@RevelationLad You mention that the elder has already written to the community. Can you point me to the verse that says this?

.

He muses: When the elder talks to τεκνία, πατέρες he is clearly not talking to small children as if permiting them to make independent decisions about faith and community. He is talking to his adult flock in the same way that a Catholic priest would.

@DickHarfield 2:14

Gocha. Of course, we don't have that letter now.

I think you were asking about the people who apparently left the elder's community, and what their relationship had been within the community.

The letters implies an existing relationship. The writer is known to the community, is part of the community. He is the elder. He has been a part of developing and teaching the community.

Yes and there are different levels of maturity within the flock

I assume that until the split, they were one big happy family (to the extent that is realistic) with no dichotomy as to who would move towards the 'centrist' and who would migrate towards Gnosticism.

(we crossed)

Exactly. one family made up of different parts who the writer identifies sumbollically as fathers, young men, and little children (two types)

One family but not a homogeneous group

(in terms or spiritual maturity).

That's why I said "to the extent that is realistic"

So if the previous group was made up of different types, which one best personifies those who left?

Going back to an earlier statement above, you said, "The writer is known to the community, is part of the community. He is the elder." I agree - it is clear from his writing - only a close and respected leader couild refer to his flcok as 'little children'

Was he the leader before the split, or did he take over because the original leader left with the other group? I say we can not know.

You say, "So if the previous group was made up of different types, which one best personifies those who left?"

I think we are wrong to think simplistically of those who remained with the elder as righteous ('goodies') and those who left as having been fakes not really interested in Christian belief.

If we went back in a time machine to Ephesus (or wherever) at a time before the split, we would meet a group of people who worshipped together, shared communion and saw each other as equal members of a large community.

That is not my point. The writer is able to assess the community and identify different groups now (time of letter) and from the letter he indicates differences in those group over time. One of the differences is that some have left. So were those who left fathers? Young men? Little Children?

For some reason, perhaps missionaries from other groups, some of the members chose to join a 'centrist' theology and the other group chose to join Gnostics. There is no reason to believe that either sub-group did not change its beliefs in any way.

(we crossed again - my fault for taking so long)

How do you mean 'fathers'?

The writer states Fathers never change; young men get stronger; παιδία get better and know the antichrist, and what of the τεκνία?

I would say that 'Fathers, young men and children' is like 'ladies and gentlemen' - just a salutation

Then what is the point of having a structure a,b,c,a1,b1,c1?

In attributing different strength to fathers, to young men and to little children, he is being rhetorical. Some of the attributes he gives to little children don't make sense for little children (under 7 yrs)

But his rhetoric (if that's what it is) is not directed randomly. He focuses specific messages to specific groups.

Parallel and chiastic structures were commonly used by educated Greek authors, often to add emphasis. You may note also that I linked to a scholar who reports a whole list of techniques used.

Can you suggest a message directed to one gropu that would not/could not apply to another?

Consider the reality of some of the group leaving. Who in the remaining group would know the identity of those who left?

Analogy. In my local church, with 50 members attending every week and sharing communion & having a chat afterwards. 20 of them leave and form their own church, with some quite different ideas about Christianity. Although they have left, those who remain still know them (but may shun them)

Yes. Everyone who did not leave would know those who left. Yet in the letter the writer says only the little children (παιδία) know those who left.

Can you point me to that?

2:18-19

@DickHarfield Potentially all apply to all groups assuming someone does not leave. There is a now and later element. Now if some leave, those who stay behind have not left and, according to the writer, get stronger and gain knowledge (except for the fathers who do not change).

No. 2:18 uses the term 'little children' as a priest or elder would. Also, 2:18 does not say (here) they knew anyone - simply railing agaisnt the 'antichrists' you have heard about.

Your last statement, I agree with.

Except the bit about the fathers.

Well, I guess we are going to disagree on that one. I think if we are going to give the writer credit for devising a sophisticated structure then we should consider that they chose their words carefully.

Agreed. The elder is one of the better NT authors.

So when he singles out four groups I think the passage should be considered in that light.

What would you change in my answer, bearing in mind my responses to you comments?

The best structure is the one that goes fathers-young men- little children (παιδία) which is repeated within the chapter. Which is the crux of your answer: there is a division, IOW, the structure is going to point to the main point.

The structure in your answer does not really add much to the fact the writer is concerned about the division that took place,

The other one does. In fact it ends at that exact point.

Earlier, I said that the parallel structure I described is merely incidental and its removal would not be detrimental to my answer.

What does your last sentence mean?

The structure is essential to the passage. You really should not take it out. The father-young men-παιδία structure repeats and ends at 2:18

Fine.

So the repetition of the structure leads to 2:18-19, the division which the writer is addressing

Makes sense I think

Are we finished?

So consider 2:15-17 as instruction to the young men; and 2:24-27 as instruction to the παιδία

And 2:28-29 as instruction to the τεκνία

I'm not sure I agree with that, but I can see where you are coming from.

So the writer makes the point and does so in a way that includes instruction to young men and both groups of little children but not the fathers (who the writer has described as unchanging having known Him from the beginning.)

I think you are making too much of the difference (in elder's mind) between fathers, y men and little children.

Perhaps but I believe the text is inspired and think words were chosen purposely. Different words mean there are differencs and not literary devices in Scripture. I think they are purposeful.

You have touched on a sensitive and difficult issue for me and for 'critical scholars' who try to do historical-critical exegesis.

Sorry. On the other hand isn't it an essential aspect of textual criticism to consider the word and its use elsewhere?

If I say the text is (divinely) inspired, I can no longer do biblical hermeneutics, so I have to assume that the text was written, for all the right reasons, by a fallible person, then try to see what that fallible person was trying to say.

Do a word study on τεκνία and παιδία (in Scripture) and consider if you could only pick one, which would it be? Based solely on the Gospel, would you rather have Jesus call you a τεκνία and παιδία? Thanks for the chat. See you later!

Bye and thank you!

@RevelationLad "Literary devices" and "purposeful" are not mutually exclusive!

(I didn't read that whole exchange so sorry if/that this is completely irrelevant.)

@Davïd On "it's".

^^^ Dupe alert!

@Susan Saw this (which uses this) and thought of that comment. FWIW! @PaulVargas

@DickHarfield Your premise ("If I say...") and conclusion ("I can no longer...") would come as quite a surprise to many scholarly commentators on the Bible. Perhaps worth reading something like this? Or, on the theological side, like this?

@Davïd Very interesting...

@Susan We are in participles!

@Susan "In this lesson you will find some guidelines for pronouncing words in biblical Hebrew. They are not rules." :)

@Davïd Well OK, but native speakers are consistent, and whatever framework that derives from may as well be called "rules", even if the rulebook varies from one person/place/time to another.

@PaulVargas Having fun, I trust. :-)

@Davïd Humm ... What would you recommend to people who want to learn Biblical Hebrew? Which book should I buy?

@PaulVargas Hard for me to say! Are you thinking of teaching yourself? The one linked above says it can be used that way (and audio files are available). Cook & Holmstedt's is also well regarded. Or you could try this online course which uses Allen Ross's text (link on that site). @Susan probably has other suggestions.

@PaulVargas .... just to listen, early and often. And Anki.

@PaulVargas We live in hope!

@Susan Do you have any shareable (or recommended) "decks"?

@Davïd 🙌

@Davïd I never did figure out tag sorting (I'm dumb) well enough to use the now nonexistent complete deck we found previously. I used this one for the first ~1200. There are a ton of options for the first ~400, but that was the only one I found that was substantially bigger, and it turned out to be great. It does have proper nouns, so it's really only ~1050 by my frequency list.

I'm sure there's a way to start with the most common if you're smart enough to figure that out. (I already knew ~half of them when I started with Anki so I just learned the rest at random.)

Another deck I made myself so far includes the next ~800, which gets you through 11x. It includes a little too much idiosyncratic content to share, unless somebody was really interested and would benefit from it. Still a long way from the complete lexical stock of the OT (I think it's ~6300 without proper nouns?), but it's a lot farther than I would be without Anki. Highly recommended.

Accordance says 6194 non-proper + 2828 proper (excluding the Aramaic portions). Of which 9,022 (or...8965?) total, 2921 are hapaxes!

@Susan Oh! I have a vocabulary test on Saturday.

@PaulVargas Did you ever try Anki for Greek?

@Susan Nope. I suppose I must build a new deck.

The deck must contain all the verbs that begin with alpha from the list of verbs with their principal parts.

A list of 67 verbs!

@PaulVargas All starting with alpha?

That's.... a lot of alphas.

ἀγαλλιάω
ἀγανακτέω
ἀγαπάω
ἀγγαρεύω
ἀγγέλλω
ἁγιάζω
ἁγνίζω
ἀγνοέω
ἀγοράζω
ἀγρεύω
ἄγω
ἀδικέω
ἀδυνατέω
ἀθετέω
αἰνέω
αἱρέω
αἴρω
αἰσθάνομαι
αἰσχύνω
αἰτέω
ἀκολουθέω
ἀκούω
ἀλείφω
ἀλλάσσω
ἁμαρτάνω
ἀμελέω
ἀμφιέννυμι
ἀναγκάζω
ἀναθεματίζω
ἀναλίσκω
ἀνατέλλω
ἀνοίγω
ἀντλέω
ἀξιόω
ἀπαντάω
ἀπατάω
ἀπειθέω
ἀπειλέω
ἀπιστέω
ἀποκεφαλίζω
ἀποκτείνω
ἀπόλλυμι
ἀπολογέομαι
ἀποστερέω
ἅπτω
ἀπωθέω
ἀρέσκω
ἀριθμέω
ἀριστάω
ἁρμόζω
ἀνέομαι
ἁρπάζω
ἄρχω
ἀσεβέω
ἀσθενέω
ἀσπάζομαι
ἀστοχέω
ἀστράπτω
ἀσφαλίζω
ἀτακτέω
ἀτενίζω
ἀτιμάζω
αὐγάζω

@Susan Yup. :/

@Davïd Thank you for your link. It seems a bit long, unless you can point me to a particular page or para where I went wrong. My point was, and is, that I can't know the mind of God, so how can I do historical-critical method if that method assumes a text was written by men.

@Davïd I grant that other hermeneutics, such as canonical exegesis, would work on divinely inspired texts, but in that comment, I stated specifically I was using historical-critical method.

@PaulVargas Wait, do they not have you learn by frequency? ἀγρεύω is a hapax, for goodness sake!

@Susan LOL!

@PaulVargas You'll come out of it as the very model of a biblical philologist who "memorized in order all the known hapax legomena"!

@PaulVargas If you ever do want a frequency list, this book I find helpful. It was only recently that I figured out that I can type [count 5] into Accordance and generate a word list for a given frequency (doh!), but even so I find that book (and the Hebrew one I have) nice for staring at when I'm too lazy for flashcards.

@Susan Physical books, right?

@PaulVargas Yes.