From: John Kendall (john-kendall@???clara.net)
Date: Wed Feb 04 1998 - 08:04:49 EST
You wrote (snipped):
>I brought this up in class (a change in case for hO), and was told that hO
>should be taken as nominative in each segment, as there can be a compound
If this is what you've been told, it really is incorrect. But from your post,
it just seems possible that you may have misunderstood your teacher. Could it
be that there has been some confusion because there are two distinct issues
here: (a) the case(s) of the relative pronouns; (b) the syntactical function of
the noun clauses that they introduce (ie whether they are noun clause subjects
or noun clause objects)?
Some commentators understand the parallel noun clauses in 1John 1:1 as the
"compound subject" of a verbless copulative sentence with PERI TOU LOGOU THS
ZWHS as the complement.
eg Smalley in his Word commentary renders the verse as follows:
"What was there from the beginning - which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have observed and felt with our hands - is our subject:
the word of life."
I seem to remember that the New English Bible reflects a similar understanding
of the Greek syntax. Is this what your teacher is trying to convey?
Others understand verse 2 as a parenthesis with verse 1's series of parallel
noun clauses being resumed in verse 3. In this case, these noun clauses are
understood as direct objects of the verb APAGGELLOMEN in verse 3. This
understanding is reflected in the different renderings of RSV or NASV and the
Hope this helps,
-- John Kendall Cardiff Wales
To reply, please remove the three question marks from my address.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT