[bible passage=”1 John 4:2″]
1 John 4:2: KAI PAN PNEUMA hO hOMOLEGEI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA EK TOU QEOU ESTIN.
2 John 7: hOTI POLLOI PLANOI EXHLQON EIS TON KOSMON, hOI MH hOMOLOGOUNTES IHSOUN CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI ….
All the translations I have been able to check except Moffat take IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA as the object of hOMOLOGEW in 1 John 4:2 and IHSOUN CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI as the object of hMOLOGEW in 2 John 7, resulting in the following translations:
1 John 4:2: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God (KJV)
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh …. (NASB).
In commentaries that adopt the above interpretations of these two verses, it is customary to call such denial an error of “docetic Gnosticism.” But the actual issue involved is simply the denial on the part of some that Jesus is the Christ (cf. 1 John 2:22; 5:1); therefore it is best to translate these verses as follows, taking IHSOUN CRISTON in both cases as an object-complement double accusative.
1 John 4:2: And every spirit that confesses that Jesus is Christ come in the flesh is of God.
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who deny that Jesus is Christ coming in the flesh ….
In both verses the idea is that the flesh and blood human being known to the world as Jesus is the Christ.
In John 9:22, we have the same verb hOMOLOGEW used with an object-complement construction: EAN TIS AUTON hOMOLOGHSHi CRISTON–“if any one confessed him [Jesus] to be Christ.”
Moffat, the only exception I have noted, translates 1 John 4:2 as “every spirit that confesses Jesus as Christ incarnate comes from God.”
I checked with Wallace and was happy to see that he agrees with me on the translation of the subject verses (see note 41 on p. 188).
Leonard Jayawardena
==========================
If there’s to be any discussion of the issues of these two verses, I would urge list-members to focus discussion on how the Greek text of one or the other or both passages is to be understood — rather than on translation or theology or hermenetical considerations, as the focus of the initial post seems to have been.
Carl W. Conrad Co-Chair, List
?
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 3:26 AM
These are simply indirect statements.
I have trouble with this category understood with participles.
“Object-complement double accusatives” are normally taken of substantives.
Do you want to argue here that the particples are used substantively rather
than as predicates? There are different ways of conceptualizing, of
grammaticalizing (neologism?) the syntax at this point, but it pretty much
amounts to what all the translations have.
The difference in English between what you have rendered and the KJV above
is minimal.
This strikes me as a theological conclusion that ignores the verbal idea in
ERCOMAI.
If you examine the 26 uses of hOMOLOGEW in the NT, you’ll see it used with a
variety of constructions, depending on the precise meaning of the word in
that context.
In the Greek text as it stands, this is not possible, since the participle
is ELHLUQOTA, masculine singular to agree with CRISTON. You would need
ELHLUQOS here. In NA, the only significant variant listed is the
infinitive, ELHLUQENAI, which would mean the same thing as ELHLUQOTA.
With all due respect to Wallace, I don’t think that “object complement” is
the best way of conceptualizing the grammar at these verses. The variant
listed above shows that at least one ancient scribe saw the construction as
equivalent to the accusative-infinitive. But then again, Wallace sometimes
does odd things with grammatical categories.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat…
Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
(2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner)
V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS
http://www.tnars.net
http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry
—
—– Original Message —–
Sent: 27. december 2010 11:26
Wallace is discussing Rom 10:9 on p. 188. He does talk about an
object-complement construction here (or double accusatives), and in note 41 he
refers to three other places where this verb takes an object-complement, namely
John 9:22, 1 Jn 4:2 and 2 Jn 7. But I don’t see him discussing the details of
the two verses you refer to.
It could as well be that he takes IHSOUN CRISTON as the compound object and the
following participles as the complement (second object). Confessing Jesus Christ
as the one who has come in the flesh. That is how I would take it, and as you
say, that is the normal understanding. However, the NET follows your
understanding, and it is grammatically possible.
1 John does talk about people denying or believing that Jesus is the Christ, but
he uses a different construction to show this as seen in 2:22 and 5:1.
Iver Larsen
—
Hi Leonard,
Excellent post. You (and the NET, thanks for the reference, Iver) have
convinced me that these verses have more to do with Jesus’ identify as the
Messiah than with a denial of docetism, which may not have even existed at the
time of these writings.
The only lingering question I have is whether EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA and ERCOMENON
EN SARKI modify Jesus or the Christ. I’m not sure one needs to make this
distinction, or where you stand on it. If modifying Jesus, John may be saying
nothing more than “of Nazareth” or TOUTON TON IHSOUN (Acts 2:36) or what we
would today call “the historical” Jesus. Cf. 2 Cor 5:16, KATA SARKA CRISTON,
where, I think, a different point is being made.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:26:21 AM
1 John 4:2: KAI PAN PNEUMA hO hOMOLEGEI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA EK TOU
QEOU ESTIN.
2 John 7: hOTI POLLOI PLANOI EXHLQON EIS TON KOSMON, hOI MH hOMOLOGOUNTES IHSOUN
CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI ….
All the translations I have been able to check except Moffat take IHSOUN
CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA as the object of hOMOLOGEW in 1 John 4:2 and IHSOUN
CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI as the object of hMOLOGEW in 2 John 7, resulting in
the following translations:
1 John 4:2: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
is of God (KJV)
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not
acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh …. (NASB).
In commentaries that adopt the above interpretations of these two verses, it is
customary to call such denial an error of “docetic Gnosticism.” But the actual
issue involved is simply the denial on the part of some that Jesus is the
Christ (cf. 1 John 2:22; 5:1); therefore it is best to translate these verses as
follows, taking IHSOUN CRISTON in both cases as an object-complement double
accusative.
1 John 4:2: And every spirit that confesses that Jesus is Christ come in the
flesh is of God.
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who deny that
Jesus is Christ coming in the flesh ….
In both verses the idea is that the flesh and blood human being known to the
world as Jesus is the Christ.
In John 9:22, we have the same verb hOMOLOGEW used with an object-complement
construction: EAN TIS AUTON hOMOLOGHSHi CRISTON–“if any one confessed him
[Jesus] to be Christ.”
Moffat, the only exception I have noted, translates 1 John 4:2 as “every spirit
that confesses Jesus as Christ incarnate comes from God.”
I checked with Wallace and was happy to see that he agrees with me on the
translation of the subject verses (see note 41 on p. 188).
Leonard Jayawardena
—
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
LJ: My point is that these translations take the entire phrase as the single object of hOMOLOGEW. In 1 John 4:2, the phrase IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA in its entirety is taken as the single object of the verb.
LJ: I clearly stated above that it is IHSOUN CRISTON which is taken as an object-complement double accusative construction in the way I understand these two verses. IHSOUN is the direct object of hOMOLOGEW and CRISTON is its complement, with EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA qualifying the latter.
LJ: There is a significant difference of meaning. In 1 John 4:2 the KJV has “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” This would mean that in the time of the writer some held the view that Jesus Christ did not have a body of flesh, but had a phantom body, as docetists are thought to have taught; and the purpose of this statement then would be to counter that false teaching. But as I translate this verse, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus is Christ come in the flesh is of God,” the writer basically says exactly what he has repeatedly stated elsewhere in the epistle, i.e., that Jesus is the Christ. The words EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA, which follow CRISTON and qualify it, add to the basic affirmation of the writer–that is Jesus is the Christ–by saying that Jesus is Christ in incarnate form, focusing attention on the historical Jesus. The OT scriptures spoke of the coming of the Christ and this Jesus is that Christ incarnate. Prior to being
enfleshed in the historical Jesus, Christ existed in the minds of the people of God as the much awaited saviour and in their scriptures, and that Christ has now “come” in the form of Jesus.
It is instructive to compare this with John 1:14: KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN IN hHMIN, a statement thought to have been penned by the same writer as 1 John. According to the writer, the LOGOS pre-existed the historical Jesus and it (or he, depending on your theological views) became incarnate in Jesus.
LJ: I hope that my preceding comment clarifies my position.
LJ: The purpose of citing John 9:22 is to provide support for the particular translations I have advocated, not to exclude other possibilities of translation with hOMOLOGEW.
LJ: I noted this problem too, but didn’t comment on it because it may be that “comes from God” in Moffat’s translation corresponds only to EK TOU QEOU ESTIN. It may be that Moffat’s “Christ incarnate” renders the entire phrase EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA. Moffat’s translation has a reputation for being highly colloquial.
If “comes” in Moffat’s translation renders ELHLUQOTA, then, as you correctly pointed out, the grammar does not support that part of his translation. Anyway, subject to this defect, if “comes” is related to ELHLUQOTA in Moffat, then he must have contrued ELHLUQOTA with ESTIN as a periphrastic construction (periphrastic perfect)–“has come”.
LJ: If ELHLUQENAI stood in the original, then the reading would be KAI PAN PNEUMA hO hOMOLEGEI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI LHLUQENAI EK TOU QEOU ESTIN and the meaning would be “And every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ to have come in the flesh is from God.”
In this context, it is interesting to note the various variant readings that exist for 1 John 4:3, KAI PAN PNEUMA hO MH hOMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN, ranging from IHSOUN CRISTON in the place of just TON IHSOUN to IHSOUN KURION EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA. Obviously, some scribes had a problem accepting the simple TON IHSOUN, which is the original reading. A note in the NET Bible 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.” Judging from the various variant readings in the UBS GNT, the scribe/s who introduced ELHLUQENAI in v. 2 had been at work here too!
With regard to 2 John 7, the difference between this and 1 John 4:2 is only the form of the verb ERCOMAI. In the former, it is ERCOMENON whereas it is the participle ELHLUQOTA in the latter.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com;
LJ: True, Wallace doesn’t discuss in detail the verses mentioned on this page, but beginning from p. 187 he discusses Romans 10:9, EAN hOMOLOGHSHiS EN THi STOMATI SOU KURION IHSOUN … SWQHSHi, and advocates the interpretation “If you confess with you mouth Jesus [as] Lord … you shall be saved.” In note 41, he says, “We should most likely take it [i.e., KURION IHSOUN in Romans 10:9] as an object-complement construction because of the following: (a) the verb used [hOMOLOGEW] can take an object-complement (cf. John 9:22; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7) ….”
From this I infer that Wallace takes IHSOUN CRISTON in John 4:2 and 2 John 7 as an object-complement. In the very least, he thinks that that is a possible interpretation.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
href=”mailto:lightmanmark@yahoo.com”>lightmanmark@yahoo.com
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com;
Hi Leonard,
Excellent post. You (and the NET, thanks for the reference, Iver) have convinced me that these verses have more to do with Jesus’ identify as the Messiah than with a denial of docetism, which may not have even existed at the time of these writings.
LJ: I, too, don’t think that docetism existed in the first century, the time when these epistles were written, or, at least, if it existed, we don’t have evidence for it unless such evidence be found in these verses as usually translated.
Mark L.:
The only lingering question I have is whether EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA and ERCOMENON EN SARKI modify Jesus or the Christ. I’m not sure one needs to make this distinction, or where you stand on it. If modifying Jesus, John may be saying nothing more than “of Nazareth” or TOUTON TON IHSOUN (Acts 2:36) or what we would today call “the historical” Jesus. Cf. 2 Cor 5:16, KATA SARKA CRISTON, where, I think, a different point is being made.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
LJ: I hope all your questions have been answered in my reply to Barry H.
Leonard Jayawardena
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:26:21 AM
1 John 4:2: KAI PAN PNEUMA hO hOMOLEGEI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA EK TOU QEOU ESTIN.
2 John 7: hOTI POLLOI PLANOI EXHLQON EIS TON KOSMON, hOI MH hOMOLOGOUNTES IHSOUN CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI ….
All the translations I have been able to check except Moffat take IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA as the object of hOMOLOGEW in 1 John 4:2 and IHSOUN CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI as the object of hMOLOGEW in 2 John 7, resulting in the following translations:
1 John 4:2: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God (KJV)
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh …. (NASB).
In commentaries that adopt the above interpretations of these two verses, it is customary to call such denial an error of “docetic Gnosticism.” But the actual issue involved is simply the denial on the part of some that Jesus is the Christ (cf. 1 John 2:22; 5:1); therefore it is best to translate these verses as follows, taking IHSOUN CRISTON in both cases as an object-complement double accusative.
1 John 4:2: And every spirit that confesses that Jesus is Christ come in the flesh is of God.
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who deny that Jesus is Christ coming in the flesh ….
In both verses the idea is that the flesh and blood human being known to the world as Jesus is the Christ.
In John 9:22, we have the same verb hOMOLOGEW used with an object-complement construction: EAN TIS AUTON hOMOLOGHSHi CRISTON–“if any one confessed him [Jesus] to be Christ.”
Moffat, the only exception I have noted, translates 1 John 4:2 as “every spirit that confesses Jesus as Christ incarnate comes from God.”
I checked with Wallace and was happy to see that he agrees with me on the translation of the subject verses (see note 41 on p. 188).
Leonard Jayawardena
—
?
—– Original Message —–
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 4:49 AM
Greetings, Leonard, commentaria infra:
And there is a reason for that: indirect statements, whether
accusative-infinitive, accusative-participle, or hOTI clauses, are normally
considered direct objects of their verbs.
Ok, well I didn’t clearly read it that way, obviously. I would then render,
“Every Spirit which confesses that Jesus [the] Christ has come in the flesh
is from God.”
I think you are making much ado out of nothing. You are making very subtle
point based on a difference minor in both Greek and English. By adding the
words “EN SARKI” John also counters docetism, even if he didn’t have that
particular problem in mind.
And see my revised response.
That’s possible — I hypothesized that Moffat may have emended the text
differently, but this works too. I somehow doubt that he simply misread the
text. Colloquial? That’s a kind word.
Which is apparently how the scribe in question understood the text,
suggesting that he sees Jesus Christ as practically a name or name and
closely associated title, and that the entire clause is simply indirect
discourse (which I think is the natural way to read the text).
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat…
Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
(2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner)
V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS
http://www.tnars.net
http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry
—
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
LJ: Wrong again. If IHSOUN is the direct object of hOMOLOGEW, CRISTON is the complement of IHSOUN and EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA qualifies CRISTON, then the meaning can only be “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus is (or ‘as’) Christ come in the flesh, is from God.”
LJ: The choices before us are quite clear and there is no room for “also” here. If you translate 1 John 4:2 as “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is from God,” then what the writer affirms is that Jesus had a body of flesh, as opposed to, say, a phantom body, as the docetists are said to have taught. On the other hand, if you translate this verse as I do, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus is (or “to be,” or “as”) Christ come in the flesh (or “Christ incarnate”), is from God,” then the focus is on the historical Jesus being the Christ.
LJ: You have ignored 1 John 4:3 and my comments thereon. “[T]he scribe in question” and his type, having problems in accepting the simple reading TON IHSOUN, which is the original reading, had also been busy interpolating words in 4:3 in an attempt to harmonize their erroneous understanding of 4:2 with 4:3.
In the UBS GNT text, 4:3 reads: KAI PAN PNEUMA hO MH hOMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN. The following variant readings are listed in the critical apparatus of the UBS GNT:
1. IHSOUN CRISTON
2. TON IHSOUN EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (with some mss. in this group substituting ELHLUQENAI for ELHLUQOTA)
3. IHSOUN KURION EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA
4. IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (some mss. TON IHSOUN CRISTON, others TON XRISTON)
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, a
s traditionally translated, an effective scriptural counter to that heresy.
At the same time there were some scribes who did understand IHSOUN CRISTON in 4:2 as an object-complement double accusative, as evidenced by the variant reading IHSOUN CRISTON for TON IHSOUN in 4:3.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
You are being rather idiosyncratic and interpreting the passage contrary to that
which it clearly must have since there are six occurances of Ιησ* Χριστ*
IHS* XRIST* in 1 Jn: 1.3; 2.1; 3.23; 4.2; 5.6, 20. It would seem to
function as a “joint” name rather than a name and not as a nominal sentence. If
you understand Ιησοῦν Χριστόν IHSOUN XRISTON as a nominal sentence “Jesus is
Christ” here, what distinguishes it from other uses by the same author?
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
Cc:
Sent: Wed, December 29, 2010 1:24:22 AM
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
LJ: Wrong again. If IHSOUN is the direct object of hOMOLOGEW, CRISTON is the
complement of IHSOUN and EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA qualifies CRISTON, then the meaning
can only be “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus is (or ‘as’) Christ come in
the flesh, is from God.”
LJ: The choices before us are quite clear and there is no room for “also” here.
If you translate 1 John 4:2 as “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ
has come in the flesh, is from God,” then what the writer affirms is that Jesus
had a body of flesh, as opposed to, say, a phantom body, as the docetists are
said to have taught. On the other hand, if you translate this verse as I do,
“Every spirit that confesses that Jesus is (or “to be,” or “as”) Christ come in
the flesh (or “Christ incarnate”), is from God,” then the focus is on the
historical Jesus being the Christ.
LJ: You have ignored 1 John 4:3 and my comments thereon. “[T]he scribe in
question” and his type, having problems in accepting the simple reading TON
IHSOUN, which is the original reading, had also been busy interpolating words in
4:3 in an attempt to harmonize their erroneous understanding of 4:2 with 4:3.
In the UBS GNT text, 4:3 reads: KAI PAN PNEUMA hO MH hOMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN EK TOU
QEOU OUK ESTIN. The following variant readings are listed in the critical
apparatus of the UBS GNT:
1. IHSOUN CRISTON
2. TON IHSOUN EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (with some mss. in this group substituting
ELHLUQENAI for ELHLUQOTA)
3. IHSOUN KURION EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA
4. IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (some mss. TON IHSOUN CRISTON, others TON
XRISTON)
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, a
s traditionally translated, an effective scriptural counter to that heresy.
At the same time there were some scribes who did understand IHSOUN CRISTON in
4:2 as an object-complement double accusative, as evidenced by the variant
reading IHSOUN CRISTON for TON IHSOUN in 4:3.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
A few comments below:
—– Original Message —–
Cc:
Sent: 29. december 2010 11:24
…
IL: You are overstating your case. hOMOLOGEW may take as object a whole clause,
but in that case it should be introduced by hOTI or be an infinitive (with
accusative). Neither is the case here. But the verb can also be construed with a
double accusative. The problem in 4:2 is that we have three accusatives: IHSOUN,
CRISTON and ELHLUQOTA. The majority opinion is that IHSOUN CRISTON is a unit and
what is in focus about Jesus Christ here is that he has come in the flesh, as a
human
being. You have taken the minority opinion which is also found in the NET.
The NET lists the three options:
(1) the entire phrase “Jesus Christ come in the flesh” may be considered the
single object of the verb homologei; (so B. F. Westcott, A. Brooke, J.
Bonsirven, R. E. Brown, S. Smalley, and others);
(2) the verb hOMOLOGEW may be followed by a double accusative, so that both
“Jesus Christ” and “come in the flesh” are objects of the verb; the meaning
would be “confess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (so B. Weiss, J. Chaine,
and others).
(3) Another possibility is to see the verb as followed by a double accusative as
in (2), but in this case the first object is “Jesus” and the second is “the
Christ come in the flesh,” so that what is being confessed is “Jesus as the
Christ come in the flesh” (so N. Alexander, J. Stott, J. Houlden, and others).
I would rule out (1) since there is no hOTI nor infinitive.
(3) does not fit the context of 1 John. Chapter 4 talks about evaluating false
teaching. None of the intended audience would be duped if someone claimed that
Jesus was not the Christ. Those who say that are the non-Christians, and they
are clearly liars (2:22). Every Christian knew and would confess that Jesus was
both the Messiah and the Son of God (4:15 and 5:5). The Christians only needed
to “test the spirit” if it was not obviously false what the person was saying.
The idea that Christ somehow entered the man Jesus after his birth and left
before his death, was promoted by certain false teachers within the church. John
counters this idea in 4:2, 2 John 7, but also in 5:6 where the phrase “come
through water” refers to his physical birth as a human being. The phrase
“through blood” refers to his death as a real human being of flesh and blood.
The false teachers would say that this was not the Christ, only the man Jesus.
Concerning (2), NET comments: “option (2) makes “Jesus Christ” the name of the
preincarnate second Person of the Trinity, and this would be the only place in
the Johannine literature where such a designation for the preincarnate LOGOS
(Logos) occurs”.
That kind of comment makes no sense to me. The text does not talk about the
preincarnate Jesus, but Jesus Christ as he has already come into this world. The
participle is a perfect participle.
————
IL: I could not find such a NET note at 4:3. It is not “the author’s failure to
repeat”. 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
—
Thanks for Leonard. This text has vexed me quite a while – the way it
usually read (as if docetism was the problem they faced in the first
century) didn’t ring at all. When I had a chance to come across NET fn
before, I have settled it. So naturally I got surprised that we have strong
voices of the contrary opinion!
See below for comments to Iver’s posting.
Oun Kwon
Of NET fn options,
Jesus
left
church.
“come
OJK: Sounds great Iver. But hold for a moment. Exactly what kind spirit John
was warning against? That it should be the spirit of docetism is only a
scholars’ conjecture. Doesn’t John say explicitly RIGHT HERE in 4:3b that
it’s the spirit of anti-Messiah he was dealing with? Admittedly, docetism as
such is considered to be anti-Messiah but it’s a tiny part of it. On the
other hand, the text which is read as if it’s about docetism makes it
totally irrelevant for the readers like us here and now.
As for the 1Jn 5:6, I don’t think it should be read as an anti-docetic
rhetoric, but an explanatory statement of who the Messiah is. Why, just in
the preceding verse, John does write that ‘Jesus is the Son of God’ – this
means none other than ‘Jesus is the Messiah’ – the recurrent theme in this
epistle (1Jn 2:22; 5:1; 2Jn 7). For me, I can not read anything out of this
5:5 to show John meant it to be a waring against docetism.
place
LOGOS
the
world.
OJK: I agree on this one. NET seems to have made a goof here.
failure
text
OJK: I agree on this. The presence of different mss would not sway one way
or the other.
—
(I am re-sending this post as I forgot to copy it to B-Greek the first time.)
href=”mailto:gfsomsel@yahoo.com”>gfsomsel@yahoo.com
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com;
CC:
You are being rather idiosyncratic and interpreting the passage contrary to that which it clearly must have since there are six occurances of Ιησ* Χριστ* IHS* XRIST* in 1 Jn: 1.3; 2.1; 3.23; 4.2; 5.6, 20. It would seem to function as a “joint” name rather than a name and not as a nominal sentence. If you understand Ιησοῦν Χριστόν IHSOUN XRISTON as a nominal sentence “Jesus is Christ” here, what distinguishes it from other uses by the same author?
george
gfsomsel
LJ: “[W]hat distinguishes it from other uses by the same author” is that the context demands and the grammar permits taking IHSOUN CRISTON in 1 John 4:2 as on object-complement double accusative, as explained in detail in my earlier posts.
If you think that IHSOUN CRISTON in 4:2 should be read just as it is in the other passages you cited, i.e., as a personal name (IHSOUN) followed by a title (CRISTON), then take a look at 1 Corinthians 8:6:
ALL’ hHMIN hEIS QEOS hO PATHR … KAI hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS ….
The phrase KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS occurs many times in the NT, including the writings of Paul, in all of which cases it is to be read as “Lord Jesus Christ,” but in the above passage alone we should read it as “one Lord, Jesus Christ” (“Jesus Christ” in apposition with “Lord”). If we follow your logic, we should read hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS as “one Lord Jesus Christ.”
Leonard Jayawardena
P.S.: Note to Iver Larsen: If you are reading this, I will reply to your post tomorrow.
—
What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? This was a question raised by Tertullian
indicating that philosophy and the Christian faith were two different animals.
I ask you, “What has Paul to do with 1 John?” How do you propose to compare
Paul’s use of the phrase with that of the author of 1 John? One author will not
infrequently use a word or phrase in a different sense from that of a different
author. Nevertheless, in 1 Cor 8.6, εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς hEIS KURIOS
IHSOUS XRISTOS **IS** used as a proper name much as I might refer to Judas
the son of Mattathias as Judas Maccabeus even though Maccabeus was a term
applied to him signifying “hammer” just as Charles Martel was similarly Charles
the Hammer. Both had these terms applied to them as a result of their military
exploits. Similarly, “Christ” was originally a term signifying “the annointed”
in keeping with the OT practice of anointing priests and kings. In all
three cases we tend to use the two terms together as the designation and name of
one person — Judas Maccabeus, Charles Martel and Jesus Christ. It was not
always thus. originally “Judas” was a name and “Maccabeus” was a descriptor.
“Jesus” was a name and “Christ” was a descriptor. Attention must be paid to
which author uses it in which way. The author of 1 John is rather consistent in
using the two together as a complete name “Jesus Christ” much as I might say
“Carl Conrad” rather than “Carl the Conrad.” Note how this is handled in 1 Jn
2.22 where it has ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ χριστός hOTI IHSOUS OUK EST hO
XRISTOS. There the author explicitly puts the article in to signify that he is
using χριστός XRISTOS not as a part of the name but as a nominal descriptor of
the name “Jesus” (similarly in 5.1). In 4.2, however, we have ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν
Χριστὸν hO hOMOLOGEI IHSOUN XRISTON, not ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸν hO
hOMOLOGEI IHSOUN ESTIN hO XRISTON. Attention must be paid to the way a
particular author uses these terms and to the fact that another author may use
them differently. You simply cannot simply equate one author’s usage with that
of a different author. In the case of 1 Cor 8.6 which you cite, however, Paul
uses it as does the author of 1 Jn in the sense of “Jesus Christ”, not “Jesus
the Christ.” When the author of 1 Jn wanted to explicate “Jesus Christ” as
“Jesus is the christ” he has a specific way of doing so.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:gfsomsel@yahoo.com”>gfsomsel@yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 3:38:04 AM
________________________________
href=”mailto:gfsomsel@yahoo.com”>gfsomsel@yahoo.com
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com;
CC:
You are being rather idiosyncratic and interpreting the passage contrary to that
which it clearly must have since there are six occurances of Ιησ* Χριστ*
IHS* XRIST* in 1 Jn: 1.3; 2.1; 3.23; 4.2; 5.6, 20. It would seem to
function as a “joint” name rather than a name and not as a nominal sentence. If
you understand Ιησοῦν Χριστόν IHSOUN XRISTON as a nominal sentence “Jesus is
Christ” here, what distinguishes it from other uses by the same author?
george
gfsomsel
LJ: “[W]hat distinguishes it from other uses by the same author” is that the
context demands and the grammar permits taking IHSOUN CRISTON in 1 John 4:2 as
on object-complement double accusative, as explained in detail in my earlier
posts.
If you think that IHSOUN CRISTON in 4:2 should be read just as it is in the
other passages you cited, i.e., as a personal name (IHSOUN) followed by a title
(CRISTON), then take a look at 1 Corinthians 8:6:
ALL’ hHMIN hEIS QEOS hO PATHR … KAI hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS ….
The phrase KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS occurs many times in the NT, including the
writings of Paul, in all of which cases it is to be read as “Lord Jesus Christ,”
but in the above passage alone we should read it as “one Lord, Jesus Christ”
(“Jesus Christ” in apposition with “Lord”). If we follow your logic, we should
read hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS as “one Lord Jesus Christ.”
Leonard Jayawardena
P.S.: Note to Iver Larsen: If you are reading this, I will reply to your post
tomorrow.
—
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com;
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
LJ: You have not read what I wrote carefully. I am not “overstating.” I was correcting something that Barry H. had written, which you have omitted, and saying that, if the various constituents of the verse are taken in that particular syntactical relationship, then the meaning of the words must be “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus is (or ‘as’) Christ come in the flesh, is from God.” I was not excluding other possibilities of translation above.
LJ: Please clarify the last sentence (though it is academic since you do not advocate option [1]). If with hOTI, should the verse read as PAN PNEUMA hO hOMOLEGEI hOTI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA? And the form of the verse with an infinitive?
LJ: “(3) does not fit the context of 1 John”? You might as well have said something like “There is no proof that the earth is round.” The whole burden and recurrent theme of 1 John is that Jesus is the Christ (= the son of God) and that believing in that truth, one has eternal life (provided, of course, one lives the kind of life which that belief requires), and the corollary, that if you do not believe that, you have no life. Jesus as the Christ is introduced in 1:3– “[O]ur fellowship is with the father and with his son Jesus Christ.” The expressions “his son,” “the son” or “the son of God” throughout this episle are equal to the expression “Christ” (1:3, 7; 2:22, 23 [dis], 24; 3:8, 23; 4:9, 10, 14, 15; 5:5, 10 [dis], 11, 12, 13, 20). To say that “Jesus is the Christ” is the same as saying that “Jesus is the son of God” (compare, for example, 5:1 with 5:5). The epistle fittingly ends with the affirmation that the writer and those whom he addressed “know that the son of God has come” and that they are “in the truth, in his son Jesus Christ” (5:20). Such repeated stress on the fact that Jesus is the Christ would not have made any sense if the denial of that fact (see e.g., 2:22) had not become a serious concern for the writer. It is in that context that we are to understand 4:2.
On the other hand, there is not an iota of evidence in this letter that docetism was a concern for the writer and his audience, unless, of course, the evidence for it be found in 4:2 as you understand it. As Oun Kwon correctly pointed out, the writer was warning his readers against “the spirit of Antichrist,” not “the spirit of docetism” (4:3).
LJ: On the contrary, I think that that comment does have much merit. The interpretation “Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ as come in the flesh, is of God,” does suggest that Jesus Christ had a pre-incarnate existence as “Jesus Christ.” In the way I understand 4:2, “Every spirit that confesses Jesus as Christ come in the flesh, is of God,” Christ pre-exists Jesus and become incarnate in him. As I explained in a previous post, Christ existed in the minds of the people of God as their eagerly awaited saviour and in their scriptures and that Christ “came” to this world as Jesus. Compare 5:20: OIDAMEN DE hOTI hO hUIOS TOU QEOU hHKEI ….” (“We know that the son of God [= the Christ] has come …”). Compare with also Christ’ statement in Mt. 17:12, LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI HLIAS HDH HLQEN KAI OUK EPEGNWSAN AUTON, referring to John the Baptist. The Elijah in question existed in the OT prophecies (Malachi 4:5) and he “came” (HLQEN, the same verb as in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7) in the form of John the Baptist. The Elijah of OT prophecies pre-existed John the Baptist. Consider also John 1:14, KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN, from the same pen as 1 John 4:2. However you choose to understand hO LOGOS in John 1:14, clearly it (or he) pre-existed Jesus and became incarnate in him. Similarly, the pre-existent Christ became enfleshed in Jesus, i.e., Jesus is Christ who has come in the flesh. That is all what 1 John 4:2 says.
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.
LJ: Yes, the words “the author’s failure to repeat” are somewhat unfortunate. The “author’s omission of the words …” would have been better.
LJ: TOUTO certainly would have helped your case, but not TON IHSOUN, the original reading. How hOMOLEGEI TON TON IHSOUN can be an ellipsis for hOMOLEGEI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA 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.”
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.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
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:
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.
LJ: Yes, the words “the author’s failure to repeat” are somewhat unfortunate. The “author’s omission of the words …” would have been better.
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
—
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
________________________________
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
Cc:
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 5:55:06 AM
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:
the
that
“culprits”
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.
LJ: Yes, the words “the author’s failure to repeat” are somewhat unfortunate.
The “author’s omission of the words …” would have been better.
ἐκ
IHSOUN
does
UBS
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
—
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?
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
Cc:
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 8:25:59 AM
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
________________________________
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
Cc:
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 5:55:06 AM
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:
the
that
“culprits”
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.
LJ: Yes, the words “the author’s failure to repeat” are somewhat unfortunate.
The “author’s omission of the words …” would have been better.
ἐκ
IHSOUN
does
UBS
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
—
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
the
in
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
4:2,
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Leonard Jayawardena
wrote:
interpretation “Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ as come in the
flesh, is of God,” does suggest that Jesus Christ had a pre-incarnate
existence as “Jesus Christ.” In the way I understand 4:2, “Every spirit that
confesses Jesus as Christ come in the flesh, is of God,” Christ pre-exists
Jesus and become incarnate in him. As I explained in a previous post, Christ
existed in the minds of the people of God as their eagerly awaited saviour
and in their scriptures and that Christ “came” to this world as Jesus. ….
Thanks Leonard again for your clarifying the issue.
Since you phrased well everything I wanted to say more or to correct myself
Except a small point to point out about this passage you wrote.
You said: JC had a pre-incarnate existence as “Jesus Christ”. I would have
it to say rather: JC had a pre-incarnate existence as “Christ”,
understanding fully well that Logos = pre-incarnate Christ, not much with
Jesus the human being we encounter in the history.
Oun Kwon
P.S. As I come to be enlightened of the scripture passage as I learn, it is
such a joy.
Thanks million to B-Greek. Happy New Year to all!
—
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. 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.
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:42:53 AM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 1:07:04 PM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:42:53 AM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
4:2,
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
I have now replied to this objection.
Leonard Jayawardena
href=”mailto:gfsomsel@yahoo.com”>gfsomsel@yahoo.com
href=”mailto:lightmanmark@yahoo.com”>lightmanmark@yahoo.com;
CC:
So, If you can, then you SHOULD?
george
gfsomsel
. search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena;
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 4:34:25 PM
The short answer, George, is that we separate
href=”mailto:kwonbbl@gmail.com”>kwonbbl@gmail.com
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com
CC:
Thanks Leonard again for your clarifying the issue.
Since you phrased well everything I wanted to say more or to correct myself – nothing much more to say.
Except a small point to point out about this passage you wrote.
You said: JC had a pre-incarnate existence as “Jesus Christ”. I would have it to say rather: JC had a pre-incarnate existence as “Christ”, understanding fully well that Logos = pre-incarnate Christ, not much with Jesus the human being we encounter in the history.
Oun Kwon
LJ: You may not have understood what I said accurately. I wrote:
“The interpretation ‘Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ as come in the flesh, is of God,’ does suggest that Jesus Christ had a pre-incarnate existence as ‘Jesus Christ.'”
The translation “Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ as come in the flesh, is of God” is option (2) in the NET note. In option (2), hOMOLOGEW is contrued with an object-complement double accusative, as in my interpretation, except that in this interterpretation the direct object is IHSOUN CRISTON and the complement is EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (“Jesus Christ as come in the flesh”). In this translation, there is a suggestion that Jesus Christ had a pre-existence as “Jesus Christ.” (In contrast, in my interpretation, Jesus has a pre-existence only as ”Christ.”)
I have already explained this point in a previous post and reproduce the relevant part:
Quote
Compare with also Christ’ statement in Mt. 17:12, LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI HLIAS HDH HLQEN KAI OUK EPEGNWSAN AUTON, referring to John the Baptist. The Elijah in question existed in the OT prophecies (Malachi 4:5) and he “came” (HLQEN, the same verb as in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7) in the form of John the Baptist. The Elijah of OT prophecies pre-existed John the Baptist. Consider also John 1:14, KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN, from the same pen as 1 John 4:2. However you choose to understand hO LOGOS in John 1:14, clearly it (or he) pre-existed Jesus and became incarnate in him.
Unquote
Both Elijah and Logos pre-existed John the Baptist and Jesus, respectively, as “Elijah” (in the prophecy in Malachi) and “Logos” (as LOGOS QEOU in Numbers 3:20 [LXX], compare with Rev. 19:13ff for this interpretation of Jesus as “the word of God”). (On the other hand, if your theology is more traditional, you may wish to understand that Jesus as the second person of the trinity existed as “Logos.”) On the analogy of these passages, the statement “Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” or “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” imply that Jesus had a pre-existence as “Jesus Christ,” i.e., that in his pre-incarnate existence he bore the name “Jesus Christ.” Of course, I myself do not accept this translation, but this is one of the embarrasing implications of this particular translation, which its advocates may want to reject.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
So, If you can, then you SHOULD?
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 4:34:25 PM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 1:07:04 PM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:42:53 AM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
I find to passages in the NT which have 2 nouns in the accusative followed by a
form of εἰμι, but in both cases the verb is an 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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 4:34:25 PM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 1:07:04 PM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:42:53 AM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
In my post of about an hour ago, I gave a reference to “Numbers 3:20 [LXX].” This should be read as “Judges 3:20 [LXX].” My apologies for the error.
Come to think of it, the “embarrasing implication” I spoke of is entailed in even option (1) of the NET translation, in which the entire phrase EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (“Jesus Christ come in the flesh”) is taken as the single object of the verb hOMOLOGEW. I see little practical difference between the rendering “confess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” and “confess Jesus Christ come in the flesh.” Does any one else see it differently?
Leonard Jayawardena
—
I should not remain without thanking you for correcting my oversight.
Oun Kwon.
—
Hoping I would not overtax the moderation,
I say, I don’t see much difference.
Oun Kwon.
—
?
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 3:26 AM
These are simply indirect statements.
I have trouble with this category understood with participles.
“Object-complement double accusatives” are normally taken of substantives.
Do you want to argue here that the particples are used substantively rather
than as predicates? There are different ways of conceptualizing, of
grammaticalizing (neologism?) the syntax at this point, but it pretty much
amounts to what all the translations have.
The difference in English between what you have rendered and the KJV above
is minimal.
This strikes me as a theological conclusion that ignores the verbal idea in
ERCOMAI.
If you examine the 26 uses of hOMOLOGEW in the NT, you’ll see it used with a
variety of constructions, depending on the precise meaning of the word in
that context.
In the Greek text as it stands, this is not possible, since the participle
is ELHLUQOTA, masculine singular to agree with CRISTON. You would need
ELHLUQOS here. In NA, the only significant variant listed is the
infinitive, ELHLUQENAI, which would mean the same thing as ELHLUQOTA.
With all due respect to Wallace, I don’t think that “object complement” is
the best way of conceptualizing the grammar at these verses. The variant
listed above shows that at least one ancient scribe saw the construction as
equivalent to the accusative-infinitive. But then again, Wallace sometimes
does odd things with grammatical categories.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat…
Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
(2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner)
V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS
http://www.tnars.net
http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry
—
—– Original Message —–
Sent: 27. december 2010 11:26
Wallace is discussing Rom 10:9 on p. 188. He does talk about an
object-complement construction here (or double accusatives), and in note 41 he
refers to three other places where this verb takes an object-complement, namely
John 9:22, 1 Jn 4:2 and 2 Jn 7. But I don’t see him discussing the details of
the two verses you refer to.
It could as well be that he takes IHSOUN CRISTON as the compound object and the
following participles as the complement (second object). Confessing Jesus Christ
as the one who has come in the flesh. That is how I would take it, and as you
say, that is the normal understanding. However, the NET follows your
understanding, and it is grammatically possible.
1 John does talk about people denying or believing that Jesus is the Christ, but
he uses a different construction to show this as seen in 2:22 and 5:1.
Iver Larsen
—
Hi Leonard,
Excellent post. You (and the NET, thanks for the reference, Iver) have
convinced me that these verses have more to do with Jesus’ identify as the
Messiah than with a denial of docetism, which may not have even existed at the
time of these writings.
The only lingering question I have is whether EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA and ERCOMENON
EN SARKI modify Jesus or the Christ. I’m not sure one needs to make this
distinction, or where you stand on it. If modifying Jesus, John may be saying
nothing more than “of Nazareth” or TOUTON TON IHSOUN (Acts 2:36) or what we
would today call “the historical” Jesus. Cf. 2 Cor 5:16, KATA SARKA CRISTON,
where, I think, a different point is being made.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:26:21 AM
1 John 4:2: KAI PAN PNEUMA hO hOMOLEGEI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA EK TOU
QEOU ESTIN.
2 John 7: hOTI POLLOI PLANOI EXHLQON EIS TON KOSMON, hOI MH hOMOLOGOUNTES IHSOUN
CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI ….
All the translations I have been able to check except Moffat take IHSOUN
CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA as the object of hOMOLOGEW in 1 John 4:2 and IHSOUN
CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI as the object of hMOLOGEW in 2 John 7, resulting in
the following translations:
1 John 4:2: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
is of God (KJV)
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not
acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh …. (NASB).
In commentaries that adopt the above interpretations of these two verses, it is
customary to call such denial an error of “docetic Gnosticism.” But the actual
issue involved is simply the denial on the part of some that Jesus is the
Christ (cf. 1 John 2:22; 5:1); therefore it is best to translate these verses as
follows, taking IHSOUN CRISTON in both cases as an object-complement double
accusative.
1 John 4:2: And every spirit that confesses that Jesus is Christ come in the
flesh is of God.
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who deny that
Jesus is Christ coming in the flesh ….
In both verses the idea is that the flesh and blood human being known to the
world as Jesus is the Christ.
In John 9:22, we have the same verb hOMOLOGEW used with an object-complement
construction: EAN TIS AUTON hOMOLOGHSHi CRISTON–“if any one confessed him
[Jesus] to be Christ.”
Moffat, the only exception I have noted, translates 1 John 4:2 as “every spirit
that confesses Jesus as Christ incarnate comes from God.”
I checked with Wallace and was happy to see that he agrees with me on the
translation of the subject verses (see note 41 on p. 188).
Leonard Jayawardena
—
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
LJ: My point is that these translations take the entire phrase as the single object of hOMOLOGEW. In 1 John 4:2, the phrase IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA in its entirety is taken as the single object of the verb.
LJ: I clearly stated above that it is IHSOUN CRISTON which is taken as an object-complement double accusative construction in the way I understand these two verses. IHSOUN is the direct object of hOMOLOGEW and CRISTON is its complement, with EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA qualifying the latter.
LJ: There is a significant difference of meaning. In 1 John 4:2 the KJV has “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” This would mean that in the time of the writer some held the view that Jesus Christ did not have a body of flesh, but had a phantom body, as docetists are thought to have taught; and the purpose of this statement then would be to counter that false teaching. But as I translate this verse, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus is Christ come in the flesh is of God,” the writer basically says exactly what he has repeatedly stated elsewhere in the epistle, i.e., that Jesus is the Christ. The words EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA, which follow CRISTON and qualify it, add to the basic affirmation of the writer–that is Jesus is the Christ–by saying that Jesus is Christ in incarnate form, focusing attention on the historical Jesus. The OT scriptures spoke of the coming of the Christ and this Jesus is that Christ incarnate. Prior to being
enfleshed in the historical Jesus, Christ existed in the minds of the people of God as the much awaited saviour and in their scriptures, and that Christ has now “come” in the form of Jesus.
It is instructive to compare this with John 1:14: KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN IN hHMIN, a statement thought to have been penned by the same writer as 1 John. According to the writer, the LOGOS pre-existed the historical Jesus and it (or he, depending on your theological views) became incarnate in Jesus.
LJ: I hope that my preceding comment clarifies my position.
LJ: The purpose of citing John 9:22 is to provide support for the particular translations I have advocated, not to exclude other possibilities of translation with hOMOLOGEW.
LJ: I noted this problem too, but didn’t comment on it because it may be that “comes from God” in Moffat’s translation corresponds only to EK TOU QEOU ESTIN. It may be that Moffat’s “Christ incarnate” renders the entire phrase EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA. Moffat’s translation has a reputation for being highly colloquial.
If “comes” in Moffat’s translation renders ELHLUQOTA, then, as you correctly pointed out, the grammar does not support that part of his translation. Anyway, subject to this defect, if “comes” is related to ELHLUQOTA in Moffat, then he must have contrued ELHLUQOTA with ESTIN as a periphrastic construction (periphrastic perfect)–“has come”.
LJ: If ELHLUQENAI stood in the original, then the reading would be KAI PAN PNEUMA hO hOMOLEGEI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI LHLUQENAI EK TOU QEOU ESTIN and the meaning would be “And every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ to have come in the flesh is from God.”
In this context, it is interesting to note the various variant readings that exist for 1 John 4:3, KAI PAN PNEUMA hO MH hOMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN, ranging from IHSOUN CRISTON in the place of just TON IHSOUN to IHSOUN KURION EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA. Obviously, some scribes had a problem accepting the simple TON IHSOUN, which is the original reading. A note in the NET Bible 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.” Judging from the various variant readings in the UBS GNT, the scribe/s who introduced ELHLUQENAI in v. 2 had been at work here too!
With regard to 2 John 7, the difference between this and 1 John 4:2 is only the form of the verb ERCOMAI. In the former, it is ERCOMENON whereas it is the participle ELHLUQOTA in the latter.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com;
LJ: True, Wallace doesn’t discuss in detail the verses mentioned on this page, but beginning from p. 187 he discusses Romans 10:9, EAN hOMOLOGHSHiS EN THi STOMATI SOU KURION IHSOUN … SWQHSHi, and advocates the interpretation “If you confess with you mouth Jesus [as] Lord … you shall be saved.” In note 41, he says, “We should most likely take it [i.e., KURION IHSOUN in Romans 10:9] as an object-complement construction because of the following: (a) the verb used [hOMOLOGEW] can take an object-complement (cf. John 9:22; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7) ….”
From this I infer that Wallace takes IHSOUN CRISTON in John 4:2 and 2 John 7 as an object-complement. In the very least, he thinks that that is a possible interpretation.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
href=”mailto:lightmanmark@yahoo.com”>lightmanmark@yahoo.com
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com;
Hi Leonard,
Excellent post. You (and the NET, thanks for the reference, Iver) have convinced me that these verses have more to do with Jesus’ identify as the Messiah than with a denial of docetism, which may not have even existed at the time of these writings.
LJ: I, too, don’t think that docetism existed in the first century, the time when these epistles were written, or, at least, if it existed, we don’t have evidence for it unless such evidence be found in these verses as usually translated.
Mark L.:
The only lingering question I have is whether EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA and ERCOMENON EN SARKI modify Jesus or the Christ. I’m not sure one needs to make this distinction, or where you stand on it. If modifying Jesus, John may be saying nothing more than “of Nazareth” or TOUTON TON IHSOUN (Acts 2:36) or what we would today call “the historical” Jesus. Cf. 2 Cor 5:16, KATA SARKA CRISTON, where, I think, a different point is being made.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
LJ: I hope all your questions have been answered in my reply to Barry H.
Leonard Jayawardena
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:26:21 AM
1 John 4:2: KAI PAN PNEUMA hO hOMOLEGEI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA EK TOU QEOU ESTIN.
2 John 7: hOTI POLLOI PLANOI EXHLQON EIS TON KOSMON, hOI MH hOMOLOGOUNTES IHSOUN CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI ….
All the translations I have been able to check except Moffat take IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUTOTA as the object of hOMOLOGEW in 1 John 4:2 and IHSOUN CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI as the object of hMOLOGEW in 2 John 7, resulting in the following translations:
1 John 4:2: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God (KJV)
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh …. (NASB).
In commentaries that adopt the above interpretations of these two verses, it is customary to call such denial an error of “docetic Gnosticism.” But the actual issue involved is simply the denial on the part of some that Jesus is the Christ (cf. 1 John 2:22; 5:1); therefore it is best to translate these verses as follows, taking IHSOUN CRISTON in both cases as an object-complement double accusative.
1 John 4:2: And every spirit that confesses that Jesus is Christ come in the flesh is of God.
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who deny that Jesus is Christ coming in the flesh ….
In both verses the idea is that the flesh and blood human being known to the world as Jesus is the Christ.
In John 9:22, we have the same verb hOMOLOGEW used with an object-complement construction: EAN TIS AUTON hOMOLOGHSHi CRISTON–“if any one confessed him [Jesus] to be Christ.”
Moffat, the only exception I have noted, translates 1 John 4:2 as “every spirit that confesses Jesus as Christ incarnate comes from God.”
I checked with Wallace and was happy to see that he agrees with me on the translation of the subject verses (see note 41 on p. 188).
Leonard Jayawardena
—
?
—– Original Message —–
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 4:49 AM
Greetings, Leonard, commentaria infra:
And there is a reason for that: indirect statements, whether
accusative-infinitive, accusative-participle, or hOTI clauses, are normally
considered direct objects of their verbs.
Ok, well I didn’t clearly read it that way, obviously. I would then render,
“Every Spirit which confesses that Jesus [the] Christ has come in the flesh
is from God.”
I think you are making much ado out of nothing. You are making very subtle
point based on a difference minor in both Greek and English. By adding the
words “EN SARKI” John also counters docetism, even if he didn’t have that
particular problem in mind.
And see my revised response.
That’s possible — I hypothesized that Moffat may have emended the text
differently, but this works too. I somehow doubt that he simply misread the
text. Colloquial? That’s a kind word.
Which is apparently how the scribe in question understood the text,
suggesting that he sees Jesus Christ as practically a name or name and
closely associated title, and that the entire clause is simply indirect
discourse (which I think is the natural way to read the text).
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat…
Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
(2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner)
V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS
http://www.tnars.net
http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry
—
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
LJ: Wrong again. If IHSOUN is the direct object of hOMOLOGEW, CRISTON is the complement of IHSOUN and EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA qualifies CRISTON, then the meaning can only be “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus is (or ‘as’) Christ come in the flesh, is from God.”
LJ: The choices before us are quite clear and there is no room for “also” here. If you translate 1 John 4:2 as “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is from God,” then what the writer affirms is that Jesus had a body of flesh, as opposed to, say, a phantom body, as the docetists are said to have taught. On the other hand, if you translate this verse as I do, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus is (or “to be,” or “as”) Christ come in the flesh (or “Christ incarnate”), is from God,” then the focus is on the historical Jesus being the Christ.
LJ: You have ignored 1 John 4:3 and my comments thereon. “[T]he scribe in question” and his type, having problems in accepting the simple reading TON IHSOUN, which is the original reading, had also been busy interpolating words in 4:3 in an attempt to harmonize their erroneous understanding of 4:2 with 4:3.
In the UBS GNT text, 4:3 reads: KAI PAN PNEUMA hO MH hOMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN. The following variant readings are listed in the critical apparatus of the UBS GNT:
1. IHSOUN CRISTON
2. TON IHSOUN EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (with some mss. in this group substituting ELHLUQENAI for ELHLUQOTA)
3. IHSOUN KURION EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA
4. IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (some mss. TON IHSOUN CRISTON, others TON XRISTON)
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, a
s traditionally translated, an effective scriptural counter to that heresy.
At the same time there were some scribes who did understand IHSOUN CRISTON in 4:2 as an object-complement double accusative, as evidenced by the variant reading IHSOUN CRISTON for TON IHSOUN in 4:3.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
You are being rather idiosyncratic and interpreting the passage contrary to that
which it clearly must have since there are six occurances of Ιησ* Χριστ*
IHS* XRIST* in 1 Jn: 1.3; 2.1; 3.23; 4.2; 5.6, 20. It would seem to
function as a “joint” name rather than a name and not as a nominal sentence. If
you understand Ιησοῦν Χριστόν IHSOUN XRISTON as a nominal sentence “Jesus is
Christ” here, what distinguishes it from other uses by the same author?
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
Cc:
Sent: Wed, December 29, 2010 1:24:22 AM
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:nebarry@verizon.net”>nebarry@verizon.net
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
LJ: Wrong again. If IHSOUN is the direct object of hOMOLOGEW, CRISTON is the
complement of IHSOUN and EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA qualifies CRISTON, then the meaning
can only be “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus is (or ‘as’) Christ come in
the flesh, is from God.”
LJ: The choices before us are quite clear and there is no room for “also” here.
If you translate 1 John 4:2 as “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ
has come in the flesh, is from God,” then what the writer affirms is that Jesus
had a body of flesh, as opposed to, say, a phantom body, as the docetists are
said to have taught. On the other hand, if you translate this verse as I do,
“Every spirit that confesses that Jesus is (or “to be,” or “as”) Christ come in
the flesh (or “Christ incarnate”), is from God,” then the focus is on the
historical Jesus being the Christ.
LJ: You have ignored 1 John 4:3 and my comments thereon. “[T]he scribe in
question” and his type, having problems in accepting the simple reading TON
IHSOUN, which is the original reading, had also been busy interpolating words in
4:3 in an attempt to harmonize their erroneous understanding of 4:2 with 4:3.
In the UBS GNT text, 4:3 reads: KAI PAN PNEUMA hO MH hOMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN EK TOU
QEOU OUK ESTIN. The following variant readings are listed in the critical
apparatus of the UBS GNT:
1. IHSOUN CRISTON
2. TON IHSOUN EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (with some mss. in this group substituting
ELHLUQENAI for ELHLUQOTA)
3. IHSOUN KURION EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA
4. IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (some mss. TON IHSOUN CRISTON, others TON
XRISTON)
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, a
s traditionally translated, an effective scriptural counter to that heresy.
At the same time there were some scribes who did understand IHSOUN CRISTON in
4:2 as an object-complement double accusative, as evidenced by the variant
reading IHSOUN CRISTON for TON IHSOUN in 4:3.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
A few comments below:
—– Original Message —–
Cc:
Sent: 29. december 2010 11:24
…
IL: You are overstating your case. hOMOLOGEW may take as object a whole clause,
but in that case it should be introduced by hOTI or be an infinitive (with
accusative). Neither is the case here. But the verb can also be construed with a
double accusative. The problem in 4:2 is that we have three accusatives: IHSOUN,
CRISTON and ELHLUQOTA. The majority opinion is that IHSOUN CRISTON is a unit and
what is in focus about Jesus Christ here is that he has come in the flesh, as a
human
being. You have taken the minority opinion which is also found in the NET.
The NET lists the three options:
(1) the entire phrase “Jesus Christ come in the flesh” may be considered the
single object of the verb homologei; (so B. F. Westcott, A. Brooke, J.
Bonsirven, R. E. Brown, S. Smalley, and others);
(2) the verb hOMOLOGEW may be followed by a double accusative, so that both
“Jesus Christ” and “come in the flesh” are objects of the verb; the meaning
would be “confess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (so B. Weiss, J. Chaine,
and others).
(3) Another possibility is to see the verb as followed by a double accusative as
in (2), but in this case the first object is “Jesus” and the second is “the
Christ come in the flesh,” so that what is being confessed is “Jesus as the
Christ come in the flesh” (so N. Alexander, J. Stott, J. Houlden, and others).
I would rule out (1) since there is no hOTI nor infinitive.
(3) does not fit the context of 1 John. Chapter 4 talks about evaluating false
teaching. None of the intended audience would be duped if someone claimed that
Jesus was not the Christ. Those who say that are the non-Christians, and they
are clearly liars (2:22). Every Christian knew and would confess that Jesus was
both the Messiah and the Son of God (4:15 and 5:5). The Christians only needed
to “test the spirit” if it was not obviously false what the person was saying.
The idea that Christ somehow entered the man Jesus after his birth and left
before his death, was promoted by certain false teachers within the church. John
counters this idea in 4:2, 2 John 7, but also in 5:6 where the phrase “come
through water” refers to his physical birth as a human being. The phrase
“through blood” refers to his death as a real human being of flesh and blood.
The false teachers would say that this was not the Christ, only the man Jesus.
Concerning (2), NET comments: “option (2) makes “Jesus Christ” the name of the
preincarnate second Person of the Trinity, and this would be the only place in
the Johannine literature where such a designation for the preincarnate LOGOS
(Logos) occurs”.
That kind of comment makes no sense to me. The text does not talk about the
preincarnate Jesus, but Jesus Christ as he has already come into this world. The
participle is a perfect participle.
————
IL: I could not find such a NET note at 4:3. It is not “the author’s failure to
repeat”. 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
—
Thanks for Leonard. This text has vexed me quite a while – the way it
usually read (as if docetism was the problem they faced in the first
century) didn’t ring at all. When I had a chance to come across NET fn
before, I have settled it. So naturally I got surprised that we have strong
voices of the contrary opinion!
See below for comments to Iver’s posting.
Oun Kwon
Of NET fn options,
Jesus
left
church.
“come
OJK: Sounds great Iver. But hold for a moment. Exactly what kind spirit John
was warning against? That it should be the spirit of docetism is only a
scholars’ conjecture. Doesn’t John say explicitly RIGHT HERE in 4:3b that
it’s the spirit of anti-Messiah he was dealing with? Admittedly, docetism as
such is considered to be anti-Messiah but it’s a tiny part of it. On the
other hand, the text which is read as if it’s about docetism makes it
totally irrelevant for the readers like us here and now.
As for the 1Jn 5:6, I don’t think it should be read as an anti-docetic
rhetoric, but an explanatory statement of who the Messiah is. Why, just in
the preceding verse, John does write that ‘Jesus is the Son of God’ – this
means none other than ‘Jesus is the Messiah’ – the recurrent theme in this
epistle (1Jn 2:22; 5:1; 2Jn 7). For me, I can not read anything out of this
5:5 to show John meant it to be a waring against docetism.
place
LOGOS
the
world.
OJK: I agree on this one. NET seems to have made a goof here.
failure
text
OJK: I agree on this. The presence of different mss would not sway one way
or the other.
—
(I am re-sending this post as I forgot to copy it to B-Greek the first time.)
href=”mailto:gfsomsel@yahoo.com”>gfsomsel@yahoo.com
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com;
CC:
You are being rather idiosyncratic and interpreting the passage contrary to that which it clearly must have since there are six occurances of Ιησ* Χριστ* IHS* XRIST* in 1 Jn: 1.3; 2.1; 3.23; 4.2; 5.6, 20. It would seem to function as a “joint” name rather than a name and not as a nominal sentence. If you understand Ιησοῦν Χριστόν IHSOUN XRISTON as a nominal sentence “Jesus is Christ” here, what distinguishes it from other uses by the same author?
george
gfsomsel
LJ: “[W]hat distinguishes it from other uses by the same author” is that the context demands and the grammar permits taking IHSOUN CRISTON in 1 John 4:2 as on object-complement double accusative, as explained in detail in my earlier posts.
If you think that IHSOUN CRISTON in 4:2 should be read just as it is in the other passages you cited, i.e., as a personal name (IHSOUN) followed by a title (CRISTON), then take a look at 1 Corinthians 8:6:
ALL’ hHMIN hEIS QEOS hO PATHR … KAI hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS ….
The phrase KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS occurs many times in the NT, including the writings of Paul, in all of which cases it is to be read as “Lord Jesus Christ,” but in the above passage alone we should read it as “one Lord, Jesus Christ” (“Jesus Christ” in apposition with “Lord”). If we follow your logic, we should read hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS as “one Lord Jesus Christ.”
Leonard Jayawardena
P.S.: Note to Iver Larsen: If you are reading this, I will reply to your post tomorrow.
—
What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? This was a question raised by Tertullian
indicating that philosophy and the Christian faith were two different animals.
I ask you, “What has Paul to do with 1 John?” How do you propose to compare
Paul’s use of the phrase with that of the author of 1 John? One author will not
infrequently use a word or phrase in a different sense from that of a different
author. Nevertheless, in 1 Cor 8.6, εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς hEIS KURIOS
IHSOUS XRISTOS **IS** used as a proper name much as I might refer to Judas
the son of Mattathias as Judas Maccabeus even though Maccabeus was a term
applied to him signifying “hammer” just as Charles Martel was similarly Charles
the Hammer. Both had these terms applied to them as a result of their military
exploits. Similarly, “Christ” was originally a term signifying “the annointed”
in keeping with the OT practice of anointing priests and kings. In all
three cases we tend to use the two terms together as the designation and name of
one person — Judas Maccabeus, Charles Martel and Jesus Christ. It was not
always thus. originally “Judas” was a name and “Maccabeus” was a descriptor.
“Jesus” was a name and “Christ” was a descriptor. Attention must be paid to
which author uses it in which way. The author of 1 John is rather consistent in
using the two together as a complete name “Jesus Christ” much as I might say
“Carl Conrad” rather than ”Carl the Conrad.” Note how this is handled in 1 Jn
2.22 where it has ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ χριστός hOTI IHSOUS OUK EST hO
XRISTOS. There the author explicitly puts the article in to signify that he is
using χριστός XRISTOS not as a part of the name but as a nominal descriptor of
the name “Jesus” (similarly in 5.1). In 4.2, however, we have ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν
Χριστὸν hO hOMOLOGEI IHSOUN XRISTON, not ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸν hO
hOMOLOGEI IHSOUN ESTIN hO XRISTON. Attention must be paid to the way a
particular author uses these terms and to the fact that another author may use
them differently. You simply cannot simply equate one author’s usage with that
of a different author. In the case of 1 Cor 8.6 which you cite, however, Paul
uses it as does the author of 1 Jn in the sense of “Jesus Christ”, not “Jesus
the Christ.” When the author of 1 Jn wanted to explicate “Jesus Christ” as
“Jesus is the christ” he has a specific way of doing so.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:gfsomsel@yahoo.com”>gfsomsel@yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 3:38:04 AM
________________________________
href=”mailto:gfsomsel@yahoo.com”>gfsomsel@yahoo.com
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com;
CC:
You are being rather idiosyncratic and interpreting the passage contrary to that
which it clearly must have since there are six occurances of Ιησ* Χριστ*
IHS* XRIST* in 1 Jn: 1.3; 2.1; 3.23; 4.2; 5.6, 20. It would seem to
function as a “joint” name rather than a name and not as a nominal sentence. If
you understand Ιησοῦν Χριστόν IHSOUN XRISTON as a nominal sentence “Jesus is
Christ” here, what distinguishes it from other uses by the same author?
george
gfsomsel
LJ: “[W]hat distinguishes it from other uses by the same author” is that the
context demands and the grammar permits taking IHSOUN CRISTON in 1 John 4:2 as
on object-complement double accusative, as explained in detail in my earlier
posts.
If you think that IHSOUN CRISTON in 4:2 should be read just as it is in the
other passages you cited, i.e., as a personal name (IHSOUN) followed by a title
(CRISTON), then take a look at 1 Corinthians 8:6:
ALL’ hHMIN hEIS QEOS hO PATHR … KAI hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS ….
The phrase KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS occurs many times in the NT, including the
writings of Paul, in all of which cases it is to be read as “Lord Jesus Christ,”
but in the above passage alone we should read it as “one Lord, Jesus Christ”
(“Jesus Christ” in apposition with “Lord”). If we follow your logic, we should
read hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS as “one Lord Jesus Christ.”
Leonard Jayawardena
P.S.: Note to Iver Larsen: If you are reading this, I will reply to your post
tomorrow.
—
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com;
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
LJ: You have not read what I wrote carefully. I am not “overstating.” I was correcting something that Barry H. had written, which you have omitted, and saying that, if the various constituents of the verse are taken in that particular syntactical relationship, then the meaning of the words must be “Every spirit which confesses that Jesus is (or ‘as’) Christ come in the flesh, is from God.” I was not excluding other possibilities of translation above.
LJ: Please clarify the last sentence (though it is academic since you do not advocate option [1]). If with hOTI, should the verse read as PAN PNEUMA hO hOMOLEGEI hOTI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA? And the form of the verse with an infinitive?
LJ: “(3) does not fit the context of 1 John”? You might as well have said something like “There is no proof that the earth is round.” The whole burden and recurrent theme of 1 John is that Jesus is the Christ (= the son of God) and that believing in that truth, one has eternal life (provided, of course, one lives the kind of life which that belief requires), and the corollary, that if you do not believe that, you have no life. Jesus as the Christ is introduced in 1:3– “[O]ur fellowship is with the father and with his son Jesus Christ.” The expressions “his son,” “the son” or “the son of God” throughout this episle are equal to the expression “Christ” (1:3, 7; 2:22, 23 [dis], 24; 3:8, 23; 4:9, 10, 14, 15; 5:5, 10 [dis], 11, 12, 13, 20). To say that “Jesus is the Christ” is the same as saying that “Jesus is the son of God” (compare, for example, 5:1 with 5:5). The epistle fittingly ends with the affirmation that the writer and those whom he addressed “know that the son of God has come” and that they are “in the truth, in his son Jesus Christ” (5:20). Such repeated stress on the fact that Jesus is the Christ would not have made any sense if the denial of that fact (see e.g., 2:22) had not become a serious concern for the writer. It is in that context that we are to understand 4:2.
On the other hand, there is not an iota of evidence in this letter that docetism was a concern for the writer and his audience, unless, of course, the evidence for it be found in 4:2 as you understand it. As Oun Kwon correctly pointed out, the writer was warning his readers against “the spirit of Antichrist,” not “the spirit of docetism” (4:3).
LJ: On the contrary, I think that that comment does have much merit. The interpretation “Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ as come in the flesh, is of God,” does suggest that Jesus Christ had a pre-incarnate existence as “Jesus Christ.” In the way I understand 4:2, “Every spirit that confesses Jesus as Christ come in the flesh, is of God,” Christ pre-exists Jesus and become incarnate in him. As I explained in a previous post, Christ existed in the minds of the people of God as their eagerly awaited saviour and in their scriptures and that Christ “came” to this world as Jesus. Compare 5:20: OIDAMEN DE hOTI hO hUIOS TOU QEOU hHKEI ….” (“We know that the son of God [= the Christ] has come …”). Compare with also Christ’ statement in Mt. 17:12, LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI HLIAS HDH HLQEN KAI OUK EPEGNWSAN AUTON, referring to John the Baptist. The Elijah in question existed in the OT prophecies (Malachi 4:5) and he “came” (HLQEN, the same verb as in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7) in the form of John the Baptist. The Elijah of OT prophecies pre-existed John the Baptist. Consider also John 1:14, KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN, from the same pen as 1 John 4:2. However you choose to understand hO LOGOS in John 1:14, clearly it (or he) pre-existed Jesus and became incarnate in him. Similarly, the pre-existent Christ became enfleshed in Jesus, i.e., Jesus is Christ who has come in the flesh. That is all what 1 John 4:2 says.
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.
LJ: Yes, the words “the author’s failure to repeat” are somewhat unfortunate. The “author’s omission of the words …” would have been better.
LJ: TOUTO certainly would have helped your case, but not TON IHSOUN, the original reading. How hOMOLEGEI TON TON IHSOUN can be an ellipsis for hOMOLEGEI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA 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.”
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.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
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:
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.
LJ: Yes, the words “the author’s failure to repeat” are somewhat unfortunate. The “author’s omission of the words …” would have been better.
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
—
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
________________________________
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
Cc:
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 5:55:06 AM
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:
the
that
“culprits”
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.
LJ: Yes, the words “the author’s failure to repeat” are somewhat unfortunate.
The “author’s omission of the words …” would have been better.
ἐκ
IHSOUN
does
UBS
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
—
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?
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
Cc:
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 8:25:59 AM
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
________________________________
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
Cc:
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 5:55:06 AM
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:
the
that
“culprits”
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.
LJ: Yes, the words “the author’s failure to repeat” are somewhat unfortunate.
The “author’s omission of the words …” would have been better.
ἐκ
IHSOUN
does
UBS
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
—
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
the
in
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
4:2,
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Leonard Jayawardena
wrote:
interpretation “Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ as come in the
flesh, is of God,” does suggest that Jesus Christ had a pre-incarnate
existence as “Jesus Christ.” In the way I understand 4:2, “Every spirit that
confesses Jesus as Christ come in the flesh, is of God,” Christ pre-exists
Jesus and become incarnate in him. As I explained in a previous post, Christ
existed in the minds of the people of God as their eagerly awaited saviour
and in their scriptures and that Christ “came” to this world as Jesus. ….
Thanks Leonard again for your clarifying the issue.
Since you phrased well everything I wanted to say more or to correct myself
Except a small point to point out about this passage you wrote.
You said: JC had a pre-incarnate existence as “Jesus Christ”. I would have
it to say rather: JC had a pre-incarnate existence as “Christ”,
understanding fully well that Logos = pre-incarnate Christ, not much with
Jesus the human being we encounter in the history.
Oun Kwon
P.S. As I come to be enlightened of the scripture passage as I learn, it is
such a joy.
Thanks million to B-Greek. Happy New Year to all!
—
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. 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.
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:42:53 AM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 1:07:04 PM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:42:53 AM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
4:2,
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
So, If you can, then you SHOULD?
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 4:34:25 PM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 1:07:04 PM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:42:53 AM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
I find to passages in the NT which have 2 nouns in the accusative followed by a
form of εἰμι, but in both cases the verb is an 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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 4:34:25 PM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 1:07:04 PM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:42:53 AM
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
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:12:56 AM
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
_________
________________________________;
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:46:53 AM
< 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
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 10:41:46 AM
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
_________
________________________________; Leonard Jayawardena
;
Cc: Mark Lightman
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 9:51:09 AM
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
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
href=”mailto:iver_larsen@sil.org”>iver_larsen@sil.org
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
ἐν
CRISTON
that
repeat
the
in
I have now replied to this objection.
Leonard Jayawardena
href=”mailto:gfsomsel@yahoo.com”>gfsomsel@yahoo.com
href=”mailto:lightmanmark@yahoo.com”>lightmanmark@yahoo.com;
CC:
So, If you can, then you SHOULD?
george
gfsomsel
. search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
Cc: Leonard Jayawardena;
Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 4:34:25 PM
The short answer, George, is that we separate
href=”mailto:kwonbbl@gmail.com”>kwonbbl@gmail.com
href=”mailto:leonardj@live.com”>leonardj@live.com
CC:
Thanks Leonard again for your clarifying the issue.
Since you phrased well everything I wanted to say more or to correct myself – nothing much more to say.
Except a small point to point out about this passage you wrote.
You said: JC had a pre-incarnate existence as “Jesus Christ”. I would have it to say rather: JC had a pre-incarnate existence as “Christ”, understanding fully well that Logos = pre-incarnate Christ, not much with Jesus the human being we encounter in the history.
Oun Kwon
LJ: You may not have understood what I said accurately. I wrote:
“The interpretation ‘Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ as come in the flesh, is of God,’ does suggest that Jesus Christ had a pre-incarnate existence as ‘Jesus Christ.'”
The translation “Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ as come in the flesh, is of God” is option (2) in the NET note. In option (2), hOMOLOGEW is contrued with an object-complement double accusative, as in my interpretation, except that in this interterpretation the direct object is IHSOUN CRISTON and the complement is EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (“Jesus Christ as come in the flesh”). In this translation, there is a suggestion that Jesus Christ had a pre-existence as “Jesus Christ.” (In contrast, in my interpretation, Jesus has a pre-existence only as ”Christ.”)
I have already explained this point in a previous post and reproduce the relevant part:
Quote
Compare with also Christ’ statement in Mt. 17:12, LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI HLIAS HDH HLQEN KAI OUK EPEGNWSAN AUTON, referring to John the Baptist. The Elijah in question existed in the OT prophecies (Malachi 4:5) and he “came” (HLQEN, the same verb as in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7) in the form of John the Baptist. The Elijah of OT prophecies pre-existed John the Baptist. Consider also John 1:14, KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN, from the same pen as 1 John 4:2. However you choose to understand hO LOGOS in John 1:14, clearly it (or he) pre-existed Jesus and became incarnate in him.
Unquote
Both Elijah and Logos pre-existed John the Baptist and Jesus, respectively, as “Elijah” (in the prophecy in Malachi) and “Logos” (as LOGOS QEOU in Numbers 3:20 [LXX], compare with Rev. 19:13ff for this interpretation of Jesus as “the word of God”). (On the other hand, if your theology is more traditional, you may wish to understand that Jesus as the second person of the trinity existed as “Logos.”) On the analogy of these passages, the statement “Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” or “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” imply that Jesus had a pre-existence as “Jesus Christ,” i.e., that in his pre-incarnate existence he bore the name “Jesus Christ.” Of course, I myself do not accept this translation, but this is one of the embarrasing implications of this particular translation, which its advocates may want to reject.
Leonard Jayawardena
—
In my post of about an hour ago, I gave a reference to “Numbers 3:20 [LXX].” This should be read as “Judges 3:20 [LXX].” My apologies for the error.
Come to think of it, the “embarrasing implication” I spoke of is entailed in even option (1) of the NET translation, in which the entire phrase EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA (“Jesus Christ come in the flesh”) is taken as the single object of the verb hOMOLOGEW. I see little practical difference between the rendering “confess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” and “confess Jesus Christ come in the flesh.” Does any one else see it differently?
Leonard Jayawardena
—
I should not remain without thanking you for correcting my oversight.
Oun Kwon.
—
Hoping I would not overtax the moderation,
I say, I don’t see much difference.
Oun Kwon.
—