Inspecting 1 John 1:1

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
81

Let’s give Isaac the benefit of the doubt. (If we don’t he will just take it anyway.) Let’s assume that in the text above, the opening ὃ is short for τὸ ὃ, and the sentence is a type of dangling nominative title to the Epistle, with the Epistle proper beginning in verse 2. (You do have something similar to this in the opening of Mark’s Gospel:

Mk 1:1 Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ. 2 Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ, Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου: Note the period after verse 1.)

Under this scenario, we concede that the first ὃ is NOT the object of ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3. I still don’t see why this strengthens Isaac argument that the first ὃ does not refer to Jesus as person. You can announce the non-person Logos just as much as you can announce the message about him, can’t you?

In other words, rather than trying to get Isaac to concede that what he is saying about the relative clauses is wrong, maybe we can get him to see that it is unnecessary?

To me it is more like the Vietnam War. I’m not really sure why I am here in the first place, but, being here, I just want to declare victory and go home.

82

Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ.

This isn’t a statement or a complete sentence with an understood verb–it’s an incipit, i.e., a title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incipit

I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t written by Mark–it was probably added at a later date to identify the text. I don’t really think this is quite analogous to the first sentence of 1 John, which derives its rhetorical effectiveness by announcing (ἀπαγγέλλομεν) what he’s going to talk about by launching, out of nowhere, right into a long breathless sentence interrupted by a parenthesis that conveys the author’s inability to contain his enthusiasm.

Update: I should have read Markos’ post more carefully–he recognizes that it’s a title.

83

Markos, Qimmik - many thanks.

While I’d be only too happy to cut Isaac some slack if I could see a reasonable way of doing so, I tend to agree with Qimmik re the start of Mark. Matthew of course begins ‘ΒΙΒΛΟΣ γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυεὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβρααμ.’, which should presumably be regarded in the same light. However, the start of 1 John doesn’t look to me like a title/incipit along the lines of these two, but instead plunges straight into the text itself - rather, I suppose, like John’s Gospel.

Best wishes,

John

84

Good afternoon jaihare,

I really don’t see how this statement is in any way relevant to what you’re doing at 1 John 1:1 .


Relative clauses do not stand on their own –

I don’t suggest otherwise though. As you know, a relative clause is a “dependent” or “subordinate” clause . There seems to be some confusion about how relatives work amongst some posters here . So a quick summary is in order here;

(a) The gender and number of relative pronouns, just like all other pronouns, are determined by thei antecedent .

(b) Their case is determined by their function in the relative clause.

(c)A relative clause is always a dependent clause, so it cannot contain the main subject and verb of the sentence.

(d) Relative pronouns do not introduce questions (that is the province of the interrogative pronoun). They always refer to a noun or to a noun prase.

(e)A relative pronoun introduces a clause that usually modifies a noun.

(f) A relative clause is the relative pronoun + the clause it introduces.

(g) A relative clause can be the subject, direct object, or the object of a preposition.

(h) The number and gender of a relative pronoun must match those of it’s antecedent (whether grammatical gender or actual gender).

If anyone does not know these basics, I suggest you thoroughly familiarize yourself with the above points before engaging this discussion.




and I never used the word “govern” > with regard to this relationship (I only use the word “govern” with regard to how many arguments a verb can take or with regard to the case that a specific preposition calls for). Relative clauses can replace regular nouns in most constructions. They can be subjects: “> whoever lives in this house > (= this person) has a lot of money.” They can be direct objects objects: “I hope you remember > what I said to you > (= my words to you).” They can be indirect objects: “I gave money to > whomever I came across > (= everyone).” In every case, the relative clause is > embedded > within an independent clause.

In this case, “we announce even to you > what we have seen > (= our own experience), etc.” The relative clauses are dependent on the main verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν. This is obvious and true. Your refusal to open up your mind and consider this doesn’t negate its simplicity or its obviousness.

O.K., so let’s use the word “object of” then. My problem with your post is that you once again very nicely and forcefully explained your position but you have not furnished any example from the GNT which cause cause me to honestly agree that relative pronouns can work with a verb in the way that you’re saying they do in verse 1. I think you threw in your lot with Wallace at 1 John 1:1 without carefully thinking through this issue. Bear in mind that Wallace has some terrible biblical exegesis and translation of the Greek , his translation of John 1:1c a case in point.

85

Good morning Vietnam.

If I were still posting here, I would point out that Markos’ suggestion, generously but misguidedly meant as a concession to Isaac, has another strike against it too. What kind of letter begins καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη?

Where I do agree with Markos is that we should give up “trying to get Isaac to concede that what he is saying about the relative clauses is wrong.” We must all know now that he will not be budged. Let me pose a question. Is there anyone here (or anywhere), apart from Isaac (and possibly Markos), who does not recognize that the opening relative clauses are objects of apaggellomen? If not, let me pose another question. Why are we wasting our time? Don’t we all have better things to do? (Sorry, that’s two.) The more we continue, the more opportunity we provide for Isaac to pick holes in what I think we all recognize is really a united front. Let’s adopt another of Markos’ suggestions: declare victory — or defeat for all I care — and go home.

No answers please. Silence speaks louder than words.

86

“Why are we wasting our time?”

Because we’re moths drawn to the flame–in more senses than one.

But I agree, let’s let Isaac have the last word and be done with it.

87

Moths don’t know any better.

88

Hi John W,

In Koine a verb , a pronoun etc. is sometimes implied. In other words, it is not explicitly expressed. This is sometimes true with περὶ. Look at Acts 24:24 for instance:


Μετὰ δὲ ἡμέρας τινὰς παραγενόμενος ὁ Φῆλιξ σὺν Δρουσίλλῃ τῇ ἰδίᾳ γυναικὶ οὔσῃ Ἰουδαίᾳ μετεπέμψατο τὸν Παῦλον, καὶ ἤκουσεν αὐτοῦ > περὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν πίστεως> .

New International Version
Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus.

English Standard Version
After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.



NET Bible
Some days later, when Felix arrived with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.


GOD’S WORD® Translation
Some days later Felix arrived with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him talk about faith in Christ Jesus.

etc.

The verb (in bold above) in all those translations is not in the original Greek.

89

Each verb forms it’s own clause , and we cannot have a clause without a verb. A relative clause, if it is the object of a verb, must be contextually and grammatically related to it. But ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 doesn’t fill these criteria. In fact it relates itself only to what follows in typical fashion as a “hinge” word (in addition to the immediately preceding ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν ofcourse):

ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, > ἵνα > καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ’ ἡμῶν. καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

This verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 “governs” nothing in verse 1, as far as I can tell.

90

Isaac - thank you for your replies.

I’m afraid that I cannot accept the relevance of your examples involving ἀκούω. If you read the entry on this verb in Liddell-Scott-Jones’ Lexicon, you will see that it can take various constructions, including, very commonly, the genitive of the person from whom something is heard. At Acts 24.24, the sense of καὶ ἤκουσεν αὐτοῦ περὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν πίστεως is ‘… and heard from him about faith in Jesus Christ’. There is, in fact, no verb missing in the Greek; the fact that the translations you cite choose to add one in English is a completely different matter. One could insert all sorts of verbs in various places in translating from Greek if one chose, and sometimes it is helpful to do so in making the sense clear in English, but one shouldn’t confuse that with a verb’s actually being missing in the Greek original.

In your lecture to Jaihare yesterday on relative clauses, you agreed with him that relative clauses ‘do not stand on their own’, and added that ‘A relative clause is a “dependent” or “subordinate” clause’. Yet in the sentence as you punctuate it, viz.

ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ’ ἡμῶν. καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

there is nothing for the relative clauses to depend on , or be subordinate to. You are thus forced to fabricate a verb (for which there is not the slightest evidence in the Greek) to fulfil this function; the rest of us, however, can point to a verb - ἀπαγγέλλομεν - which does appear later in the sentence as punctuated in editions of the Greek New Testament.

So - again - I ask: can you point to another sentence in the Bible which consists simply of a string of relative clauses?

Turning now to your second post to me, you simply assert as a fact that ἀπαγγέλλομεν cannot be ‘contextually and grammatically related’ to the relative clauses in verse 1, but you offer no evidence for this. Since you have pressed others for evidence of their statements to the contrary, might I ask you to do the same in respect of your assertion?

Here’s another way of looking at it: if the text omitted the bit I’ve placed in square brackets below:

Ο ΗΝ ΑΠ᾽ ΑΡΧΗΣ, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς[,— καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομενὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν,— ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν] ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν …

would you still argue that the relative clauses at the start cannot depend on ἀπαγγέλλομεν? And if you would then accept that they do, why is it so very difficult to accept what mwh and others have said about the effect on the sentence of the parenthetical — καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομενὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν — , which leads to ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν being restated by way of recapitulation immediately prior to the main verb? What, in your view, is wrong with this analysis?

Best wishes,

John

91

Hi John W,

I don’t know why you would think that my “examples” (though I gave only one example) “involve” “ἀκούω” . The verb that the Greek assumes here is not ἀκούω but λέγω (“speak”), otherwise you would have an incomplete and incoherent sentence. Remember, Greek is not English; while English could not get away with assuming such a verb in such an [English] sentence, a Greek sentence like this can. Try reading that verse again in Greek without assuming the verb “speak”.

If you look at John 2:21, on the other hand, the verb is not implied but explicitly stated:

ἐκεῖνος δὲ > ἔλεγεν > περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.

In Greek (as also in English) sometimes pronouns and or verbs are not directly stated, just implied. I’m not making this up, but it’s an elementary truth of their grammar. Here’s another example, John 14:31:


ἀλλ’ ἵνα γνῷ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ καθὼς ἐνετείλατο (ἔδωκέν) μοι ὁ Πατὴρ, οὕτως ποιῶ. Ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦθεν.

The word ἔδωκέν is implied in some manuscripts.

Peace in the will of God, the Father of Jesus,

92

Isaac - many thanks. This has been a most interesting discussion, but it seems that neither side will ever be able to convince the other, despite having set out our respective positions very fully; I think, therefore, subject to the views of others, that the debate has now probably run its useful course. Thank you again for taking the time to discuss this interesting passage.

Best wishes,

John

93

Hi John W,

I don’t think your “side” [of 4 or 5 ] (committed trinitarians, friends and sympathizers ) has done that. In this thread, I’ve observed appeals to authority (especially to Wallace), to numbers, to ad hominems , to passion and to force of will, but not to real grammar. In any case, I thank you for taking the time to participate in this passage.

In the peace of the only God, the Father of Jesus

94

Bold above is the fatal flaw of jaihare’s argument. Because in truth there is no repetition of “a partial relative clause string” since relative clause strings left dangling without a verb to hang on to are ungrammatical nonsense, they are nothing at all. Now had the author used the verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 1 in the same relationship as he does in verse 3, then yes of course a case could be made that he repeats a portion of the “relative clause string” to resume a train of thought apparently broken by an apparent parenthetical. Think about it: what is “a dangling clause” if not an euphemism for “an ungrammatical clause” ? Now had the author done something like this, jaihare would have a point:

ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν > ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν [ περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν,] ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, > ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν> , ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ’ ἡμῶν. καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Everything inside [… ] we are asked to imagine is a parenthetical.


Notice that only by the addition of ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν in verse 1 can we (grammatically) say that the author is “repeating a part of the relative clause string,” or resuming a broken thought in verse 3. Jaihare’s read simply put, brutalizes the prologue of the epistle.

95

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

I would like to come back to this, since I may not have made myself clear. What I meant was, do you agree that this verse in the NASB is incomplete in English as it stands. (I realise now that in your answer, you restated your view that the Greek verse one is complete, but I was asking about this English verse 1).

I am going to assume that your answer to this question is yes, since everybody who speaks English knows that. OK, now the next question is, how might we make this into a complete English sentence. Here are two suggestions:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, > was > concerning the Word of Life.

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, > concerned > the Word of Life

Now you have a main verb, and a main clause and a sentence.

So coming back to the Greek, what you have to do to make verse 1 complete is to read in a verb, like εἰμί. This is very crude, I think, but let’s stick ἦν in there:

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

I suspect that is pretty bad Greek, (I am not sure how bad, perhaps somebody could advise) - but at least it is a sentence. It seems to me that that is how you are reading it. Do you agree?

Andrew

96

Andrew,

That’s quite ungrammatical.. Here’s how the sentence is to be read with the implied verb embedded in brackets:

Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν [> λέγω > / > γράφω> ] περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.

I have a sneaking suspicion that at least half of you (2 out of 4) here championing jaihare’s reading of the text have no idea what it actually is but you’re nevertheless in agreement with it because it is trinitarian friendly.

97

I have a hard time understanding what is trinity-friendly or trinity-unfriendly in how we are discussing this text. There is literally no advantage in your reading to someone who might hold your position.

98

OK, I had:

Subject [the relative clause/clauses] Supplied Verb [ἦν] Predicate [ περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς]

You have:

Supplied Subject [ἐγώ] Supplied Verb [γράφω] Then the object must be the relative clause/clauses I think - ie the ὃ’s are accusative - and then περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς would be a prepositional phrase modifying the object, so far as I can see. As in, say:

I write/ an article/ about hairdressing.

OR

I wrote down/ what I saw/ about the future.

‘About the future’ tells me more about ‘what I saw’.

But I actually thought that you want the relative to be ὁ λόγος τἥς ζωἥς (or something like that)?

Andrew

99

I really don’t understand how adding λέγω/γράφω would make sense at all of the relative clauses. I understand that it could be inserted to make sense of περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς - “I am speaking/writing concerning the word of life.” If we take the relative clauses as the objects of λέγω/γράφω, this would produce the following, moving the verb for English:

I am speaking/writing… what we have have heard and seen with our own eyes… concerning the word of life.

What does this mean to speak or write what one has seen. You can write about what you have seen or heard. I don’t see how Isaac really makes sense of this by inserting either of these verbs. I mean, if nothing else, since all of the verbs are in the plural (“we saw with our hands,” “we heard,” “we proclaim,” etc.) we would expect the assumed verb to be either λέγομεν or γράφομεν rather than λέγω or γράφω (which are both singular).

I cannot understand how adding a verb here is really going to help make sense of this passage.

100

How about we do it this way – Look at the following:

γράφω περὶ τοῦ Λόγου ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

How would you translate this sentence into English ?