Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς

(A) I tend to think that the relative pronoun ὃ refers to τοῦ λόγου in the phrase τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς . In other words, I believe the antecedent of ὃ above is τοῦ λόγου .

(B) Also I believe that the genitive ζωῆς in the prepositional phrase above is related epexegetically to the
preceding λόγου, which therefore has the meaning “concerning the Word , that is, the Life.” So the prepositional phrase is to be translated / understood as follows; “[I’m talking] of the Word , that is, the Life .”

Any thoughts on A and/or B above ?

2

(A) You need to read a bit further on in this straggly sentence to get the construction. The relative clauses are picked up in v.3 and are all the direct object of apaggellomen. V.2, grammatically speaking, is parenthetical, inasmuch as it interrupts the sentence begun in v.1. (Since logos is masculine, it couldn’t be the antecedent of ὃ, neuter.) The ὃ has no antecedent, just “what we have heard” etc., “(the thing) which we have …”.

(B) I’d say τῆς ζωῆς will certainly be dependent on tou logou, not in apposition, nor a defining gen. (If he’d wanted to make it epexegetic he’d have had to add ὅ ἐστι.) I read it as an objective genitive myself.

3

Hi mwh,

Thanks for your post, and peace in Christ…

The grammatical gender of λόγος is masculine. The neuter pronoun ὃ simply brings out it’s natural gender (since the reference is to λόγου “from the beginning,” prior to it’s becoming a human being ) . It must be understood that this portion of the Epistle is a commentary on the Prologue of John, – the parallelism with John 1:1-14 is unmistakable and undeniable, consider John 1:1 :

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

The antecedent of the pronon Οὗτος is λόγος in John 1:1 . Similarly the antecedent of the pronoun ὃ is also λόγος in 1 John 1:1 .


(B) I’d say τῆς ζωῆς will certainly be dependent on tou logou, not in apposition, nor a defining gen. (> If he’d wanted to make it epexegetic he’d have had to add ὅ ἐστι.) > I read it as an objective genitive myself.

I don’t think this is true. Could you please explain where you’re getting this from ?

4

Yes I figured where you were coming from (Ev.J.), but I’m afraid I can’t agree. To associate the ὃ clauses with the embedded and subordinated του λογου puts an impossible strain on the Greek.

As to B, of course you don’t have to believe me on that either. All I can say is your way of construing it would be very forced.

Please understand I have no axe to grind. I speak only as an experienced reader of Greek (including NT), and I tell it like it is.

χαρις σοι και ειρηνη

5

Hi MHV,



Greetings in the name of the Father of Jesus, in peace,

I would humbly counter by suggesting that your proposal puts an insurmountable strain on the Greek. For example the main verb , according to your way of thinking, does not occur until the end of line 3, leaving the relative clauses impossibly dangling miles away from it, and cut off by multiple interruptions . You would have to add an equative verb , but doing so would render the first relative clause a subject when you want them to be objects. You would literally then have to ADD a phrase absent from the Greek text to make your reading tenable..


Please understand I have no axe to grind.

IMHO we all have axes to grind, some of us more so than others..

I speak only as an experienced reader of Greek (including NT), and I tell it like it is. As to B, of course you don’t have to believe me on that either. All I can say is your way of construing it would be very forced.

χαρις σοι και ειρηνη

O.K. .. Do you stand by your original assertion that τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς in 1 John 1:1 cannot be two genitives in simple apposition unless we add ὅ ἐστι to the expression ? Because as far as I can tell, this is not true.

6

I was mulling over John 1:9 just now,.. beautiful words :

Ἦν > τὸ φῶς > τὸ ἀληθινὸν, > ὃ > φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον

.

Notice the author refers to the pre-human τὸ φῶς (aka. ὁ λόγος, τῆς ζωῆς ) with the relative pronoun ὃ ,which he again employs in 1 John 1:1 to refer to the same thing, τῆς ζωῆς which he epexegetically identifies as ὁ λόγος.

I think Carl W. Conrad (Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus) ) has got the gist of it:




Text: (1) hO\ HN AP’ ARCHS, hO\ AKHKOAMEN, hO\ hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS
hHMWN, hO\ EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI CEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS
ZWHS – (2) KAI hH ZWH EFANERWQH, KAI hEWRAKAMEN KAI MARTUROUMEN KAI
APAGGELLOMEN hUMIN THN ZWHN THN AIWNIAN hHTIS HN PROS TON PATERA KAI
EFANERWQH hHMIN – [I’ve added the backslash () to the word hO\ in this
text to make clear that it is the neuter relative pronoun rather than the
article].

So far as the basic question being raised about the genitive case of ZWHS
in relation to the genitive case of LOGOU is concerned, I think that what
Clay Bartholomew has said in his immediate response is correct: there’s
nothing in the case-form or position of these words to indicate the
syntactic or semantic relationship between the two–apart from the fact
that PERI must govern TOU LOGOU and THS ZWHS must depend upon LOGOU.

However, my own view is that the genitive word ZWHS in this instance
functions in an “epexegetical” or “definining” or “appositional” way to the
preceding LOGOU upon which it depends, and I understand it to mean
"concerning the Word (which is) Life> ."

I have not consulted the commentaries on this – as perhaps I ought to –
before formulating here the view that I’ve long held but not hitherto
expressed regarding this little prepositional phrase – PERI TOU LOGOU THS
ZWHS – in this particular text: that the phrase is fundamentally
parenthetical. To show what I mean I’ll offer a ‘loose’ version of these
two verses:

“> What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our own eyes, what we gazed upon and our hands have felt-to-touch
– (I’m talking) of the WORD which is LIFE > – and this life became visible,
and we have seen it and we attest and report to you the eternal life which
existed in the pressence of the Father and (which) became visible to us …”

I believe – and I would guess that most interpreters do believe – that
this opening passage of 1 John alludes clearly, unmistakably to the
phraseology and conceptual basis of the prologue of the gospel of John: > the
acc. neuter sg. relative pronoun (hO) > > which is the subject of HN in the
first relative clause and the object of AKHKOAMEN, hEWRAKAMEN, EQEASAMEQA
and EYHLAFHSAN in successive relative clauses > should be understood as the
LOGOS, the ZWH, and the FWS of the opening verses of the prologue, and
these two verses of the ‘epistle’ should be understood, I believe, as a
reiteration of the content of verse 14 of the gospel> : KAI hO LOGOS SARX
EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN, KAI EQEASAMEQA THN DOXAN AUTOU> . If there’s
a difference, the difference is that the present passage underscores far
beyond the original John 1:14 the physical, historical TANGIBLE reality of
the Word become Flesh. The conventional explanation of this emphasis in
this text is that the author intends to underscore, as against docetic
misinterpretation of John 1:14, the tangible historical/fleshly reality of
the incarnate Word. While some may understand this text differently, I
don’t think I am asserting here anything different from what is commonly
held regarding the sense of 1 John 1:1-2 and its relationship to the
prologue of the gospel.

BUT, the PHRASING of the opening verse is a little bit confusing because of
the way this prepositional phrase PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS intrudes upon a
string of relative clauses which are really substantive clauses: ("that
which … " = “what …” has some awkwardness to it, a grammatical
fuzziness that hints at a semantic fuzziness that resists clear analysis
although it seems we all know exactly what the writer means. > Surely that
neuter singular relative pronoun hO\ wouldn’t stand in relationship with
PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS to mean something like “the very thing about the
word of life which existed in the beginning, which we heard …” It’s a
sort of anacoluthon> . Verse 2 makes clear that the ZWH is none other than
Christ himself, and the affirmations made about the ZWH are the same as
those made in the opening verses of the Johannine prologue about the LOGOS.
And that’s why it seems to me that the phrase > PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS as a
whole functions as a parenthetical, even “epexegetical” clarifier of what
the writer meant to say with his emphatic initial string of substantive
relative clauses> . Let me try once again to rephrase a less-than-literal
version of these two verses:

“> What was in existence from the outset, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our own eyes, what we’ve gazed upon and our hands have felt–it’s
the Word which is Life I refer to> --and the Life became visible and we’ve
seen it and attest and report to you that everlasting life that existed in
the presence of the Father and became visible to us …”

I’d welcome alternative ways of making sense of the phrase PERI TOU LOGOU
THS ZWHS within the context of these verses. > I certainly don’t think that
“message” is adequate for LOGOU in this phrase> .

" – end quote..

In the peace of Jesus Christ,

7

I would paraphrase the verse thus

ἀπαγγέλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἣ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς. ἀπαγγέλομεν ὑμῖν τοὺς λόγους οὓς ἀκηκόαμεν. ἀπαγγέλομεν ὑμῖν Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὂν ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα αὐτὸν καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν αὐτόν. πάντα ταῦτα ἀπαγγέλομεν ὑμῖν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ φέροντος ζωήν.

By which I mean to say that I agree a little more with mwh on both A. and B.

8

Hi Markos,

Thanks for your thoughts.. I value your opinion …perhaps even more so when it does not necessarily agree with mine.. Would the following be a fair English translation of your Greek paraphrase ?


“We proclaim to you [pl] the truth that was from the beginning, we proclaim to you [pl] the words that we heard, we proclaim to you [pl] Jesus the man whom we saw with our eyes, and we beheld him and our hands felt him. All these things we proclaim to you concerning the Logos of life.”

I personally like the following translation from God’s Word Translation:

1The Word of life existed from the beginning. We have heard it. We have seen it. We observed and touched it. 2This life was revealed to us. We have seen it, and we testify about it. We are reporting to you about this eternal life that was in the presence of the Father and was revealed to us. 3This is the life we have seen and heard. We are reporting about it to you also so that you, too, can have a relationship with us. Our relationship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4We are writing this so that we can be completely filled with joy.

In the hope of Christ,

9

Henry Alford may be instructive here (though obviously I do not agree with his Trinitarian leanings):

The exegesis turns wholly upon the sense which we assign to the words τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς: and here there has been great diversity among Commentators. This diversity may be gathered under two heads: those who make λόγου the personal hypostatic Logos, who is ζωή, and those who make it the account, or preaching, or doctrine, concerning ζωή> . Of this latter number, are for the most part, Socinus and his school (see an exception below), and some few other expositors, e. g., Grotius, Semler, Rosenmüller. Of recent writers, the most distinguished is De Wette. The former, including Œc., Thl., Aug.(1) (“forte de verbo vitæ sic quisque accipiat quasi locutionem quandam de Christo, non ipsum corpus Christi quod manibus tractatum est. Videte quid sequatur: et ipsa vita manifestata est. Christus ergo verbum vitæ.” In Ep. Joh. Tract. i. 1, vol. iii. p. 1978), Bed(2), Calvin (gives both), Beza, Luther, Schlichting (“id est de Jesu quem suo more Sermonem appellat”), Episcopius (who however strikes a middle course, “utrumque simul intelligi, Evangelium, quatenus partim ab ipso Christo revelatum est, partim de ipso Chr. J. agit”), Calov., Bengel, Wolf, Lücke, Fritzsche, Baumg.-Crus., Sander, Huther, al., have been most worthily represented among modern Commentators by O. F. Fritzsche, in his Commentatio I. de Epistolarum Johannearum locis difficilioribus, in the Fritzschiorum Opuscula, pp. 276 ff. And with his interpretation, in the main, I agree, diverging from him in some points of more or less importance. > And as this περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is the keystone of the sentence, it will be well to set out the interpretation once for all. I regard then > ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς as the designation of our Lord Himself> . He is the λόγος, and is the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, > this gen. being one of apposition> , as He describes Himself as being the ζωή, John 11:25; John 14:6> ,—the ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς, John 6:35; John 6:48; the φῶς τῆς ζωῆς, John 8:12; cf. also 1 John 1:4. …

10

ερχομενον in Ev.J.1.9 is formally ambiguous too, can be read either as neut. or as masc.

11

mvh, Greetings ,

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 ?

I’m trying to give your view a fair shake..

12

In addition to the support you have received, Isaac, from Conrad and Alford in your contention that ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is an epexegetical genitive, you can add to the list the support of the Athenian Bible Society Modern Greek:

περὶ τοῦ Λόγου δηλαδὴ τῆς ζωῆς…

(δηλαδὴ means “namely” in Modern Greek.)

On the other hand, Today’s Greek Version supports me and mwh

για το ζωοποιό Λόγο…

So I really think either option is possible.

What are the theological implications if this is in fact epexegetical? And what are the theological implications if Isaac is correct in his point A?

13

Hi Marcos,

Yes…Also, thanks for your citations of the Athenian Bible and Today’s Greek Version .

What are the theological implications if this is in fact epexegetical? And what are the theological implications if Isaac is correct in his point A?

Good questions…

14

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. He sets about doing that in 5.

Before reading theologically you have to read untheologically, just taking the Greek as it comes, on its own terms. If I have an axe to grind, that’s it. :slight_smile:

15

Greetings mvh,




Thanks for your post. Unfortunately it has raised more red flags.

First , it must be pointed out that “what I have written I have written,” is not analogous to that which (no pun intended) we’re discussing in the prologue of John’s Epistle, as you yourself unwittingly acknowledged as you made the following comment, “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.”

..O.K…, so here are the clauses with the relative pronouns (which apparently have no antecedents):

(A) that which was from the beginning…(B) that which we have heard.. (C) that which we have seen with our eyes, .. (D) that which we have looked at and our hands have touched…

For each (A), (B) , (C) and (D) above, could you please show us where in the Epistle the "writer waits to tell us what that is "?

In the peace of Christ,

16

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 (_un_like 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.

As to ABCD, I did not say “the writer waits to tell us what that is” (though he does), I said we have to wait for him to tell us (whether he actually will or not). That, once again, is the simple and undeniable point I was making.

17

Hi mvh,

O.K. !.. But you’re NOT denying that “the writer waits to tell us what that is.” So what exactly does the writer wait to tell us ?

In the peace of Christ,

18

What he tells us he tells us.

19

Hi mvh,

But this makes no sense at all.. You said the writer waits to tell us what that something is . But when I ask you what that that something is which the writer eventually tells us( apparently "starting with verse 5) , you won’t/can’t..

I’m not trying to be difficult, simply attempting to make sense of your statements.

20

To find out what he tells us, all you have to do is read the rest of the epistle.

If you can’t make sense of what I tell you, I can’t help you.