[B-Greek] hO ESTIN? (1 Jn 2:8)

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Feb 11 04:21:24 EST 2007


Carl:

>>> On the other hand, if we really do
>>> suppose that the neuter relative pronoun hO has hH
>>> ENTOLH as its real
>>> antecedent, then it's an additional item pointing
>>> toward a
>>> questionable level of competence in Greek on the
>>> part of the author
>>> of 1 John. I have thought for some times that there
>>> are parts of 1
>>> John that really don't fit together very well
>>> syntactically -- at
>>> least in terms of "standard" syntactic patterns, and
>>> this is one of them.
>>
>>
Mitch:

>> Why is hO not the 'conceptual antecedent' I have read
>> about in other contexts? Isn't this 'standard' enough
>> Greek (as in Eph 2.8 KAI TOUTO OUK EX hUMWN)?
>
Carl:

> Not hO but rather the preceding clause is the "conceptual antecedent"  according to Culy's
> argument. If, on the other hand, I understand  what Iver is arguing (and I'm by no means confident
> that I do), it's  not grammar but intuition that tells us that ENTOLHN KAINHN in the  preceding
> clause must be the antecedent of the neuter relative  pronoun hO.

If I understand Mitch correctly, I would say yes, hO seems to have a conceptual antecedent. I don't 
think the use of neuter indicates a poor command of Greek grammar on the part of the author of 1 
John. He uses many relative pronouns, and he is careful to choose the correct gender for each of 
them. Just as the masculine hOS implies a person (ANQRWPOS) (or another masculine gender antecedent) 
as in
2:5 hOS D' AN THRHi AUTOU TON LOGON (which ever person keeps his word)
so hO\ in the neuter implies "which thing" or "which concept", unless it has a direct neuter
antecedent like PNEUMA. As we discussed recently the hO\ in hO\ ESTIN is often neuter simply because
it is part of a fixed phrase "this (thing/concept) means", and it does not conform in gender to its
apparent antecedent. This is not what we have in 2:8, though.

Let me try to explain again what I mean. In my analysis, the relative pronoun in the clause hO\
ESTIN ALHTES does not qualify the feminine grammatical element ENTOLH KAINH in the sense that it
says something more about the command, e.g. when it was given, who gave it, what it contains etc.
Instead, it is assumed that the reader knows the content of this new-but-old command. I think the
hO\ is supposed to lead the reader to think of the fulfillment of the command, rather than some
description of it. We might even suggest that the author had in mind an implicit PLHRWMA, something
like
Rom 13:10: PLHRWMA OUN NOMOU hH AGAPH (ESTIN). Love is fulfillment of the law.
( I also believe that the intended audience of 1 John were assumed to be familiar with Paul's
letters and theology, but I can't prove it. Paul follows Jesus in explaining that all the laws of
the old covenant are subsumed under one law of love, the law of Christ which is both old and new.)

NIV translates: its truth is seen in him and you.
I take this to mean that as Jesus fulfilled this great command of love, the truth and value of it
was clearly seen. The writer's hope and admonition is that his readers will equally fulfil this
command and thereby demonstrate its "truth", not in a logical but existential sense.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list