From: Carlton Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Thu Dec 14 1995 - 19:42:41 EST
Jim Beale wrote;
>I've run into a few difficulties on 1 John 1:1
>(I didn't get very far, eh?)
>
>1. Is EYHLAFHSAN imperfect or aorist? My guess would be aorist,
>but can this determined by context alone?
EYHLAFHSAN is aorist. The augment on the front and the SA indicate that.
>2. Why is EQEASAMEQA in the middle voice? What is the significance
>of the middle voice in this case?
EQEASAMEQA from QEAOMAI is a deponent verb. It is middle in form but
active in function (Check Bauer on this.)
>3. Why is hO neuter when TOU LOGOU is masculine?
hO is neuter nominative or accusative depending on its function within the
relative clause. John is referring to an event, the incarnation. It is
not unusual in Greek to refer to a general subject of a whole event in the
neuter.
TOU LOGOU is masculine because the word LOGOS is masculine.
>It seems to me that the first verse is rather poetic, and since
>the relative pronoun is neuter, can TOU LOGOU mean the physical
>person of Christ, or does it make more sense to interpret it as
>a reference to the Gospel?
The first verse of I John is an incomplete sentence which is finished in
verse 3. The relative clauses in verse 1 are objects of the verb
APAGGELLOMEN in verse 3. Hence, "we are declaring to you that which was" .
. . .. Verse 2 is an interuption commenting on the life.
Carlton Winbery
Chair Religion/Philosophy
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:34 EDT