are utterly unable to furnish a single example of ὃ without an antecedent from the bible.


And that's the way the cookie crumbles...Cheers.

[mwh]

Well if that was too long for you, try this bite-sized excerpt from it:

'Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απαγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report".'

Now you can make your endlessly reiterated point about the distance separating the relative clauses from the verb, and round and round we go.

I don't think you should take Paul in an offensive way. When he said "someone" there, I think he was referring to the "someone" with whom you are exchanging. That it is this "someone" who does not bother to read your full post and needs tidbits thrown his way.

Jason, My post was directed to Isaac, who complained of my “long tirade.” Paul was jesting.

[mwh]

Hi mwh,

Well if that was too long for you, try this bite-sized excerpt from it:

'Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απαγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report".'

ὃ in John 19:22 refers to Ὁ Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, but you're saying ὃ in 1 John 1:1 has no referent. So this is not a parallel example to what you're doing with ὃ at 1 John 1:1. It is a false analogy.

That is just what you said first time around. And as I replied then:

I'm afraid you've missed the point. o gegrafa is perfectly analogous to o akhkoamen as far as the "meaning" of the relative pronoun goes. There was nothing "unwitting" about my explanation of the difference between their locational contexts. In the Epistle (unlike in the gospel quote), the relative clauses come up front, they are the very first words of the epistle. It follows that we cannot yet know what "what we've heard" is. It's really a very simple point.

[jaihare]

Jason, My post was directed to Isaac, who complained of my “long tirade.” Paul was jesting.

Oh, certainly. He was jesting, but not with you as the butt of the joke.

[Isaac Newton]

Hi Chapman,

The referent of the second ὅ (in ὅ ἀκηκόαμεν), for example, is what they heard. They heard something, right? And it was about the word of life, as we are told later in the verse. This is the referent - it's what they heard.

Taking this a bit further, consider being having been a witness to a murder.

'I told the police what I saw and what I heard'.

Perhaps you had seen him lift the knife. This is part of 'what I saw.'

You heard the victim scream. This is part of 'what I heard.'

So at one level, the referent of 'what I saw' is the visual data which you received, and likewise with what you heard.

But at another level one could say that you saw and heard a murder. One could definitely say, 'I saw a murder' and in principle one might say 'I heard a murder' - although that sounds strange on its own, the reason being, I think, that you wouldn't know it was a murder from the hearing alone. So at this level, it seems to me that the referent is the murder - I saw and heard a murder.

Is the referent of 'what I saw' the same as that of 'what I heard'? In one way, no, because one is visual data, and one is auditory. In one way, yes, it's the murder.

I think it is a bit like that with 1 John 1.1. The first relative is referring to the One who is later revealed as the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He whom they proclaim. The other relatives seem to refer mainly to the content of the witness - what they saw etc. And this witness they are faithfully transmitting to others. And this witness of course is of Jesus Christ, who they had been with face to face. So there is a dual referent of the witness itself and the One to whom they are bearing witness. Or so it seems to me.

Andrew

Why would the apostle use the neuter form of the pronoun to refer to ὁ λόγος (masculine) / Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (masculine) ?

[Isaac Newton]

Hi mwh,

Hi mwh,

Well if that was too long for you, try this bite-sized excerpt from it:

'Just as ο γεγραφα γεγραφα means "what I have written I have written," so ο ακηκοαμεν ... απαγγελλομεν means "what we have heard ... we report".'

ὃ in John 19:22 refers to Ὁ Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, but you're saying ὃ in 1 John 1:1 has no referent. So this is not a parallel example to what you're doing with ὃ at 1 John 1:1. It is a false analogy.

That is just what you said first time around. And as I replied then:

I'm afraid you've missed the point. o gegrafa is perfectly analogous to o akhkoamen as far as the "meaning" of the relative pronoun goes. There was nothing "unwitting" about my explanation of the difference between their locational contexts. In the Epistle (unlike in the gospel quote), the relative clauses come up front, they are the very first words of the epistle. It follows that we cannot yet know what "what we've heard" is. It's really a very simple point.

But you'e still obfuscating though. Two points:

(1) First, I'm asking you to identify the antecedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1a (Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς).

(2) Second, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the word "meaning" when you say "o gegrafa is perfectly analogous to o akhkoamen (ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, 1 John 1:1b) as far as the 'meaning' of the relative pronoun goes." Certainly you cannot say that the pronoun's grammatical function here is analogous to that of the relative pronoun at John 19:22, because the relative pronoun at John 19:22 has an antecedent, but the one you envisage at 1 John 1:1b doesn't. You're making very little sense I'm afraid.

[Isaac Newton]

Jason, My post was directed to Isaac, who complained of my “long tirade.” Paul was jesting.

Oh, certainly. He was jesting, but not with you as the butt of the joke.

Why do you feel a need to make someone the "butt of the joke" ? Often troubled people behave in this fashion.

[mwh]

You're making very little sense I'm afraid.

... you are utterly unable to furnish a single example of ὃ without an antecedent from the bible.

Find us another book of the bible beginning with ὃ, and we'll find you your parallel.

I'm betting that will make very little sense to you too.