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

Leonard Jayawardena leonardj at live.com
Fri Dec 31 23:49:41 EST 2010


> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 07:16:20 -0800
> From: gfsomsel at yahoo.com
> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7
> 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.  
LJ: It is regrettable that you do not understand my simple counter-argument to what you wrote. Your original question was that, since IHSOUS CRISTOS in every other place in the epistle is taken as a personal name (IHSOUN) followed by a title (CRISTON), why it should be any different here in 4:2. In reply, I cited 1 Cor. 8:5, ALL' hHMIN hEIS QEOS hO PATHR ... KAI hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS, where the sequence of words hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS is to be read as "one Lord, Jesus Christ," not "one Lord Jesus Christ," though everywhere else in Paul' writings and the NT in general this phrase is always to be read "Lord Jesus Christ." If you still don't get my counter-argument, I will rephrase it in your own language. Assume that you hold that hEIS KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS in 1 Cor. 8:6 should be read as "one Lord, Jesus Christ" ("Jesus Christ" in apposition with "Lord") and I argue that it should be read as "one Lord Jesus Christ" and ask you, "If you understand KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS in 1 Cor. 8:6 as IHSOUS CRISTOS as being in apposition to KURIOS, what distinguishes it from other uses (of the same phrase) by the same author?" 
I am not comparing apples and pears. I am just saying that, if it is possible for Paul to have this one exception to his normal use of this phrase (KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS), then it is possible for "John" (use of inverted commas because we really don't know who wrote this epistle, it being anonymous) to have this single exception to his use of the words IHSOUS CRISTOS used together. Or is it only Paul who is entitled to have an exception?
 > 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 

LJ: You are now introducing a new argument, which is similar to the first though, i.e., if "John" had wanted to say that "Jesus is (the) Christ" in 4:2, he would have expressed it exactly the same way that he expressed it elsewhere in his epistle: IHSOUS ESTIN hO CRISTOS, with an article before CRISTOS. 
You are comparing apples and pears here. What we have in 5:1 and 2:22 (with the negative particle OUK) is a simple type of clause with a subject (IHSOUS), an equative verb (ESTIN) and a complement (hO CRISTOS). In 4:2, however, the structure of the sentence is different. The verb hOMOLOGEW is used in the sentence with a double accusative, as I understand it, though, admittedly, the relationship between IHSOUN (direct object of hOMOLOGEW) and CRISTON (complement of IHSOUN) is analogous to that between IHSOUS and hO CRISTOS in 5:1 and 2:22. There is also the additional constituent EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA, which qualifies CRISTON. 
Note that hOMOLOGEW is used with a double accusative with AUTON as the subject and anarthrous XRISTON as its complement ("If any one confessed him [IHSOUN] to be Christ"). This verse comes from the same pen as 1 John 4:2, so here we have proof that in the one undisputed instance in which the writer uses hOMOLOGEW with an equivalent of Jesus (AUTON) and XRISTON as a double accusative, he omits the article before XRISTON.
Have I now answered all your objections?
Leonard Jayawardena
P.S. Wait for George S. Somsel to bring in the new objection that in John 9:22 we have the pronoun AUTON instead of IHSOUN in 1 John 4:2 and that the order of words is different in John 9:22. :>) 
> From: Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com>
> To: gfsomsel at yahoo.com
> Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 3:38:04 AM
> Subject: RE: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7
> ________________________________
> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:01:01 -0800
> From: gfsomsel at yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7
> To: leonardj at live.com; nebarry at verizon.net
> CC: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> 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: 
> 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 

More information about the B-Greek mailing list