Re: hO in 1 John 1:1

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Fri Feb 06 1998 - 06:24:29 EST

At 3:04 AM -0600 2/6/98, John Kendall wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 Carl Conrad wrote:
>Carl adds:
>> I think that the UBS committee has done the right
>>thing by punctuating after ZWHS with a dash; what this means is that we
>>have an anacoluthon--an incomplete sentence, and that after the sentence
>>gets this far, the writer starts over with a new subject and predicate in
>>verse 2.
>But doesn't the other dash after hHMIN suggest that they understand verse 2 as
>a parenthesis?

Well, yes, I guess it does indicate that verse 2 is an interruption and
that there's another interruption after verse 2; but I'd say that verse 3
does in fact start over from the beginning in a way that removes all
grammatical problems, in that it repeats hO hEWRAKAMEN KAI AKHKOAMEN as a
single object to APAGGELLOMEN, so that syntactically the construction
begins anew with a nod in the direction of the uncompleted phraseology in
verse 1 that helps the reader see that the writer has now simplified and
clarified that phraseology. At least that's the way I'd understand it: not
that verse 2 is a parenthesis so much, but rather that verses 1-3 as a unit
are broken three times and that the connection between verse 3 and verse 1
is logical rather than syntactical. Although one might conceivably argue
that the object clause hO hEWRAKAMEN KAI AKHKOAMEN in verse 3 is in
apposition to all of verse 1 understood as a complex object clause, I think
it is more accurate to say that verse 3 starts over by ALLUDING to verse 1
rhetorically without really completing it grammatically.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT