(a) Why is it "really odd" ?
Because if John wanted to make some major theological point he wouldn't do it in such a way that everyone has missed it for 2000 years. I've read this verse numerous times in Greek and never, ever, ever considered your understanding of it. But I get the feeling that you're going to say that it's because of the "trinitarian" Greek grammar I've learned. I've read quite a bit of Greek outside of the NT and my sense for how Greek works would never lead me to read this verse that way. That's why it's really odd, because it just is.
(b) Would you say the same about ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 governing the relative clauses in verse one ? To me this is far more "odd" than what I'm proposing (I've explained why in the preceding pages.)
No. This has been covered. First, John didn't write verses, they were added centuries later. We use them for reference points, not as a measurement of language as you are doing. You seem to be saying that a verb must govern a relative clause in it's own "verse" or something absurd like that. Find a source that states how many "verses" can separate a verb from it's object and then maybe I'll agree with you, otherwise you're just making up "rules". Others have given examples in both Greek and English of a verb separated from it's object by just as much text; so absolutely not, it's not odd at all, it's how I naturally read the verse.
So you think the testimony of six or seven novices (mostly trinitarians, and ex-trinitarian sympathizers) is "broad consensus" ?
Very poor form, the people commenting on this page are obviously at an intermediate or advanced level in Greek. Are you a novice? What level are you at? Grandmaster?
Do you have an exact number in mind ? Could you tell us their "theological backgrounds" please ?
You just did, see above. But on a more serious note, I know at least three of them have openly stated that they don't identify as Christians. That means the term trinitarian does not apply to them. The term "ex-trinitarian sympathizer" is so loaded that it's about to explode from it's own pressure. If they say that they aren't trinitarians, then you need to accept that in good faith. Calling them "ex-trinitarian sympathizers" is akin to calling them liars; it's rude, disrespectful, and you now lose 10 points.
Also, unless I'm mistaken, you are the only person on this forum who sees any theological value in this verse.
What exactly do you mean ?
I'm not sure I'm following you...
Very simple. According to you, we all have a theological ax to grind, and this would include YOU. Ok, I'll accept the general truth of that (less so with self-identified non-christians). But that doesn't mean that every single word or sentence in the Bible is contentious and distorted by our views, that's just absurd, and it's what you're implying. At the same time, you are implying that you have some God-like ability to rise above it all. With that in mind, it is very relevant to point out the simple fact that no one (except you) sees any theological value in this verse. Put another way, none of us (except you) really cares whether the neuter relative is pointing to logos or if it's
constructio ad sensum. Speaking for myself, even if it's to be read with Newtonian grammatics as you've proposed then it still poses no threat to my personal theological views as a trinitarian. You, however, think it does challenge the trinitarian view. That means that the only person who has any vested interest in the reading of this text is YOU, and pairing that with the fact that you are the only person to read it in a different way suggests eisegesis very strongly.
It has no antecedent but a referent ? Aren't you aware that "antecedent" and "referent" are the same thing ? I think you mean to say that it has an implicit rather than an explicit antecedent ?
First, "antecedent" and "referent" are not the same thing. An antecedent is a type of referent, like a dog is a type of animal. But saying that an antecedent and referent are the same thing is like saying that a dog and an animal are the same thing. They're both wrong and confused:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent
Ok, I'll use your terminology to prevent confusion. An "implied antecedent" is what I mean when I say "no antecedent", id est, there is no word/phrase/clause found in the text/speech that is functioning as the antecedent. So when you say that the Ο Βασιλευς των Ιουδαιων in John 19:21 is the antecedent of ο γεγραφα γεγραφα you are dead wrong. The phrase is the object of the prohibition μη γραφε which wasn't even said by Pilate!
Now, in 1 John 1:1, the consensus of us poor, dumb, trinitarian-brainwashed novices is that the neuter relative has no explicit antecedent, say it has an implied antecedent if you will, but that seems to be confusing you. When you demand that we point out the words from the text that act as the antecedent you are suggesting that it must have an explicit antecedent, but it doesn't, and John 19:22 is a perfect example.
As far as the referent goes in 1 John 1:1, it's simply "that which was from the beginning, that which they heard, that which they saw with their own eyes...." That is the referent. Look at this example in English:
Person A: "What did you do last night while you were gone?"
Person B: "I did, what I did." (Feci, quod feci/ εποιησα, ο εποιησα)
What is the referent of "what"? Tell me, I demand you! That's the way we feel when you keep demanding we give up some word or phrase. To reiterate, there is no reason to demand that we produce a word or phrase that is functioning as the antecedent of o because in our view the antecedent is implied, that is to say, there is no antecedent in the text.
Οὗτος is forced in John 1:2 because this is the first time that John has introduced ὁ Λόγος to his readers , so clarity of thought overrides the need for constructio ad sensum here . Had John used τοῦτο in verse 2 , readers might possibly become confused and look to τὸ φῶς as it's postcedent , for example .
No, no, no. Garbage. John W made an excellent point. John 1 is the perfect place to make a theological point with
constructio ad sensum. It would cause no confusion, that is an ad hoc attempt to explain it away. And if it's so dangerous to do it in the opening of John then why is it better to do it as the
very first word of 1 John in such a contorted way that it's still unclear 2000 years later and one must be a Grandmaster of Newtonian Grammatics to understand it?
Lastly, I must thank John W and mwh for their service to the Sith Lord Darth Wallace and his apprentice Darth Mounce. The Rebel Alliance will soon be defeated and the trinitarian dark side will rule the galaxy.