Here’s the bottom line: You’re arguing that ὃ at 1 John 1:1 does not have an antecedent. Is it too much to ask for a single proof text from the bible showing that a relative pronoun ( around 4000 occurrences) can work this way ?
He’s already provided you with ὃ γέγραφα γέγραφα (John 19.22). This is exactly the same structure as ὃ ἑωράκαμεν… ἀπαγγέλλομεν.
What I find amazing is that 1 John is clear about what the author claims to have “heard.” He says it explicitly:
ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν… Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία. ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευδόμεθα καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν· ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ ἀλλήλων καὶ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας… κτλ.
What we have seen and heard we announce also to you… And this is the message that we heard from him and announce to you: that God is light and there is no darkness in him at all. If we say that we have communion with him and are walking (living) in darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth; and if we live (walk) in the light as he himself is in the light, we have communion with one another and the blood of Jesus his son cleanses us from all sin… etc.
This is the message. This is what he heard. This is what was from the beginning. He says it clearly. The thing that was from the beginning is… drum roll… the gospel, the story of what the disciples learned from being with Jesus from the very beginning, what they heard from him, what they saw and witnessed with regard to his life and the things he did, the salvation story.
Can it be settled yet? Good grief.
I’m not talking about "sentence structure " (though even then, the two sentences do not have the same structure) but of the function of the relative pronoun ὃ. According to mwh at 1 John 1:1b ὃ does not have an antecedent, but ὃ at John 19.22 does have an antecedent. Do you get this so far ?
This is verse 3, a completely different sentence and thought. We’re discussing verse 1.
Can it be settled yet? Good grief.
Do you want me to accept your position just because you say it is true ?
My nonsense position? It’s EVERYONE’s position who is participating in this thread. Every single person here, “John Milton” / “Isaac Newton.” Not one single person here - all from different theological backgrounds and each with his own personal convictions, and every single one of them better at reading and understanding Greek than you - not a single one agrees with you. (Notice that my parenthetical includes a phrase before it that is repeated after it for the sake of redirection and clarification [to remind the audience of what I had just said]. This is what is going on in 1 John 1.1-3.)
Every single person on this thread agrees with my position. We all agree. All of us. Atheists, former Christians, those with no theological baggage, current Christians. Everyone. What are you not getting? We are dealing with the Greek text - and what you propose to do simply butchers it. We all see it. You are not singling me out here. You’re the lone coyote trying to make his voice heard in the darkness. You’re neither making friends nor proving your point by just screaming at the top of your lungs and hoping that someone will listen, while growling at any passersby who might have compassion on you in your lonely state.
First, that’s (bold above) not true. Second even if everyone single person here was unanimously in agreement that a certain position was true , it doesn’t make it so. It’s not a numbers game. You have to prove why your argument is true, not just scream that it is so.
Every single person on this thread agrees with my position. We all agree. All of us. Atheists, former Christians, those with no theological baggage, current Christians. Everyone. What are you not getting? We are dealing with the Greek text - and what you propose to do simply butchers it. We all see it. You are not singling me out here. You’re the lone coyote trying to make his voice heard in the darkness. You’re neither making friends nor proving your point by > just screaming at the top of your lungs > and hoping that someone will listen, while growling at any passersby who might have compassion on you in your lonely state
But you’re doing that though…
When so many people who have nothing else in common except that they are reading the Greek text come to the same conclusion after rational discussion, the chances of them being wrong are minimized. When we point out the problems of your position, with just ignore the criticisms. When we provide justification for our position, you ignore the arguments. You will continue to ignore anything and everything that disrupts the comfort that your thinking provides you. No one here is so ignorant as to think that you could really be persuaded by anything short of God himself coming down and telling you that you’re mistaken.
This is a rather disingenuous statement on multiple levels.
(a) There are not “so many people” participating here. Other than myself, the are / have been just six other participants. They are Mwh, Markos, jaihare, Andrew Chapman, John W. and Qimmik. And from this handful only yourself and Andrew Chapman have been posting with any regularity.
(b) You all have something very important in common. Virtually everyone of you believe either that the bible teaches the “Deity” of Christ or are sympathetic to this POV. This was true before anyone of you entered this discussion, and it remains true now, and odds are it will remain true forever.
When we point out the problems of your position, with just ignore the criticisms. > When we provide justification for our position, you ignore the arguments. > You will continue to ignore anything and everything that disrupts the comfort that your thinking provides you. > No one here is so ignorant as to think that you could really be persuaded by anything short of God himself coming down and telling you that you’re mistaken.
You seem to be psychologically projecting, yet again.
This is a 9 page discussion that has gone nowhere for at least 7 of them, perhaps its best to drop the discussion and move on.
Apologies, I forgot to mention Uberdwayne. So 7 of you.
Perhaps more accurately, it hasn’t been going your way for at least 7 of them ?
Nope, you didn’t forget me, this would only be my second post in this thread.
What way is that Isaac? Can you show me a post I’ve made in this thread where I give my opinion on which way I think concerning 1 John 1:1? Truth is, you don’t know because I haven’t stated it and you jumped to a conclusion.
I have not contributed to this conversation at all, only to suggest that it be ended (and this post, of course). It is getting quite silly.
If its your goal to change their thinking on this matter, you’ve lost the ability to do that because everyone seems to be getting frustrated with you, so why bother anymore, you will only be frustrating the others further? Unless of course, that is your goal.
You’ve had 9 pages and you’ve accomplished nothing, at least in the minds of those you are trying to convert.
Let’s start a game… drink a shot every time someone repeats himself. 
It’s not. I suspect though that it’s the other way round..
You’ve had 9 pages and you’ve accomplished nothing, > at least in the minds of those you are trying to convert> .
Why would you think that though ? I’m not. The reason for this topic, if you really have to know, is to debunk the Mickey-Mouse Greek that does the rounds in threads dominated by the “Deity of Christ” crowd (as this one certainly is). Here’s a quick sample of what I’m talking about:
(1) that ὃ in 1 John 1:1 does not have an antecedent.
(2) 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.
(3) that the antecedent of αὐτὸν in John 1:10 is not τὸ φῶς in verse 9.
(4) that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in 1 John 1:3 is the “main verb” which governs the relatives at 1 John 1:1.
(5) ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα at John 19:22 is “structurally identical” to ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν at 1 John 1:1.
(6) that the first relative (at 1 John 1:1) is referring to the One who is later revealed as the Lord Jesus Christ.
(7) that Constructio ad sensum happens with references to people, not to abstract concepts (like “words” or “love”).
(8) doubting whether the neuter relative pronoun ὅ is able to refer to a masculine or feminine antecedent by constructio ad sensum, taken in the general sense of thing.
(9) insisting that both Θεοῦ (Phil. 2:6) and δούλου (Phil. 2:7) are epexegetical genitives.
And I can go on…
Here is Meyer:
ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] This thought, indefinite in itself, is more fully explained by the following relative clauses to this extent, that “that which was from the beginning” is identical with that which was the subject of perception by the apostle’s senses. But from the appositional adjunct περὶ κ.τ.λ. and the parenthetical sentence, 1Jn 1:2, it follows that John understands by it the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς or the ζωή, and more exactly the ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, which was with the Father and was manifested. That the apostle, however, does not thereby mean a mere abstraction, but a real personality, is clear, first from ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν κ.τ.λ. and ἐφανερώθη, and then especially from the comparison with the prooemium of the Gospel of John, with which what is said here is in such conformity that it cannot be doubted that by ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς the same subject is meant as is there spoken of as ὁ λόγος. The neuter form does not entitle us to understand by ὃ ἦν κ.τ.λ., with the Greek commentators Theophylact, Oecumenius, and the Scholiasts, the “μυστήριον of God,” namely, ὅτι Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, or even, with Grotius, the “res a Deo destinatae.” Nor does do Wette’s interpretation: “that which appeared in Christ, which was from eternity, the eternal divine life,” correspond with the representation of the apostle, according to which the ζωή not only was manifested in Christ, but is Christ Himself. By far the greatest number of commentators interpret ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς correctly of the personal Christ. The reason why John did not write ὅς (comp. chap. 1Jn 2:13 : τὸν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς), but ὅ, cannot.. be found in.. [4 explanations, which Meyer rejects}
The neuter is rather to be explained in this way, that to the apostle Christ is “the life” itself; but this idea in itself is an abstract (or general) idea.[25] True, the apostle could have written even ὅς instead of the neuter; but as Christ has His peculiar importance just in this, that He is the Life itself (not merely a living individual),—comp. Gospel of Joh 14:6,—and as John begins his Epistle filled with this conception, it was more natural for him to write here ὅ than ὅς.[26] By ἮΝ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς John describes Christ as Him who, although at a particular time He was the object of perception by sense, has been from all eternity; the imperfect ἮΝ, however, does not express the premundane, eternal existence, but is explained in this way, that John speaks historically, looking backwards from the point of time at which Christ had become the object of sensuous perception.
I think he may be right that John is considering Christ from what might call an abstract point of view, as being Himself Life, and so on. He goes on to balance this by referring to his humanity, since they actually saw and heard Him in the flesh.
I do think also that there is something in the idea that Christ is being presented as a μυστήριον, to be revealed progressively. It’s almost like Twenty Questions, if I may be forgiven so prosaic an allusion. There’s Something; It was from the beginning; [Yet] we heard and saw and touched It; and so on.
Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Meyer is correct that the antecedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς. The only problem I have with his analysis is that he insists ὁ λόγος [ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] is a “personality” even though he realizes that apostle John uses the neuter form of the pronoun in reference to it. This is a disconnect no doubt motivated by his rabid trinitarianism. The moment he suggests that ὁ λόγος is a “personality” after conceding that the apostle refers to it with a neuter form of the pronoun (ὃ), his reading becomes ungrammatical. In a sense, he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too.
In any case this is another nail in the coffin of mwh’s assertion that ὃ in 1 John 1:1 has no antecedent. It also put’s to rest once and for all “Jaihare’s” rather schizophrenic conviction that “all” of you are speaking with “one voice” against the possibility that the neuter relative ὃ is referring to the masculine ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς in 1 John 1.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Well, if Meyer says so… You’re good at argumentum ad baculum, so it makes sense.
Do you have anything intelligent to counter with ? This is just a snarky quibble .
As far as I know, it’s perfectly intelligent to counter with the claim of an argumentative fallacy.