05_Biblica_Do_Layout 1 08/07/13 12:57 Pagina 435 435 peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou here in 2,2a and 4,10 refers to Jesus’ death as sin-expiation for the members of the Johannine community (2bc) and the world (2d). * * * The incidental ellipsis of tw/n a`martiw/n in 2d should be viewed with caution by interpreters and translators of 1 John 2,2. No ex- egete should readily take for granted that peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou in 2d implies “sin(s)” per se. As Graph 1 suggests, the better way to understand the implied sins is to look back to 2a with the employ- ment of i`lasmo,j. The ellipsis of a`martiw/n or tw/n in this context is too uncertain to justify the insertion of “the sins” into the clause. The author as- serts in 2a that Jesus is not only the expiation (i`lasmo,j) concerning the sins of the (Johannine) Christians (2bc), but also the expiation (i`lasmo,j) concerning the whole world (2d). This Johannine con- viction is reinforced at the end of the epistle. Because the whole world lies in the grip of evil (5,19), John believes that auvto.j [Jesus] i`lasmo,j evstin . . . peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou (2ad). In 1 John 2,1-2 the author seems to presuppose the reality of sin (2,1) among the mem- bers of the Johannine community (2,2bc). The expression peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou represents the Johannine conviction of the sin-expiation (i`lasmo,j) concerning (peri,) the whole world. But the “sin(s)” can be understood in connection with i`lasmo,j, and not in peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou. Our understanding of 2d will do justice to the author only if we look beyond its immediate syntax (2bc) and link 2d with 2a. The main clause auvto.j i`lasmo,j evstin serves as a key to the inter- pretation of the entire verse. Sacred Heart School of Theology Toan DO 7335 S Lovers Lane Road Franklin, WI 53132, U.S.A. SUMMARY In 1 John 2,2 the phrases (2b) peri. tw/n a`martiw/n h`mw/n, (2c) ouv peri. tw/n h`mete,rwn de. mo,non, (2d) avlla. kai. peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou, demand careful interpretation. The construction ouv mo,non avlla. kai, explains the sequence of 2b and 2c, following the peri-clause in 2a. However, this does not explain theologically to what peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou in 2d refers. This essay seeks, in some measure, to remedy this syntactical conundrum by proposing a contextual reading of 2a as parallel with 2d. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati