Wouldn’t it have been far more honest to have informed these readers that those “bits” (in your post Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:32 pm) were pertinent to your own reading of the construction, and not that “they are in fact pertinent to the construction” ?
and your behavior.
Support this charge, whatever you mean by it.
And here we are on CARM all over again.
Hi jaihare,
Do you have an example from the GNT of what you’re proposing at 1 John 1:1- 4 ? – of a verb which governs it’s own relative clause , and also governs multiple other relative clauses detached from it .
I notice that you restrict the question to the Greek New Testament. Why not open it up to the rest of the corpus of extant Greek materials? Do you imagine that the NT is its own language as a complete whole? If so, why do you quote Smyth in the first place?
Because 1 John 1:1-4 is from the Greek New Testament. 
And also because we have close to 1700 examples of relative clauses in the GNT. If you can’t find one similar example from 1700 , I fear that there is indeed something very wrong with what you’re proposing .
Why not open it up to the rest of the corpus of extant Greek materials?
Very well.. But your example must be from the Koine – you have the Septuagint, most of the early “church fathers”, Plutarch and Polybius…
Do you imagine that the NT is its own language as a complete whole? If so, > why do you quote Smyth in the first place> ?
Because I had chanced upon it. Remember, I had already provided examples for the same from the GNT.
First, I apologize for resurrecting this thread from the depths of Hell, I’ve been away from Textkit the last couple years and after spending an hour walking through the pages of this discussion I want to add my two cents worth. I add to the general consensus of everyone else who commented on this thread that the reading proposed by Isaac Newton is forced and unnatural. The idea of constructio ad sensum here with λογος is just really odd. I won’t say it’s impossible, but the idea that John is trying to make some big theological point with the neuter relative is beyond absurd to me. Of course I’m a trinitarian, but this verse has zero theological import as far as I’m concerned; it’s a simple introduction to a letter. Do I have a vested interest in the reading? minime, ουδαμως.
Isaac, you’ve said that “numbers” don’t matter, but I think in a situation like this the broad consensus does have weight. Consider that of all the people on this forum who have weighed in on the topic everyone has read this text in more or less the same way although coming from different theological backgrounds. Also, unless I’m mistaken, you are the only person on this forum who sees any theological value in this verse. So, to conclude that thought, the one person who sees theological value and support for his own view from the verse in question interprets it in a way very different from the rest who see absolutely no theological value in the verse. That strongly suggests something to me, and it should to you also.
Lastly, you’ve said that ο γεγραφα, γεγραφα in John 19:22 has an antecedent. This is incorrect. The antecedent is not and cannot be “the King of the Jews” because Pilate didn’t say that. John is narrating events, the Pharisees come up and say “Don’t write ‘the King of the Jews’…” and Pilate says nothing but “What I’ve written, I’ve written”. In both English and Greek the ‘what/ο’ has NO antecedent. It has a referent, yes, just as I would argue that the ο in the text in question has a referent, but not an antecedent. Again, Pilate did not say " ‘the King of the Jews’, which I’ve written, I’ve written", but simply ο γεγραφα, γεγραφα. Your analysis is dead wrong. In the former ‘the King of the Jews’ is the antecedent, but in the latter there is no antecedent, although ‘the King of the Jews’ is the referent. Some would say the antecedent is omitted, but that’s just a more complicated way of saying there is no antecedent. So yes, John 19:22 is a perfect example of the relative pronoun used without an antecedent, and it’s perfectly analogous to 1 John 1:1 where there is no antecedent either (although there is a referent).
I admire and/or deplore your courage in resurrecting this thread!
Despite the risk of being stigmatised as a Trinitarian running-dog etc. (when I’m not even a Christian), I have to agree with all that you say.
One further point. I suppose few would dispute that John’s most important statement about the λόγος is at the start of his Gospel. Having mentioned the λόγος in 1.1, in the next verse we have:[ b]Οὗτος[/b] ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Now surely, if John had wished to make the theological point which Isaac attributes to him, and if he was even half as keen on the (so-called) constructio ad sensum as Isaac claims, he would have done so here, of all places; yet, instead, we have Οὗτος in agreement with λόγος.
To my mind this - along with the other points which you have so ably summarised - tends to undermine Isaac’s interpretation.
John
Hi Calvinist,
(a) Why is it “really odd” ?
(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.)
Isaac, you’ve said that “numbers” don’t matter, but I think in a situation like this > the broad consensus > does have weight.
So you think the testimony of six or seven novices (mostly trinitarians, and ex-trinitarian sympathizers) is “broad consensus” ?
Consider that of > all the people on this forum > who have weighed in on the topic everyone has read this text in more or less the same way although coming from different theological backgrounds.
Do you have an exact number in mind ? Could you tell us their “theological backgrounds” please ?
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 ?
So, to conclude that thought, the one person who sees theological value and support for his own view from the verse in question interprets it in a way very different from the rest who see absolutely no theological value in the verse. That strongly suggests something to me, and it should to you also.
I’m not sure I’m following you…
Lastly, you’ve said that ο γεγραφα, γεγραφα in John 19:22 has an antecedent. This is incorrect. The antecedent is not and cannot be “the King of the Jews” > because Pilate didn’t say that. >
I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean but Pilate is clearly affirming in John 19:22 that he wrote the words Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων.. not literally perhaps , but he’s certainly taking responsibility for writing these words.
John is narrating events, the Pharisees come up and say “Don’t write ‘the King of the Jews’…” and Pilate says nothing but “What I’ve written, I’ve written”. In both English and Greek the ‘what/ο’ has NO antecedent.
So you don’ think Pilate was responding to their question ?
It has a referent, yes, just as I would argue that the ο in the text in question has a referent, but not an antecedent.> Your analysis is dead wrong.
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 ? So what in your opinion is the referent of ὁ in John 19:22 ?
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 . However 1 John is a commentary on the prologue so no such ambiguity would result . John’s readers would already be familiar with his prologue . This together with the prepositional phrase περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς and a lack of any neuter gendered noun in the near vicinity to go with ὃ is a clear signal to his readers that in 1 John 1 τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is the antecedent of ὃ .
Also, let it be noted that as soon as it becomes possible to utilize constructio ad sensum in his prologue , John does so, as when he refers to τὸ φῶς made flesh in verses 10,11 and 12 with the masculine pronoun αὐτὸν. Contrast this with the fact that he refers to the pre-flesh τὸ φῶς in verse 5 with a neuter pronoun αὐτὸ. It is clear from this that apostle John did not consider pre-flesh τὸ φῶς to be a “person.” His grammar (indeed perhaps an unconscious,non-deliberate application [and non-application] of constructio ad sensum in the relevant verses just mentioned) betrays this readily enough to all those with eyes to see, IMHO.
I’m not sure I’m following you. Could you say exactly what you mean by this question please?
(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> .)
Explain exactly what you mean please. In exactly what preceding pages have you explained this?
…
Hi mwh,
I’m not sure I’m following you. Could you say exactly what you mean by this question please?
The poster “Calvinist” asserted that my reading of the text is “really odd”. I’m asking him to explain why he thinks that way (instead of just declaring that it is so) .
What exactly do you mean ?.
The consensus here (including yours) is that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 is governing the relative clauses in verse one.
In exactly what preceding pages have you explained this?
Start off with page one, my post to you… where I said the following, among other things:
"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 . .. "
I hope this clarifies things a bit for you,
Sincerely, in the hope of the real Christ,
(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. 
Not everyone. Herbert W. Bateman for instance, a Trinitarian scholar, didn’t miss it… to his great credit.
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.
Perhaps it’s time to consider it ?!
(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.
Actually, no example has yet been given on this score.
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?
Typical novices. 
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.
Good.
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> .
So you keep insisting.
The > phrase is the object of the prohibition μη γραφε which wasn’t even said by Pilate!
What exactly is this supposed to mean though? The Jews said to Pilate Μὴ γράφε Ὁ Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων… (“do not write the King of the Jews…”). Pilate replied with Ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα (“What I have written, I have written”). In other words he’s replying somewhat to this effect – “the words which I have written (i.e. Ὁ Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων), I have done so,… so stop complaining.”
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.
So then tell us what this implied antecedent is ?
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.
This is an example not of a statement with an implied antecedent but of one with no antecedent. Person B has no intention of telling person A what he did, i.e. what “what” is. Is this really what you think John is doing at 1 John 1:1 ?
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. >
Sadly, this sort of [over the top] rhetoric seems to be the extent of your “arguments” so far. Why not challenge my arguments with some substance instead ?
I’m afraid that I cannot see how anyone reading the Greek text sequentially could possibly think that the referent of τοῦτο could be τὸ φῶς, which is not only not in an adjacent clause, but (in the text as normally punctuated) is first mentioned two sentences later:
Οὗτος[τοῦτο?] ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇπρὸς τὸν θεόν. [3]πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. [4]ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων: [5]καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
Of course, I’m only a ‘novice’ in Greek, and so perhaps your insight is more penetrating than mine, but I really cannot imagine anyone taking τοῦτο, had it been used here, as referring to τὸ φῶς.
Apart from the specific question of τοῦτο, I don’t think you’ve really addressed my wider concern: if John had an important theological point to make of the kind you attribute to 1 John 1.1, would he not have found some way or other to make it here, in what is surely by far his most important pronouncement regarding the λόγος, rather than just in a later letter?
John
Yet you have no problem with going along with the idea that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse three governs the relative clauses in verse one .
Apart from the specific question of τοῦτο, I don’t think you’ve really addressed my wider concern: if John had an important theological point to make of the kind you attribute to 1 John 1.1, > would he not have found some way or other to make it here, in what is surely by far his most important pronouncement regarding the λόγος, rather than just in a later letter?
John
You seem to be arguing backwards. The idea that λόγος is an “Eternally Existing Person of the Godhead” was read into (eisegeted) John’s prologue by the Gnostic “Christians” (or “proto-Orthodox” as Dr. Bart Ehram is apt to call them). So obviously the apostle could not have spoken out against what had not yet happened. This is not to say however that the author does not unwittingly betray his hand concerning whether or not pre-flesh τὸ φῶς (aka λόγος ) was a person in his prologue.
In this regard, look first at verse 5 : apostle John refers to τὸ φῶς with the neuter form of the pronoun αὐτὸ.. Now go on to verses 10, 11 and 12 when τὸ φῶς has become a person (i.e. a human being). The apostle suddenly starts referring to it with a masculine pronoun (αὐτόν ) by constructio ad sensum. This is unmistakable grammatical evidence (albeit non-deliberately done) showing that the author did not consider τὸ φῶς in verse 5 to be a person. Otherwise he would have referred to it here also with a masculine pronoun as he did in verses 10, 11 and 12. One has to be blind (or else blinded) to miss this clear grammatical signature, IMHO.
I’m afraid I fail to see the parallelism - the two cases are completely different in nature and construction. Greek can certainly have its constructional complexities; all I am saying is that it seems implausible to me that anyone coming across τοῦτο in the suggested place would have any reason to think it related to τὸ φῶς. Clearly we will have to differ on this.
Joh
I think you just shot yourself in the foot here, albeit unwittingly. You now agree that depending on “the nature and construction” of a sentence , a pronoun could be separated from an antecedent which is not only not in an adjacent clause, but is first mentioned two sentences later. You might not think this likely in a sentence like John 1:2 (assuming τοῦτο instead of Οὗτος) but others might disagree. Here’s a simple test in this regard with a real life example. What is the antecedent of the masculine pronoun αὐτόν in verse 12 ?
In any case let’s cut to the chase here: Can you give us an example from the GNT of what you’re suggesting at 1 John 1:1 – that is, of a relative clause which is the object of a verb far removed from it ?
Brilliant!
So true, this discussion has brought to my mind this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c