More on John 1:1

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You are still missing this one: πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες. And you are ignoring Mark 1:6.

What does BDAG say about αρχή in John 1:1?

Correct, the second και is internal to a clause and and therefore is not linking two clauses. A clause needs a verb.

The other two και are sequential temporal and do link clauses.

Maybe you should present your case for και. I am so doing something else.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Correct, the second και is internal to a clause and and therefore is not linking two clauses. A clause needs a verb.

The other two και are sequential temporal and do link clauses.
Maybe you should present your case for και. I am so doing something else.
You are willing to do most anything except post the BDAG entry for αρχή, or explain how/why you misquoted Mark 1:5, or explain why Mark 1:6 isn't temporal when the others instances supposedly are, or explain why you are implying that Danker and BDAG support your claims when they don't. In short, you are running from your many egregious errors.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Nice try at trickery magus:) .Of course it is third person singular, I did not say that it was a participle. The only time I used the word participle was when referring to your example, where you used it , see below bold.

ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ λόγος θεός ὑπάρχων πρὸς τὸν θεόν ἦν...


Correct, in the nominative case. When ὑπάρχω is used in this fashion in a S-PN construction, it is invariably in the nominative case. So your example with the genitive where it is functioning in a different capacity is totally irrelevant. And another magician's trick. Jannes and Jambres would be proud.
Well, you've done it again. All that was necessary was to show the participle modifying an impersonal noun, and I provided that. You then create a rule that doesn't exist for your special pleading. Nobody who has even 1 semester of good ol' Bible belt Greek is in the least bit fooled by your claims...
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Well, you've done it again. All that was necessary was to show the participle modifying an impersonal noun, and I provided that. You then create a rule that doesn't exist for your special pleading. Nobody who has even 1 semester of good ol' Bible belt Greek is in the least bit fooled by your claims.

In Acts 4:37 ὑπάρχω does not have the sense of "to be" but "to have something" and furthermore it is there not functioning within the scope of a S-PN construction. Showing me that it can modify impersonal nouns does nothing to prove that it can be used to speak of a non-personal substantive in terms of it's existence like John 1:1c does. I have not seen a statement as follows with a non-personal Subject.

καὶ οὗτος (S) ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς (PN) ὑπῆρχεν

Luke 8:41

Find me a construction like this where the S is a thing and we will talk. Just to be clear, I've not done the research on this score, ....just my natural gut feel for Biblical Koine informs me that you won't find one. Good luck!
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
In Acts 4:37 ὑπάρχω does not have the sense of "to be" but "to have something" and furthermore it is there not functioning within the scope of a S-PN construction. Showing me that it can modify impersonal nouns does nothing to prove that it can be used to speak of a non-personal substantive in terms of it's existence like John 1:1c does. I have not seen a statement as follows with a non-personal Subject.



Luke 8:41

Find me a construction like this where the S is a thing and we will talk. Just to be clear, I've not done the research on this score, ....just my natural gut feel for Biblical Koine informs me that you won't find one. Good luck!
No, it doesn't mean "to have something." You are depending too much on your English translations. The force of "belonging to" is picked up by αὐτῷ, the dative of possession. And Luke 8:47 is simply irrelevant to the discussion...
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
No, it doesn't mean "to have something." You are depending too much on your English translations. The force of "belonging to" is picked up by αὐτῷ, the dative of possession. And Luke 8:47 is simply irrelevant to the discussion...

You mean Luke 8:41. It just has the same syntax as John 1:1c. As I said, find me an example or hold your peace.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Following came to my remembrance --

Ἕλλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν.

Acts 16:3

Now, can't imagine Biblical Greek saying something as follows, μεγάλη ἡ τράπεζα ὑπῆρχεν, it will rather say ἡ τράπεζα μεγάλη ἦν.

Similarly, if a personal Logos was in view in John 1:1c, we could have potentially (maybe even preferably) seen the following καὶ θεὸς ὑπῆρχεν ὁ λόγος, but NOT with an impersonal Logos. Nah, never going to happen.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You are willing to do most anything except post the BDAG entry for αρχή, or explain how/why you misquoted Mark 1:5, or explain why Mark 1:6 isn't temporal when the others instances supposedly are, or explain why you are implying that Danker and BDAG support your claims when they don't. In short, you are running from your many egregious errors.

I have included the end of Mark 1:4 and the absolute beginning of Mark 1:5. It continues to fit the rest of their glosses perfectly.

I read BDAG on J 1:1 for αρχή. Haven't got the foggiest idea what your point is. I don't see anything grammatical or linguistic in that entry, and even a possible theological point is so diluted that it would take great imagination to draw any conclusions from it.

Where's the beef?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I have included the end of Mark 1:4 and the absolute beginning of Mark 1:5. It continues to fit the rest of their glosses perfectly.
The series of "and" phrases doesn't end at 1:5. You are selectively citing evidence.
I read BDAG on J 1:1 for αρχή. Haven't got the foggiest idea what your point is. I don't see anything grammatical or linguistic in that entry, and even a possible theological point is so diluted that it would take great imagination to draw any conclusions from it.

Where's the beef?
Where are the citations that support the claim you make in footnote 13?
RT said:
Per BDAG and Danker (1a) "the beginning" is divided into three parts that build upon each other, not one instance in time.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Following came to my remembrance --



Acts 16:3

Now, can't imagine Biblical Greek saying something as follows, μεγάλη ἡ τράπεζα ὑπῆρχεν, it will rather say ἡ τράπεζα μεγάλη ἦν.

Similarly, if a personal Logos was in view in John 1:1c, we could have potentially (maybe even preferably) seen the following καὶ θεὸς ὑπῆρχεν ὁ λόγος, but NOT with an impersonal Logos. Nah, never going to happen.
Since the Logos is personal, your point is moot. But your point is... odd. Are you saying that ὑπάρχω can't be used of impersonal nouns? That's simply wrong, of course. But here:


ἐν ᾧ ὑπῆρχεν πάντα τὰ τετράποδα καὶ ἑρπετὰ τῆς γῆς καὶ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Since the Logos is personal, your point is moot.

Do you really think begging the question helps your[already weak] cause ?

But your point is... odd. Are you saying that ὑπάρχω can't be used of impersonal nouns? That's simply wrong, of course.

Of course not. I'm saying that I have not seen it used with a PN when the S is impersonal. Can you show me such an example ? I'm willing to admit I'm wrong on this score if you can show an example.

But here:
ἐν ᾧ ὑπῆρχεν πάντα τὰ τετράποδα καὶ ἑρπετὰ τῆς γῆς καὶ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

This is not a S-PN construction with the verb ὑπῆρχεν.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
I am providing glosses for what is listed in the lexicons.



In the footnote. What don't you understand?
In the footnote you claim that BDAG and Danker understand "the beginning" to be divided into three parts not one instance in time. This is a lie. Why do YOU not understand this?!
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I am providing glosses for what is listed in the lexicons.



In the footnote. What don't you understand?
Ahh, I was looking at my development version 8. I see what you mean now.

My footnote refers to the fact that in all the examples of και which joins phrases in BDAG and Danker each phrase is a chronological temporal sequence.

I see how that it could be misunderstood. Thanks, I will clarify.
 
Top