study a NT book

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: study a NT book

Post by modus.irrealis » Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:26 pm

GTM wrote:modus.irrealis

I have been pondering your thoughts on hoti. My question is this.

In verse 20 we see the conjunction at the beginning of the verse. Could this conjunction suggest a change in tone in John's writing?

When hoti is casual in form the term "because" is used and when hoti is declarative the term "that" is used. I believe that it is possible here that their was a change in tone in John's writings.

Maybe I am reaching but what are your thoughts?

GTM
I try to avoid putting too much weight on the versification because it was added so much later to the text. But could you explain further about the change of tone? I'm not sure in which direction you mean for the change.

But now that I read it again I think I was misled by the comma that's in my edition between the αὐτήν and καί. I'm thinking now that ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος... coordinates with that αὐτήν rather than the previous ὅτι and so it means something like "I did not write to you because you don't know the truth but because you know it and (because you know) that every lie..." This seems to be the understanding of some translations and it seems to make more sense, although I don't know how common it would have been in Greek to coordinate a pronoun with a hoti-clause like that. It does sound kind of odd in English.

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: study a NT book

Post by modus.irrealis » Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:31 pm

sid4greek wrote:This is interesting....the Catalan version seems to overcome this problem by translating the verse:

I am not writing to you to tell you THAT you do not know the truth, but to tell you that THAT you know it and THAT no lie comes from the truth.

I think it's pretty elegant.... the key phrase, I guess, is: ...to tell you...
That does make sense -- the problem is there's nothing corresponding to the "to tell you" in the Greek, although that's not necessarily a problem depending on how grapho could be used.

GTM
Textkit Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Post by GTM » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:23 am

modus.irrealis
But could you explain further about the change of tone?
I may be reaching on this idea. But in Johns writing we see a shift :

19They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.

21I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

I lean strongly towards the idea that we can measure the emotional connection in this particular text. When John spoke of those in verse 19 it was a declarative formula. Possibly exclamatory. In Verse 21 we see a shift in the writing from a declarative idea to a much more passive or casual formula or one of compassion. I believe that the conjunction but is helping to establish that contrast.

This could be the reason for the shift in Johns writing. Once again I am reaching. He seems to do that in this letter or sermon or what ever we regard this writing as being.

You said:
If I remember correctly, the consensus here was that the hoti's earlier on in this chapter with grapho were "that" instead of "because." What about in 21? Here, the first two hoti's make more sense to me as "because" (perhaps contrasting why he's writing to this group rather than the group that left -- could the letter be a letter of support saying you guys are right?) but I don't know about the third one. There "that" makes a lot of sense to me but I doubt that hoti would switch meaning like that, so it possible that "every lie is not from the truth"* refers to those events in some way? Or am I reaching here?
I am just attempting to make sense of this shift.

GTM

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Re: study a NT book

Post by modus.irrealis » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:08 pm

I think I see what you're saying. How would you understand the ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν in terms of a because-clause? I'm not sure how it can be a reason for his having written to them.

GTM
Textkit Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:31 pm

Re: study a NT book

Post by GTM » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:35 pm

modus.irrealis

You posted:
I think I see what you're saying. How would you understand the ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν in terms of a because-clause? I'm not sure how it can be a reason for his having written to them
(NASB) I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

In my opinion this text certainly should be understood as or should fall into the category of a declarative idea. It appears as if these are strong words that may even be understood as a warning.

sid4greek posted:
This is interesting....the Catalan version seems to overcome this problem by translating the verse:

I am not writing to you to tell you THAT you do not know the truth, but to tell you that THAT you know it and THAT no lie comes from the truth.
I believe that the Catalan Version is closer to the true intent of the statement. But there is definitely a certain amount of speculation in my position. Maybe I am grabbing at straws here.

GTM

sid4greek
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:15 am

Re: study a NT book

Post by sid4greek » Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:01 am

I am still reading chapter 2 and when I read verse 22 I just can't understand the contextual meaning of the question:

tis estin ho feistes?

this question appears all of a sudden in the text and so breaks, so to speak, the flow of the previous discourse. I don't know if you too get this feeling?

as for the contextual meaning of the question:

to me it seems that someone is accusing the writer and company of liars...quite possibly the people who decided to leave their "community"...possibly mere speculation from my part.


why did they leave anyway? any clues? as I am reading the letter, I get the feeling that the people who had left the community did not live a "christian" life, but the author does not mention anything specific...am I right? The author seems to rely on shared knowledge taht we - readers in the 21st century- don't have.

PS:

thanks for all the contributions to this forum because it has been highly enriching!
phpbb

sid4greek
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:15 am

Re: study a NT book

Post by sid4greek » Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:16 am

can anyone translate lietrally what verse 22 in Greek says?
I don't understand what the words between "feistes" and "arnumenos", i.e. "ei mè", mean morphosyntactically...

cheers

sidney
phpbb

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Re: study a NT book

Post by IreneY » Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:46 pm

"τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός; οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος, ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν"

"Who is a liar if not he who denies that Jesus is not Chirst? He is the antichrist, he who denies father and son"

NateD26
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:14 am
Contact:

Re: study a NT book

Post by NateD26 » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:29 pm

Hi, IreneY. I'm sure it's just a mistype. :)
ἀρνοῦμαι, deny, among other verbs takes a redundant negative μή+inf. or ὅτι/ὡς + οὐ. (Smyth §§2739-2740, 2743)

"Who is a liar if not he who denies that Jesus is Chirst?"
[the emboldening is strictly grammar-driven :wink:]
Nate.

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Re: study a NT book

Post by IreneY » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:18 pm

Whoopsie! Obviously you are right! Sorry about that. I was just typing and translating at the same time which is not always advisable.

Post Reply