ὁ Λόγος

[Unitarian101]

According to Baker NT Commentary, there is a grammatical incongruity in this passage. This is not ignorance of Greek, nor boneheaded. And indeed, each element refers to the same person, and similarly in 1 John 1.

Where exactly does "Baker NT Commentary" say such a boneheaded thing (red above) ? I would be very surprised if he does so. Grammarians who believe there is ad sensum in verses like John 16:13 say things rather like the following -- "there is incongruence of gender that is due to constructio ad sensum in John 16:13," etc.

Yes, you can show me.

Here:

Me: What is the antecedent / post-cedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 ?

You: "ἡ ζωὴ", I would say.

How is it that the Holy Spirit is deemed a person, then, in John 14-16, without any incarnation?

Blessings,
Lee

It is not.

Your posts in this thread (especially as pertains the grammar of the various NT passages which you try to enlist) are fact free, self contradictory and incoherent. You are unfortunately pretending a discussion of the grammar of these NT verses with me rather than actually discussing them. It's time to give up the charade. You do not know what you are talking about.

[lee_merrill]

Where exactly does "Baker NT Commentary" say such a boneheaded thing (red above) ? I would be very surprised if he does so. Grammarians who believe there is ad sensum in verses like John 16:13 say things rather like the following -- "there is incongruence of gender that is due to constructio ad sensum in John 16:13," etc.

"Though the word for Spirit is neuter in the original, the pronoun which refers to this Spirit is masculine." (Baker NT Commentary)

This would be a grammatical incongruity, which according to the dictionaries and grammars I have quoted, is a constructio ad sensum.

Me: What is the antecedent / post-cedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 ?

You: "ἡ ζωὴ", I would say.

All right, I forgot. I would concur at this point with the Word Commentary, which says ὃ indicates both the Life and the Word:

Source: Word Biblical Commentary

The neuter pronoun focuses the reader on Jesus as both, the “Word” and “Life.”

© Copyright Original Source

It is not.

The Holy Spirit is considered a person in John 14-16, as shown by the use of ἐκεῖνος.

Source: Baker NT Commentary

Hence, it is clear that the Spirit is thought of as a person.

© Copyright Original Source

Your posts in this thread (especially as pertains the grammar of the various NT passages which you try to enlist) are fact free, self contradictory and incoherent. You are unfortunately pretending a discussion of the grammar of these NT verses with me rather than actually discussing them. It's time to give up the charade. You do not know what you are talking about.

I am the one quoting grammars, and dictionaries, and commentaries, and your response is to deny them!

Blessings,
Lee

[Unitarian101]

"Though the word for Spirit is neuter in the original, the pronoun which refers to this Spirit is masculine." (Baker NT Commentary)

This would be a grammatical incongruity, which according to the dictionaries and grammars I have quoted, is a constructio ad sensum.

Notice no where does Baker say that "there is a grammatical incongruity" [in such passages]. This expression is meaningless, the way you are using it.

All right, I forgot.

I don't think you "forgot." I think you just are doing damage control now. ....FWIW, In this thread you have been using words you don't understand and have invented at least one expression which does not make sense.

I would concur at this point with the Word Commentary, which says ὃ indicates both the Life and the Word:

In order to do that, youwould have to withdraw your assertion that the post-cedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is "ἡ ζωὴ." Do you wish to do so ?

Source: Word Biblical Commentary

The neuter pronoun focuses the reader on Jesus as both, the “Word” and “Life.”

© Copyright Original Source

The Holy Spirit is considered a person in John 14-16, as shown by the use of ἐκεῖνος.

Source: Baker NT Commentary

Hence, it is clear that the Spirit is thought of as a person.

© Copyright Original Source

Daniel Wallace explains in ("Greek grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit") why these [second rate] commentaries are wrong on this score. I have also explained why they are wrong in this thread to you. But you do not comprehend.

I am the one quoting grammars, and dictionaries, and commentaries, and your response is to deny them!

Blessings,
Lee

You indeed are doing red above, but without understanding.

[lee_merrill]

Notice no where does Baker say that "there is a grammatical incongruity" [in such passages].

Well, that's the clear meaning of the statement.

FWIW, In this thread you have been using words you don't understand and have invented at least one expression which does not make sense.

Yet "the Life" and "the Word" can be what ὃ refers to, and "a logical postcedent" would be one way of describing that.

Daniel Wallace explains in ("Greek grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit") why these [second rate] commentaries are wrong on this score. I have also explained why they are wrong in this thread to you. But you do not comprehend.

I disagree, that would not be the same as not comprehending. And Wallace himself characterizes the use of ἐκεῖνος in John 14-16 as debatably a constructio ad sensum.

Blessings,
Lee

[Unitarian101]

Well, that's the clear meaning of the statement.

No, it s nonsense. Can you show me anyone who uses that expression ? Remember you lied about Baker doing so.

Yet "the Life" and "the Word" can be what ὃ refers to, and "a logical postcedent" would be one way of describing that.

First of all a pronoun cannot have two different postcedents. Secondly, to say “the Word” is the postcedent of ὃ ( a position I agree with!) is also to declare that ὃ is a thing rather than a person since the grammatical gender of “the Word” (τοῦ λόγου) is masculine yet ὃ is neuter. If “the Word” was a “person “ the author would have used a masculine pronoun.

I disagree, that would not be the same as not comprehending. And Wallace himself characterizes the use of ἐκεῖνος in John 14-16 as debatably a constructio ad sensum.

Blessings,
Lee

He does not. His position is that there is no ad sensum construction in any of the verses in those two chapters. You are making things up yet again, unfortunately.

[lee_merrill]

No, it s nonsense. Can you show me anyone who uses that expression ? Remember you lied about Baker doing so.

No, I don't say Baker used that expression, but they gave that meaning.

First of all a pronoun cannot have two different postcedents.

So I can say "the Word" and "the Life" are what ὃ refers to, as did Word Commentary.

Secondly, to say “the Word” is the postcedent of ὃ ( a position I agree with!) is also to declare that ὃ is a thing rather than a person since the grammatical gender of “the Word” (τοῦ λόγου) is masculine yet ὃ is neuter. If “the Word” was a “person “ the author would have used a masculine pronoun.

Can you point to a commentary that says this? F.F. Bruce points out that 1 John 2:13-14 specifically refers to one who was "from the beginning" with a masculine pronoun.

In fairness, Bruce writes "The neuter gender of 'that which was from the beginning' points to the gospel rather than to the personal Christ, although indeed the gospel is so bound up with the personal Christ that what is primarily true of one may be said of the other. It was the personal Christ who was heard, seen and touched by John and his fellow-disciples, and if it is maintained that, despite the neuter gender of the relative pronoun, He is the one who is said to have been 'from the beginning', an analogy to this phrase could also be found in chapter 2..." Bruce, perhaps without realizing it, argues for the second point of view in the text I have emphasized.

He does not. His position is that there is no ad sensum construction in any of the verses in those two chapters.

Wallace includes the discussion of ἐκεῖνος in John 14-16 in a section titled "Debatable Examples", under the heading of "Constructio ad sensum" (p. 331).

Blessings,
Lee

[Unitarian101]

No, I don't say Baker used that expression, but they gave that meaning.

See you are doubling down on the lies. How could they have “given” that meaning when that expression is meaningless (that no one uses it should be a clue)

so I can say "the Word" and "the Life" are what ὃ refers to, as did Word Commentary.

Sure, but you have to retract your assertion that the postcedent of “the Life” is ὃ.

Can you point to a commentary that says this? F.F. Bruce points out that 1 John 2:13-14 specifically refers to one who was "from the beginning" with a masculine pronoun

.

Every commentary which defines constructio ad sensum “says” this. If “Bruce” says that the referent of the neuter pronoun is the masculine pronoun then he is unwittingly also declaring that ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is not a person.

In fairness, Bruce writes "The neuter gender of 'that which was from the beginning' points to the gospel rather than to the personal Christ, although indeed the gospel is so bound up with the personal Christ that what is primarily true of one may be said of the other. It was the personal Christ who was heard, seen and touched by John and his fellow-disciples, and if it is maintained that, despite the neuter gender of the relative pronoun, He is the one who is said to have been 'from the beginning', an analogy to this phrase could also be found in chapter 2..." Bruce, perhaps without realizing it, argues for the second point of view in the text I have emphasized.

See, you dont know what you are talking about. Now you are saying that Bruce says the neuter gender of the pronoun points to the gospel rather than to a personal Christ, contradicting your assertion from one sentence earlier.

Wallace includes the discussion of ἐκεῖνος in John 14-16 in a section titled "Debatable Examples", under the heading of "Constructio ad sensum" (p. 331).

Blessings,
Lee

It doesn’t mean that he himself considers those examples to be debatable. Read his paper “— Greek grammar and the personality of the Holy Spirit.”

[Unitarian101]

I think Bruce is jumping through hoops in order to eisegesis the text of 1 John 1:1. The neuter pronoun is clear grammatical evidence that pre-flesh “Word” here according to Apostle John is not a person. So he tries to argue that that the “Word” in 1 John 1:1 is the “Bible” and is so “bound up with the personal Jesus” as to make one indistinguishable from another. It is an incoherent argument.The “Bible” is a thing, not a person.

[lee_merrill]

See you are doubling down on the lies. How could they have “given” that meaning when that expression is meaningless (that no one uses it should be a clue)

The expression is not meaningless, it fits the definitions from the dictionaries I have quoted.

Sure, but you have to retract your assertion that the postcedent of “the Life” is ὃ.

I conclude that "the Word" and "the Life" are what ὃ refers to, as the Word commentary says.

Every commentary which defines constructio ad sensum “says” this.

But I meant a quote that supports your point of view.

If “Bruce” says that the referent of the neuter pronoun is the masculine pronoun then he is unwittingly also declaring that ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is not a person.

No, he is saying that the use of "from the beginning" with a masculine pronoun indicates that "what is from the beginning" is personal.

See, you dont know what you are talking about. Now you are saying that Bruce says the neuter gender of the pronoun points to the gospel rather than to a personal Christ, contradicting your assertion from one sentence earlier.

Bruce makes both points, that ὃ refers to the gospel, and that it refers to Christ. I think his arguments for the latter view are better.

It doesn’t mean that he himself considers those examples to be debatable. Read his paper “— Greek grammar and the personality of the Holy Spirit.”

So I read his paper, and he quotes an "august body" of those who disagree with him. Surely this indicates that the matter is debatable. Particularly in John 16:13-14 I found his argument unconvincing.

So [Bruce] tries to argue that that the “Word” in 1 John 1:1 is the “Bible” and is so “bound up with the personal Jesus” as to make one indistinguishable from another. It is an incoherent argument.The “Bible” is a thing, not a person.

Well, his view is "the gospel", not "the Bible", and indeed the gospel and the Lord are bound up together.

Blessings,
Lee

[Unitarian101]

The expression is not meaningless, it fits the definitions from the dictionaries I have quoted.

Then you should be able to show us someone who uses it as you do.

I conclude that "the Word" and "the Life" are what ὃ refers to, as the Word commentary says.

OK. Does red above mean something other than your original assertion ( that "the postcedent of ὃ is "the Life") ? If so, explain.

But I meant a quote that supports your point of view.

The definition of constructio ad sensum itself supports my point of view. In anycase, here is Dr. Anthony Buzzard discussing another use of constructio ad sensum by the apostle in John 1:10 (vis a vis John 1:5) to discount that notion of a person pre-flesh Word:


Anthony Buzzard :

Down in verse 10, I want you to note that the light has become personalized as a masculine. In other words, this is the feature of grammar which is quite common in the New Testament, when you take a grammatically neuter word and give it personality by breaking the rules of grammar, so to speak. And so, down in verse 10: It was in the world, actually "he" because Jesus had now come into the world in the story, and the world was made through him, absolutely. With him in mind, with him in intention, as Dr. James Dunn says nicely "with him in intention." And the world did not recognize him. Now that light has now become a masculine αὐτόν rather than αὐτό, showing personality in the light because Jesus has gone from a pre-existing plan and purpose to an actual historical person. Now we are in harmony with the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, and we're not contradicting them.

No, he is saying that the use of "from the beginning" with a masculine pronoun indicates that "what is from the beginning" is personal.

Yo, the use of "from the beginning" is with a neuter pronoun in the prologue of John, NOT with a masculine pronoun.

Bruce makes both points, that ὃ refers to the gospel, and that it refers to Christ. I think his arguments for the latter view are better.

This is an impossible understanding. How can the gospel be Christ himself ? Explain. The gospel is a thing, Christ is a person.

So I read his paper, and he quotes an "august body" of those who disagree with him. Surely this indicates that the matter is debatable. Particularly in John 16:13-14 I found his argument unconvincing.

Notice he doesn't call them Greek grammarians. There are only one or two Trinitarian "grammarians" who would seriously argue against Wallace's position.

Well, his view is "the gospel", not "the Bible", and indeed the gospel and the Lord are bound up together.

Blessings,
Lee

What is the difference between the Gospel and the Bible ? And what precisely do you mean that they are "bound up together ?"

[lee_merrill]

Then you should be able to show us someone who uses it as you do.

Are you requiring this exact phrase? I think just the meaning should be required:

Source: Your Dictionary

A grammatical construction in which a word’s inflexion is determined by the semantics of the word or words with which it associates, in contravention of what is required by grammar.

© Copyright Original Source

Does red above mean something other than your original assertion ( that "the postcedent of ὃ is "the Life") ?

This would expand my previous statement, including the Word as being meant by ὃ.

In anycase, here is Dr. Anthony Buzzard discussing another use of constructio ad sensum by the apostle in John 1:10 (vis a vis John 1:5) to discount that notion of a person pre-flesh Word...

I think the light showing personality indicates that the light is Jesus!

Yo, the use of "from the beginning" is with a neuter pronoun in the prologue of John, NOT with a masculine pronoun.

The use of a masculine pronoun in chapter 2:13-14, indicates that "what was from the beginning" in the prologue, refers to a person.

This is an impossible understanding. How can the gospel be Christ himself ? Explain. The gospel is a thing, Christ is a person.

"... indeed the gospel is so bound up with the personal Christ that what is primarily true of one may be said of the other." is the quote, so they are not identical.

What is the difference between the Gospel and the Bible ? And what precisely do you mean that they are "bound up together ?"

The Gospel is the message about Christ, about his coming and sacrifice and resurrection (re 1 Cor. 15:3-8). Since it is about Christ, in that sense they are bound together.

Blessings,
Lee

[Unitarian101]

Are you requiring this exact phrase? I think just the meaning should be required:

Yes. I'm trying to get you to see that not even any of your peers (i.e. Trinitarians) use such an expression.

This would expand my previous statement, including the Word as being meant by ὃ.

You did not answer my question, -- it requires either a yes or a no response. Let me ask you the question in another way: Do you still believe that the postcedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is τῆς ζωῆς ? Yes or No ?

I think the light showing personality indicates that the light is Jesus!

In verse 10 it is, because it has become a human being in this verse. But if you look at the grammar carefully (which you did not, because you are not capable of doing so on your own without prompting) the same light is NOT "showing personality" in verse 5. Here it is not referred to with a masculine pronoun by ad sensum, but by simple grammatical gender concord. This is clear and irrefutable grammatical evidence from the apostle that he did not consider pre-flesh "Light" to be a person.

Look at the following (all you who can actually read the Greek and understand). I've highlighted the important words to facilitate for your easier understanding:

καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

John 1:5

Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

-------

The use of a masculine pronoun in chapter 2:13-14, indicates that "what was from the beginning" in the prologue, refers to a person.

Which masculine pronoun exactly ?

"... indeed the gospel is so bound up with the personal Christ that what is primarily true of one may be said of the other." is the quote, so they are not identical.


The Gospel is the message about Christ, about his coming and sacrifice and resurrection (re 1 Cor. 15:3-8). Since it is about Christ, in that sense they are bound together.

Even if that were the case, grammar dictates that the apostle use the personal pronoun here. For instance look at the following statement:

ὅταν ὁ Χριστὸς φανερωθῇ, ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν, τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ.

Col. 3:4

--

[lee_merrill]

Yes. I'm trying to get you to see that not even any of your peers (i.e. Trinitarians) use such an expression.

Well, I think they do, in this sense from the dictionary: "not conforming : DISAGREEING".

Do you still believe that the postcedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 is τῆς ζωῆς ? Yes or No ?

No, not by itself.

In verse 10 it is, because it has become a human being in this verse. But if you look at the grammar carefully (which you did not, because you are not capable of doing so on your own without prompting) the same light is NOT "showing personality" in verse 5.

"In him was life, and the life was the light of men" (v. 4) shows the light coming from the life of the Son of God, and what is the life of the Son, if not the life of a living being? Grammar is not the end-all and be-all of meaning...

Source: New American Commentary

In v. 5 this Johannine idea is completed as the Life/Light-giver continues to shine (notice the present tense) into the darkness.

© Copyright Original Source

Which masculine pronoun exactly ?

γράφω ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς. (1 Jn 2:13)

Blessings,
Lee

[Unitarian101]

Well, I think they do, in this sense from the dictionary: "not conforming : DISAGREEING".

Point is no one else uses that exact expression. Why not ? Because it is meaningless.

No, not by itself.

Don't know what that is supposed to mean. Again, you are trying to bluff your way out. You should be able to answer the following question definitively, by clearly naming a substantive which is the antecedent / postcedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1:

Question: What is the antecedent / postcedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 ?

Every pronoun must have an antecedent / postcedent (whether explicit or implicit).

"In him was life, and the life was the light of men" (v. 4) shows the light coming from the life of the Son of God, and what is the life of the Son, if not the life of a living being? Grammar is not the end-all and be-all of meaning...

Source: New American Commentary

In v. 5 this Johannine idea is completed as the Life/Light-giver continues to shine (notice the present tense) into the darkness.

© Copyright Original Source

You are not addressing the grammar.

γράφω ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς. (1 Jn 2:13)

Blessings,
Lee

τὸν is an article , not a pronoun. Constructio ad sensum does not work with articles.


I need to see substance.

[lee_merrill]

Point is no one else uses that exact expression. Why not ? Because it is meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless, I pointed you to the meaning.

You should be able to answer the following question definitively, by clearly naming a substantive which is the antecedent / postcedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1:

Question: What is the antecedent / postcedent of ὃ in 1 John 1:1 ?

The Word and the Life, per Word commentary.

You are not addressing the grammar.

I (and the New American Commentary) am following the evident meaning in the context.

τὸν is an article , not a pronoun. Constructio ad sensum does not work with articles.

But the use of the masculine article shows that John considers "what was from the beginning" to be personal.

Blessings,
Lee