[B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7

Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 31 18:34:25 EST 2010


The short answer, George, is that we separate Ιησουν from Χριστον only in these 
two verses because these are the only ones where you CAN separate them.

And yes, you have summarized quite well the difference in the meanings of the 
two ways to construe the verses.  The reason why I like this thread is that the 
question is not just a formal one but may have something to do with the history 
of doctrine.  NET may be overreacting to a few centuries of finding 2nd  century 
heresies everywhere  in the NT.

 Mark L



FWSFOROS MARKOS




________________________________
From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
To: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>; iver_larsen at sil.org; 
b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 1:07:04 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7


OK.  I ask once more, "What justifies separating Ἰησοῦν IHSOUN from Χριστὸν 
XRISTON and making Χριστὸν XRISTON the pred following εἰμι EIMI?    I have 
noted that the author uses Ἰησούς IHSOUS immediately preceding Χριστός 
XRISTOS 5 times:
 
A. 1 Jn 1.3
1. ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν 
ἔχητε μεθʼ ἡμῶν. καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ 
αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.  

 
1. hO hEWRAKAMEN KAI AKHKOAMEN, APAGGELLOMEN KAI hUMIN, hINA KAI hUMEIS 
KOINWNIAN EXETE MEQ' hUMWN.  KAI hH KOINWNIA DE hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI 
META TOU hUIOU AUTOU IHSOU XRISTOU.
 
Would you propose here to separate Ἰησοῦ IHSOU from Χριστοῦ XRISTOU?  I think it 
is fairly obvious that this cannot be done.  This is one name.
 
B. 1 Jn 2.1
1. Τεκνία μου, ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε. καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ, παράκλητον 
ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον· 

 
1. TEKNIA MOU, TAUTA GRAFW hUMIN hINA MH hAMARTHTE.  KAI EAN hAMARTHi PARAKLHTON 
EXOMEN PROS TON PATERA IHSOUN XRISTON DIKAION.
 
Can these be separated?  I see no likelihood.  It is one name.
 
C. 1 Jn 3.2323Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύσωμεν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ 
αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡμῖν. 

23 KAI hAUTH ESTIN hH ENTOLH AUTOU, hINA PISTEUSWMEN TWi ONOMATI TOU hUIOU AUTOU 
IHSOU XRISTOU KAI AGAPWMEN ALLHLOUS,KAQWS EDWKEN ENTOLHN hHMIN.
 
Again, there can be little doubt that this is one name identifying "his son."
 
D. 1 Jn 5.6
6. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν διʼ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ... 
6 hOUTOS ESTIN hO ELQWN DI' hUDATOS KAI hAIMATOS, IHSOUS XRISTOS ...
 
So, are we to understand this as "This Jesus is, who came by water and blood, is 
Christ..."  I think not. 

 
E.  1 Jn 5.2020. ... καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. 
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. 

20. ... KAI ESMEN EN TWi ALHQINWi, EN TWi hUIWi AUTOU IHSOU XRISTWi.  hOUTOS 
ESTIN hO ALHQINOS QEOS KAI ZWH AIWNIOS.
 
It is noteworthy that Ἰησοῦ IHSOU and Χριστῷ XRISTWi appear to be in different 
cases here.  That is not, however, the situation.  If you take a look elsewhere 
in the NT, you will see that Ἰησοῦ IHSOU is consistently used for the dative.  
Note Mt 18.1 for example.
 Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ προσῆλθον οἱ μαθηταὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ λέγοντες·
EN EKEINHi THi hWRA PROSHQON hOI MAQHTAI TWi IHSOU LEGONTES
 
There can be no doubt whatsoever that Ἰησοῦ IHSOU is here used as a dative.  
Thus here also these must be taken together as one name. 
 
I momentarily skip over the passage of concern which is the 6th usage of a 
conjoined Ἰησους with Χριστός.
 
There is evidence that our author knew how to assert the identity of Jesus with 
Christ (or annointed).
 
1 Jn 5.1Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται,
PAS hO PISTEUWN hOTI IHSOUS ESTIN hO XRISTOS, EK TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAI
 
Note that here the two are separated by the copula and are therefore not to be 
taken together as one name.
 
This is something that, although I noted it previously, you have failed to 
answer.  It is the practice of our author to use the two together as one name 
unless he explicitly separates them by inserting the copula.  Why therefore do 
you insist on separating them?  

 
What is the result of the two different readings?   
 
1.  When the two words are separated and the participial phrase is understood to 
qualify only Ἰησοῦν IHSOUN, the emphasis is then put on the assertion that 
Jesus is the annointed.  That this same Jesus came in the flesh is not 
considered to be of especial importance and is simply mentioned in passing.  The 
"antichrist" then becomes identified with one who denies that Jesus is the 
annointed one.
 
2. When it is understood as one name then the assertion is not that Jesus is the 
annointed but rather that he came in the flesh so that the one who denies his 
physical presence on earth is the antichrist.  

 
I think it fairly obvious that there is an important consideration here.  Is he 
speaking regarding Jews who may have denied the significance of Jesus' relation 
to God or is he speaking regarding those who accept the position that Jesus is 
the Christ (implicit in taking it as one name) but who deny that he was actually 
physically present but was only seemingly present? 

 

 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: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>; iver_larsen at sil.org; 
b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:42:53 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7


Yes, George, you are absolutely correct in your analysis of the verse from 
Polycarp, but Leonard and the NET are talking about 1 John 4:2, and that was 
what I was englishing


πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, 

where the difference is, because you have a participle not the infinitive, you 
can take ἐν σαρκὶ ktl  as a subordinate clause (not part of the indirect 
discourse) and you are just left with "every spirit who confesses that Jesus is 
the Christ."

Speaking of docetism, has this thread gone on for a long time, or does it only 
SEEM that way?  :)

Mark L



FWSFOROS MARKOS 




________________________________
 From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
To: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>; iver_larsen at sil.org; 
b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7


Let's analyze that.
 
Πᾶς γάρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν
PAS GAR hOS AN MH hOMOLOGHi IHSOUN XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQENAI ANTIXRISTOS 
ESTIN.
 
Πᾶς γάρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ PAS GAR hOS AN MH hOMOLOGHi introduces indirect 
discourse and requires an accusative which we find in Ἰησοῦν IHSOUN (and I would 
contend in Χριστὸν XRISTON as well).  This is the subject of an infinitive 
ἐληλυθέναι ELHLUQENAI which likewise requires an accusative.  So far so good.    
Here is where the problem begins.  We then find ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν ANTIXRISTOS 
ESTIN.  This is nominative with ἀντίχριστός ANTIXRISTOS being the predicate 
nominative.  What is the subject of ἐστιν ESTIN?  The only thing possible is 
that it be ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ hOS AN MH hOMOLOGHi. Therefore, ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ is 
equated to ἀντίχριστός ANTIXRISTOS.  So how does  Χριστὸν XRISTON get to be in 
the accusative?   It can only be accusative as part of the unit Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν 
IHSOUN XRISTON which is the subject of the infinitive.
 

 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: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>; iver_larsen at sil.org; 
b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7


< 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?>

No, I don't think so.  The whole point is that verbs of saying can take two 
accusatives, one of which is predicate.   

 Mark L



FWSFOROS MARKOS 




________________________________
 From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.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 10:41:46 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7


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