Diagram of Greek NT (Complete) Errors?

[Robb B]

I believe the diagrams for 1 John 1:1 and 1:3 have errors. In 1:1, the accusative neuter article is diagrammed as the subject of every clause in the verse, when it is in fact the subject only of the very first clause (the nominative of the being verb). The rest of the instances it stands in the accusative, while the subject is either an understood first person plural pronoun or explicitly "our hands."

 

In v. 3 the same problem occurs with the relative clause "what we have seen and heard." The article once again should be in the accusative case and a relative pronoun functioning as the direct object of the verbs, while the subject of the verbs is a first person plural understood pronoun.

 

If I am in error about the syntax, let me know. I would be interested to hear why the Accordance diagram is correct, if it is, in fact, correct.

[Donald Cobb]

15 minutes ago, Robb B said:

I believe the diagrams for 1 John 1:1 and 1:3 have errors. In 1:1, the accusative neuter article is diagrammed as the subject of every clause in the verse, when it is in fact the subject only of the very first clause (the nominative of the being verb). The rest of the instances it stands in the accusative, while the subject is either an understood first person plural pronoun or explicitly "our hands."

 

In v. 3 the same problem occurs with the relative clause "what we have seen and heard." The article once again should be in the accusative case and a relative pronoun functioning as the direct object of the verbs, while the subject of the verbs is a first person plural understood pronoun.

 

If I am in error about the syntax, let me know. I would be interested to hear why the Accordance diagram is correct, if it is, in fact, correct.

 

Are you sure you're reading it correctly? As I see it, all these relative pronouns, apart from the first one, are marked "C", i.e., "complement," which is how they function in the clause—as you have rightly analyzed it.

[Robb B]

Here is the diagram. You can see that they have placed the relative pronouns in the subject place in each instance.

 

 

[Robb B]

For reference, this is my diagram of v. 1.

[Donald Cobb]

18 minutes ago, Robb B said:

Here is the diagram. You can see that they have placed the relative pronouns in the subject place in each instance.

 

 

 

Ah! Ok, I was looking at the syntax module, not the diagramming module (which I don't have). Sorry about that!

[Abram K-J]

Looking at the diagram for 1:3, there is (τοῦτο) given as a placeholder which then points to a referent of: ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, and all this is in the direct object position of the diagram. Hence the accusative case, I suppose.

 

So that and all of the relative pronouns in the accusative case are objects, yes, but I think they are in the subject position in each instance you mention because those are all dependent clauses, and they are the subject of their dependent clauses. But they are also object of what we are announcing (ἀπαγγέλλομεν).

 

x will know for sure, as he created these diagrams (or at least edited them). EDIT: man, strike 2 for me. @Rex Koivisto, rather? @Marco V. Fabbridid the syntax trees, I think.

 

@Robb B, I'm looking at this more quickly than I'd like, so please pardon if I'm missing you and getting this wrong myself.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Abram K-J
Strikethrough of my inaccurate read. Corrected (I hope) downthread. Edit 2: Tagged right person.

[Brian W. Davidson]

@Robb Byou are certainly correct. There is not doubt that the neuter relative pronoun is the object of ἀκούω, ὡράω, and θεάομαι. I don't know how to read those charts, but ὅ should definitely be tagged accusative except for the first instance where it is the subject of εἰμί.

[Abram K-J]

2 hours ago, Abram K-J said:

So that and all of the relative pronouns in the accusative case are objects, yes, but I think they are in the subject position in each instance you mention because those are all dependent clauses, and they are the subject of their dependent clauses.

 

Looking more closely now. Meh. I'm sorry. I think I was wrong about this, specifically wrong that the relative pronoun is the "subject" of even a dependent clause. It's still an object of the verb and thus shouldn't be in the subject position of the diagram, yes? (Which was the original question.) I was trying to figure out how these could be correct, but I don't think my explanation is right.

[Robb B]

That's my thought, @Abram K-J. I think my diagram is correct and the Accordance one is wrong, but I came here looking to see if I missed something about this.

[Abram K-J]

Anyone here have the Leedy diagrams to see how he does it?

[Abram K-J]

5 hours ago, Robb B said:

For reference, this is my diagram of v. 1.

I meant to say: nice use of the dot grid! This looks like a good setup. 

[darrylmy]

@Abram K-J here is Leedy's diagram of the SBLGNT. He treats them like @Robb B diagrammed and @Brian W. Davidson confirmed.

 

[Abram K-J]

Thanks, @darrylmy!

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

Thanks for the discussion on this. I’ll share it with our module developers.

[Robb B]

Thanks for the help everyone!

[Dr. Nathan Parker]

We’re trying to get in touch with the author of the diagrams, as that would be the quickest way to resolve this one.

[Abram K-J]

@Robb B: Similar construction in 1 John 2:24, this time diagrammed differently.

 

[Abram K-J]

Also, this verse is an amazing echo of 1:1!

[Robb B]

Yes, that looks accurate! And a nice callback to the opening of the letter, now applied to the readers' experience!

[c. stirling bartholomew]

On 1/25/2023 at 3:16 PM, Brian W. Davidson said:

you are certainly correct. There is not doubt that the neuter relative pronoun is the object of ἀκούω, ὡράω, and θεάομαι.

M. Culy (Baylor Handbook 1,2,3 John p. 2) explicitly agrees with this analysis.

Edited January 31, 2023 by c. stirling bartholomew