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.
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?
This is false, since there is a feature called constructio ad sensum 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.
“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. )
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.
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.
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> .
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).
You want to be treated like a child ? O.K., let’s do it your way:
(a) Do you understand Dr. Luginbill’s point that it is not uncommon for a Greek writer to shift to the neuter pronoun in reference to a noun like “table” , since the main idea of the object is neuter ?
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.
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. 13:14
Greek sometimes uses the neuter form of the pronoun (through constructio ad sensum) in reference to a grammatically masculine or feminine antecedent if it is an inanimate thing , or an animal or even a brutish person ( i.e. things not rising to the level of an “Individual” / “person” in the author’s mind) . In this regard, earlier in Col. 3:14 we saw the author use the neuter form of the pronoun ὅ in reference to the grammatically feminine ἀγάπην because ἀγάπην is a thing rather than an individual being. In 1 Cor. 6:10-11 the author purposely revokes the masculine pronoun in reference to those human beings who were formerly deemed sub-human by him:
Incidently, I came across the following just now quite by chance :
[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).”
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?
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).
Check this out, A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. New edition revised and …By Edward ROBINSON (D.D.), Samuel Thomas BLOOMFIELD :
So 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
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 ).
On another note it’s interesting that you’re now complaining about distance when the main verb ( ἀπαγγέλλομεν) in your reading does not occur until verse 3.
It is inevitiably the case that not a few trinitarians (and their cronies) in many a forum I engage lack all sense of grammatical and exegetical objectivity when it comes to the so-called “christologically significant” texts. They will do to the text or texts almost anything, or will say just about everything if it threatens their essential doctrines, which are fundamentally absurd; after all these same doctrines propose that Jesus existed (literally) prior to his existence / birth , and that “he” was not “a human being” even though he had human nature. Think about how everyday language (τίκτω as in Luke 2:11, ἄνθρωπος as in John 7:46, etc.) has to be re-defined and twisted to even entertain such nonsense. Unfortunately this is precisely what the fourth century Church councils which Deified Jesus did. And they admit to it, to boot:
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.
All truly useful language forums must (and do) cater to a certain amount of theological digression . It must be pointed out that often a grammatical argument in a forum dominated by “Christians” is inextricably bound to theology. What I mean is that often those arguing for a certain grammatical position pretend objectivity and impartiality outwardly but are in fact raving “Deity of Christ” lunatics underneath , wolves in sheeps clothing. And it is precisely these fundamentalists who are most perturbed by any discussion of Christ’s “Deity”, especially by someone knowledgeable not from their fold .
I have no issue with those who declare their faith and theological leanings outwardly, but the pretenders to objectivity truly get my goat. I must say that Markos and jaihare are two posters here who are most candid about their beliefs, and in this at least they have not disgraced themselves..
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.
