modus.irrealis
you asked:
What exactly does ποιειν την αληθηειαν mean?
Is it possible that this(ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν) was an idiom and the native speakers could have understood it several ways?
Just a thought?
GTM
oú ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν = not do the truth
Latin also: non facimus veritatem
looks like an idom…
the Catalan version translates this part as “no viuríem d’acord amb la veritat” (we would not live according to the truth).
as for this being an idiom, if this is an idiom it should not have different meanings, just one (e.g. “to feel under the weather” is an idiom and it’s the same for everyone who speaks English)
Doing the truth sounds foreign but practicing the truth sounds natural.
As we were saying above, it appears time and again in the Hebrew Bible. It is surely a Hebraism, since it appears in the Septuagint also. This could be discounted if anyone could find a reference for ποιεω την αληθειαν outside of Jewish/Christian religious writings — that is, uninfluenced Greek literature. Do you know of any?
I am out of town this week and am not in front of my computer. While I agree that an idiom might have onlyI believe that it can be used in various applications. I believe that the writer had a interesting idea when he made this statement. But since I find it difficult to use this computer I will wait until Tuesday when I am in front of my system.
God Bless
GTM
jaihare,
One more thought on idioms before I go in a different direction
This one is: keep tabs on.
This idiom clearly could be used in various ways. Here are a couple possibilities
To watch a Child.
To control a Bank account.
GTM
ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς
ἦν is a verb of being. Should it be understood that this text implies, based on the word usage here, that ἀρχῆς suggests a time before creation?
GTM
sure, but the core meaning remains the same…TO CONTROL STH/SB
We sort of came to the conclusion that the focus of this verse was not so much Christ but the evidence that Christ is the Word come in the flesh. If we were correct in this than I don’t think ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς would mean from before creation. The incarnation wasn’t “from before creation” so that which we have heard, which we have seen… which we looked upon and have touched etc wasn’t present from before creation. However, I am not comfortable with saying that ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς refers to the birth of Christ or to the conception. I hope someone can shed some light on it.
Bert
Thank you for your reply.
We sort of came to the conclusion that the focus of this verse was not so much Christ but the evidence that Christ is the Word come in the flesh. If we were correct in this than I don’t think ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς would mean from before creation. The incarnation wasn’t “from before creation” so that which we have heard, which we have seen… which we looked upon and have touched etc wasn’t present from before creation. However, I am not comfortable with saying that ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς refers to the birth of Christ or to the conception. I hope someone can shed some light on it.
The verb form here (ἦν) is a form of eimi which is in the imperfect tense which implies an abiding state in the past. If the writer were speaking of something that came into being, it would seem as if the writer would use the verb form ginomai. But then again maybe not.
But you are right. We must wait for others to weigh in and maybe we can make sense of this.
GTM
Yes. That also makes me uncomfortable with our conclusion that ̔́ο refers to the evidence and not to Christ.
The Son of God has always existed. ἦν fits well for that, but ̔́ο doesn’t make much sense there. ̔́ο makes sense if the subject is the evidence of the incarnation but then ̓̀ην ἀπʼ ἀρχ́ης is hard to explain.
Bert
Yes. That also makes me uncomfortable with our conclusion that ̔́ο refers to the evidence and not to Christ.
It certainly creates some difficulties and I would be interested to hear what others have to say about this difficulty.
The Son of God has always existed. ἦν fits well for that, but ̔́ο doesn’t make much sense there. ̔́ο makes sense if the subject is the evidence of the incarnation but then ̓̀ην ἀπʼ ἀρχ́ης is hard to explain.
I think that we must come to the conclusion that this text transcends our original idea in some way. I believe that our original idea is right but maybe it isn’t complete. 
GTM
I don’t understand the difficulty here. The Greek seems a lot like the English “that which was from the start” which seems to me to work with any interpretation. It still seems to me that the emphasis is on the author’s message being the same as the original message and not having been changed, i.e. being the one that was from the start.
modus.irrealis
I don’t understand the difficulty here. The Greek seems a lot like the English “that which was from the start” which seems to me to work with any interpretation. It still seems to me that the emphasis is on the author’s message being the same as the original message and not having been changed, i.e. being the one that was from the start.
There seemed to be a consensus in earlier posts that the neuter pronoun in verse 1 implied “things about” rather than" He who was. ". We then move to the eimi in an imperfect form which imples preexistence.
The question that I present to you is, how did what they hear and they saw, preexist the life of those that heard it?
GTM
perhaps the writer is referring to both the things they have seen with their own eyes concerning the message and the things they have heard/read in Scripture (Old Testament)…, which all points to the same person/message (Christ)
sid4greek
perhaps the writer is referring to both the things they have seen with their own eyes concerning the message and the things they have heard/read in Scripture (Old Testament)…, which all points to the same person/message (Christ)
That is a good possibility.
I was also thinking that the main idea in the first 4 verses of 1 John 1 is seen in verse 3 ὃ— ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν,
I believe that they main idea is the ἀπαγγέλλομεν or the proclamation. In many other text we see that the Gospel message included Christ and weren’t just about Christ. Paul said I preach Christ crucified.
1 Corinthians 1:23-24.
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
The main theme in 1 John 1 is the message which could conceivably be a neuter form and we might also be forced to assume that they (the recipients of this letter) already knew that the message was Christ. This would go a long way in resolving the word conflict in verse 1.
Why preexistance, though? I don’t see why that’s implied.
ἀπʼ ἀρχ́ης does imply (in my mind anyways) the beginning of time rather than the beginning of the incarnation. We sort of came to the conclusion that ̔́ο refers to the evidence of the Word having come in the flesh. The Word came in the flesh during the generation of the writer; it certainly was not ἀπʼ ἀρχ́ης.
So maybe our original conclusion was wrong.
Bert
your said:
ἀπʼ ἀρχ́ης does imply (in my mind anyways) the beginning of time rather than the beginning of the incarnation.
I agree! I kicked the dust off of some of my old books and Wuest and several others seem to think this way also.
But, I could be wrong and I am very interested in what the scholarson this forum understand this text to mean.
GTM
I associate this use of ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς with its use in 2:7, 2:24, and 3:11, where ἀρχή seems to refer to some recent period, perhaps the start of the ministry to the group the letter is addressed to. ἀρχή can of course refer to the beginning, but I don’t see anything in 1:1 that forces such an interpretation.
My own understanding is that he’s proclaiming what was from the start in the sense that nothing is changed, what he’s proclaiming is the same as the original message. I can see other ways of interpreting it, but I was convinced by the idea that the emphasis here is on establishing the authenticity of what is being proclaimed. It would be nice to know more about the external context of the letter – I get the feeling that it’s a response of sorts but we don’t have the points that are being responded to, which may have made interpreting the letter easier.