1 John 1:5-7 Technical Questions

[Justin]

For each section we go through I'm going to post a separate "sister" thread for technical questions about that section. It's meant to be separate and not distract from the flow of the discussion.

That being said, when diagramming verse 1:6, I've come across yeudo;meqa and I'm not sure what to do with it. The verb proceeding it ties everything together but this one seems to be out in nowhere. Obviously it's critical to the text and Bill's diagram handles it almost as a circular returning back to ean but it's not tied to the previous phrase. Instead it's pointing to the kai and the de conjunctions almost acting like a bridge between conjunctions ean and de .

[Deleted]

The two verbs before "we are lying" are part of the conditional clause. They don't tie anything up, in fact they leave it all hanging. if we should say, bla, bla, bla and should walk, bla, bla, bla period. That's the conditional part that makes up the clause. The main verb, "we are lying" ties it up. But there is also another condtional clause in verse 7 and the context tells us that it is related. That is why the de connects the two main verbs and their conditional clauses together. Helpful?

[Deleted]

Hey Justin, after our talk this morning at Panera, I thought I’d post this as a reference using verse 6. The following helps to address clauses, conjunctions and how they relate to the diagrams.

[ἐὰν εἴπωμεν]

[ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ],
καὶ
[ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν,]

[ψευδόμεθα]
καὶ
[οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν]

Clause: A clause is a unit of language that contains a single proposition about which the language user is making an assertion, negation, query or suggestion.

There are 5 clauses. You can see that by bracketing each simple assertion.
1. (ean) If we should say (subjunctive aorist)
2. (hoti) that fellowship we are having (pres. indicative) with him
3. (kai) and in the darkness we should walking (pres. subj.)
4. we lie (pres. middle indicative)
5. (kai) and we are not practicing (pres. indicative) the truth

Primary Clause: A primary clause is an independent clause (usually contains a finite verb form) that is not dependent on or subordinate to any other clause.

So which one of those 5 clauses can stand on it’s own? How can I determine that. First, as a reminder, hoti, ean, ei, hina and some other conjunctions always introduce a subordinate clause. That is to say that whatever comes after those conjunctions depends upon a primary statement somewhere else.

It can’t be the hoti clause #2 because Hoti introduces an explanation of the verb “we should say” in clause #1. So the hoti and whatever it introduces goes with clause #1.

Clause #3 “and in the darkness we are walking” has a conjunction kai, connecting it to something prior. If we were to try to put it with clause #1 it would read “If we should say and in the darkness we are walking”. That construction would abandon the hoti explanation for what was said and violate the grammar. Therefore, clause #3 is being joined to clause #2 by use of the kai and can’t stand on it’s own. That also determines that the entire ean clause as a whole runs from clause #1 through clause #3. That is why you see the kai in clause #3 diagramed off of the verb in clause #2 in the diagrams.

It can’t be clause #5 because it opens with a conjunction kai connecting it to clause #4.

So not just the context, but the context plus the process of elimination, through syntax, shows that clause #4 is the main or primary clause. It is the only one that stands on it’s own, meaning that some of the others might seem like they could stand on their own, if you were to take out the ean, hoti, kai etc , but those “connectors” are there to show us that that clause is connected in a way that prevents it from being the primary clause in this case.

[Justin]

This is fantastic, I'm still processing. Continuing this line of thought, is it accurate to say that the verb pointing back to EAN, in a diagraming sense, is the "then" to an if/then statement?
Basically the main verb is the 'then' to the 'if'?

[Deleted]

Dec 15, 2012 9:44:30 GMT -7 Justin said:

This is fantastic, I'm still processing. Continuing this line of thought, is it accurate to say that the verb pointing back to EAN, in a diagraming sense, is the "then" to an if/then statement?
Basically the main verb is the 'then' to the 'if'?

Technically it's pointing back because conditional clause is working off of the verb.

I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at it that way except maybe if you have to explain what works off of what. Your way keeps the word order of the Greek in tact but kinda makes it sound as if the verb is working off of the conditional clause.

But by following the diagram arrows when explaining, we might say We are lying - if we should say we are having fellowship...yet we should be waking... by explaining it that way, it does not keep the Greek word order but better conveys that it is the conditional clause working off of the verb. So it just depends on what your trying to emphasize in your explanation.

Does that make sense?

[Deleted]

Better said is that diagraming is for individual word relationships and the "if" "then" is for clause relationships. See if this helps to point out the clausal part.

Wallace points out some important things to know concerning conditional clauses. And I know Bill has covered these to, so this is just by way of reminder.

First: there are two parts to a conditional statement.
A Protasis and a Apodosis.
The apodosis is the part that can stand on it's own meaning wise. The protasis does not form a complete thought.

-The apodosis ["Then" part] of verse 6 would be "we lie and are not practicing the truth".
-The protasis ["If" part] of verse 6 is "if we should say that we are having fellowship with God and yet we are walking in darkness."

So the "if" and "then" are not singular concepts matching up with other singular words like a verb. The whole "IF" clause is in a relationship to the whole "Then" clause.

Here is the punch line: "Only the protasis [the whole protasis clause] is the conditional element. That is, the contingency lies with if, not the then"

The Second thing that Wallace says that is important to understand here, is the basic type of conditional statement it is making meaning wise.

3 basic types of conditional clauses concerning ean and ei.
1. cause/effect “If you eat three pounds of chocolate every day for a month, you will look like a blimp!”
2. evidence/inference “If she has a ring on her left hand, then she’s married.”
3. equivalence “If you are Henry’s son, then Henry is your father.”

So verse 6 is an equivalence (as best as I can determine) and it would mean that should a claim to be having fellowship with Him be made, when one is, in fact, walking continuously in darkness is equal to lying. It's not an inference and it's not a cause and effect. It's a statement of equality using the "if" "then" conditional presentation.

The use of the "ean" with the subjunctive verb means that they are saying that they are not doing this, but a hypothetical of - "if" even they (the Apostles) were to do this..."then"...their claim would be equal to lying.

Have not heard if the last post was helpful yet, and it's been like 5 minutes already, but was this helpful?

[Justin]

by explaining it that way, it does not keep the Greek word order but better conveys that it is the conditional clause working off of the verb. So it just depends on what your trying to emphasize in your explanation.

Does that make sense?

Yes - very much so...

[Justin]

Have not heard if the last post was helpful yet, and it's been like 5 minutes already, but was this helpful?

This was helpful in so much as keeping the parts together, your previous post was helpful in answering my question.
Thanks