ynquirer

I see that in her estimation, 2 John 4 ought to be regarded as an attack on deniers of Jesus' being the Christ, and that she argues according to Greek grammar.

Well, my point is: if her argument that an hoti is lacking holds, nor does her solution solve all the problems.

For the perfect participle elêluthota is accusative, in concordance with iêsoun christon, which is also accusative, so naturally yielding iêsoun christon elêluthota the single object of mê homologei: "not to confess that Jesus Christ came [or is come]..." If iêsoun christon is rendered the sole object of mê homologei to read "not to confess that Jesus is the Christ," then elêluthota becomes a loose word, which cannot but be the subject of en sarki ek theou ouk estin to yield something like "in the flesh from God [that spirit] is not come."

The problem is that, in that case, nominative (elêluthas) in substitution for accusative should apply.

IMHO.

No Robots

You can always try to take it up with her.

ynquirer

Good link, No Robots. I must now examine the grammatical issue more thouroughly, then eventually read Dr. Lieu's book and send her a message. Thank you very much, in any event.

jakejonesiv

It am going to suggest that historical issues cannot be decided soley on grammatical grounds. Tertullian knew who the antichrists of 1 John were.

Jake Jones IV

No Robots

Indeed? Well, according to him, they certainly weren't mythicists. Here is the whole passage from which you quoted (available here):

Our heretic must now cease to borrow poison from the Jew--"the asp," as the adage runs, "from the viper"--and henceforth vomit forth the virulence of his own disposition, as when he alleges Christ to be a phantom. Except, indeed, that this opinion of his will be sure to have others to maintain it in his precocious and somewhat abortive Marcionites, whom the Apostle John designated as antichrists, when they denied that Christ was come in the flesh; not that they did this with the view of establishing the right of the other god (for on this point also they had been branded by the same apostle), but because they had started with assuming the incredibility of an incarnate God.

jakejonesiv

The debate in the second century CE wasn't framed in terms of mythicism vs. historical. It was more of did Jesus Christ come in the flesh, or was he a docetic phantom?

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151

Yes, but, as with all Christian debates, the discussion was purely based on theological principles, not facts or evidence.

Was Jesus a phantom or was he flesh and blood?

A) He was flesh and blood because suffering of the flesh was required to serve as a true sacrafice

B) He was a phantom because flesh is corrupt and not worth of a god.

None of this discussion had anything to do with anything that we would call facts or observation.

jakejonesiv

I agree.

Jake Jones IV

ynquirer

It sounds like if argument of grammar were a pretentious way of deciding historical issues. The fact is that supporters of the mythical Jesus quite starkly say that early Christians believed Jesus to be a sort of mythical being, and argue on grounds of what those Christian meant to say through their texts. This takes us to the grounds of speech, and if we are on such grounds grammar is not irrelevant, is it? Written speech is our evidence, grammar is a tool to discuss such evidence.

In other words, to dismiss grammar as a means to decide historical issues, being unsupportive of an argument as grammar is, does not make the argument stronger.

But the point is, that according to both epistles of James second-century Christians did not think of a mythical Jesus. And it does not afford the slightest evidence that first-century Christians ever did.

Second-century Christians positively supported the belief of a fleshly Jesus. Therefore, the load of the proof falls with those that imply that first-century Christians believed in a mythical Jesus, which belief a subsequent generation allegedly replaced with that one that is the only one of which we have any empirical evidence.

Chris Weimer

Whether docetic phantom or born person, neither were in the sublunar realm, both were actually on earth, and both were thought of as visible if seen from a disciple's eye.

Neither support the "mythical Jesus" theory.