[B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7
nebarry at verizon.net
Tue Dec 28 08:12:57 EST 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: Leonard Jayawardena
To: nebarry at verizon.net
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 4:49 AM
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7
Greetings, Leonard, commentaria infra:
>[BH] These are simply indirect statements.
>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.
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.
>[BH] 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
> 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.
>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.
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."
> > 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 ....
> The difference in English between what you have rendered and the KJV above
> is minimal.
>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
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.
> [BH]This strikes me as a theological conclusion that ignores the verbal
> idea in
>LJ: I hope that my preceding comment clarifies my position.
And see my revised response.
>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
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.
>[BH] With all due respect to Wallace, I don't think that "object
> the best way of conceptualizing the grammar at these verses. The variant
> listed above shows that at least one ancient scribe saw the construction
> equivalent to the accusative-infinitive. But then again, Wallace sometimes
> does odd things with grammatical categories.
>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."
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
(2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner)
V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS
bhofstetter at tnars.net
More information about the B-Greek