[B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 31 12:41:46 EST 2010
You are correct to be concerned regarding the use of the nominative here. I had
contemplated using the accusative as in the original, but there's the matter of
that pesky ἐστιν which requires that the subject and its pred nom both be
nominative. I hadn't mentioned it previously, but doesn't the translation "that
the Jesus who came in the flesh (i.e. Jesus of Nazareth) is the
Christ..." assume that Χριστόν is actually nominative?
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
Cc: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; Leonard Jayawardena
<leonardj at live.com>; iver_larsen at sil.org; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7
On Dec 31, 2010, at 10:47 AM, George F Somsel wrote:
> Πᾶς γάρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Κάρλος Κόνραδος ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι ἀντίχριστός
> ἐστιν
> PAS GAR hOS AN MH hOMOLOGHi KARLOS KONRADOS EN SARKI ELHLUQENAI ANTIXRISTOS
> ESTIN
>
> Everyone who does not agree that Carl who came physically is Conrad is an
> antichrist.
>
>
> Virtually the same, n'est-ce pas? Should we thus divide what is intended as a
> name into two parts, ascribing different uses to each part?
I'm somewhat disturbed lest the last three nominative forms in this text
be thought to be (to have been) equated.
I don't know whether I have the heart to sign my name to this.
cwc
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
> To: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>; iver_larsen at sil.org
> Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 8:25:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7
>
> Let me say again at the outset that I agree with Leonard/NET on these verses.
>
> Take a look at Polycarp to the Philippians 7:1
>
> Πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι ἀντιχριστός ἐστιν
>
> PAS GAR hOS AN MH hOMOLOGHi IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQENAI ANTICRISTOS
> ESTIN.
>
> Here Polycarp appears to replace 1 Jn 4:2's participle ELHLUQOTA with the
> infinitive ἐληλυθέναι. If I understand how the Greek works here, John's
>version
>
>
> can mean "Every one who confesses that the Jesus who came in the flesh (i.e.
> Jesus of Nazareth) is the Christ..." OR "Every one who confesses that Jesus
> Christ came in the flesh...," whereas Polycarp's version can only mean the
> latter.
>
> But as with all things, you can do with this evidence anything you want. You
> can say that Polycarp is paraphrasing what John actually meant and so Leonard
>is
>
>
> wrong. Or you can say that Polycarp, making the sentence more precise by using
>
> the infinitive, shows that the participle can mean what Leonard says it means.
>
> You can say that Polycarp is the one who first (mistakenly?) interpreted these
> verses in an anti-docetic direction, since he apparently DID have to deal with
> these folks. Or you can say that Polycarp, who is alleged to have known John,
>is
>
>
> quoting an oral version of the logion. Or you can say that Polycarp's letter is
>
> irrelevant to what 1 John 4:2 actually means.
>
>
> Mark L
> Φωσφορος
>
>
> FWSFOROS MARKOS
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>
> To: iver_larsen at sil.org
> Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 5:55:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7
>
>
> I made an inadvertent error towards the last part of my reply, which is
> reproduced below with the correction incorporated. I have also taken the
> opportunity to make a few additional comments.
>
>
> LJ:
>
>>> You can see from this that TON IHSOUN must have been the original reading
>> that
>>> gave rise to the others. As the NET Bible note I reproduced in my last post
>>> says, "The author's failure to repeat ... [CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA] in
> the
>>> negative repetition in 4:3a actually suggests that the stress is on Jesus as
>>> the confession the opponents could not or would not take." The shorter
>> reading
>>> TON IHSOUN does not make any sense in 4:3 if 4:2 is understood as saying
> that
>>> "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is of
>>> God," which is why some scribes felt it necessary to add the words EN SARKI
>>> ELHLUQOTA to make 4:3 harmonise with their (erroneous) understanding of 4:2,
>>> with some wishing to further "improve" upon it by adding ELHLUQENAI, not
>>> content with just EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA. It must have been these same
> "culprits"
>>> who introduced ELHLUQENAI in 4:2 in the first place. One can imagine a time
>>> when docetism became a concern for these scribes, who saw in 4:2, as
>>> traditionally translated, an effective scriptural counter to that heresy.
>> ------------
>>
>> IL: I could not find such a NET note at 4:3.
>
> LJ: You may have "overshot" here. The note is only "The author's failure to
> repeat ... [CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA] in the negative repetition in 4:3a
> actually suggests that the stress is on Jesus as the confession the opponents
> could not or would not take," the material following being my own writing.
>
>
>> It is not "the author's failure to
>> repeat".
>
> LJ: Yes, the words "the author's failure to repeat" are somewhat unfortunate.
> The "author's omission of the words ..." would have been better.
>
>> It is simply a common Greek ellipsis.
>> Let us look again at the text here:
>> ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκετε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ· πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
ἐν
>> σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, 3 καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν
> ἐκ
>> τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν·
>> EN TOUTWi GINWSKETE TO PNEUMA TOU QEOU: PAN PNEUMA hO hOMOLOGEI IHSOUN
CRISTON
>> EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA EK TOU QEOU ESTIN, KAI PAN PNEUMA hO MH hOMOLOGEI TON
> IHSOUN
>> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN.
>>
>> The first sentence has the full statement: "Every spirit who acknowledges
that
>> Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God." It would be bad Greek to
repeat
>> everything in the next statement. The contrast is between every spirit who
> does
>> A and every spirit who does not do A. For the second A, the author could have
>> simply said TOUTO, but he chose to be more specific and repeat Jesus. That
the
>> rest is left unstated to be supplied from context does not tell you anything
>> about the intended meaning of verse 2. I have no problem with accepting the
> UBS
>> text as original, since it has the best mss support and makes perfect sense
in
>> context, once you understand how the Greek language employs ellipsis: Every
>> spirit who does not acknowledge Jesus (in this way/as I have just said/as a
>> human being of flesh and blood) is not of God.
>>
>> Iver Larsen
>
>
> LJ: I don't know what you mean by a "common Greek ellipsis." Perhaps you could
> explain with an example or two and show us how what you say applies to the
> present case.
>
>
> TOUTO certainly would have helped your case, but not TON IHSOUN, the original
> reading. How hOMOLEGEI TON IHSOUN can be an ellipsis for "confess that Jesus
> Christ has come in the flesh" only you can understand. To "confess Jesus" most
> naturally means to confess Jesus in some capacity or office, i.e., as the
> Messiah, not that "Jesus Christ came in the flesh." Compare this with 2:23, hO
> hOMOLOGWN TON hUION (see below for my comment).
>
>
> Perhaps an illustration with a few English sentences might help us here. We can
>
> say that "The UN has recognized Alassane Ouattara as the legitimate president
>of
>
>
> Sierra Leone. The African Union, too, has recognized Quattara." However, if
>the
>
>
> first sentence was something like "The UN has recognized that Alassane Quattara
>
> is exempt from complying with international law" (a ridiculous sentence of
> course), then the second sentence cannot be in the form "The African Union,
>too,
>
>
> has recognized Alassan Quattara." With words like "confess," "recognize,"
> ellipsis is possible only if the office of the person concerned is in view.
> Similarly, "to confess Jesus" can only mean, in the context of John and indeed
> the rest of the NT, to confess Jesus to be what he claimed to be, the Messiah.
> It can never be an ellipsis for "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh."
>
> I hope that John 2:22-23 helps you see that "to confess Jesus" means to
>"confess
>
>
> that Jesus is the Christ," though the word involved in that passage is "son"
> rather than "Jesus."
>
>
> TIS ESTIN hO YEUSTHS EI MH hO ARNOUMENOS hOTI IHSOUS OUK ESTIN hO CRISTOS;
> hOUTOS ESTIN hO ANTICRISTOS, hO ARNOUMENOS TON PATERA KAI TON hUION. PAS hO
> ARNOUMENOS TON hUION OUDE TON PATERA ECEI. hO hOMOLWN TON hUION KAI TON PATERA
> ECEI.
>
> One who denies that Jesus is the son of God does not have the father too. This
> is because the father was in Jesus (and vice versa). Note that, as the
>preceding
>
>
> context shows, to deny "the son" here means to deny that Jesus is the Christ.
> Conversely, to confess "the son" is to confess that Jesus is the Christ.
>
>
> Finally, I mentioned in my last post that 1 John 4:3 speaks of "the spirit of
> Antichrist," not "the spirit of docetism." The expression "Antichrist" first
> occurs in this epistle in 2:22 and it is significant that the context there is
> the denial of Jesus as the Christ.
>
> Leonard Jayawardena
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list