2Jo 2 e;stai — I am at a loss for a really good way to diagram the word.

Kai, seems
clearly to parallel it with the preceding participle, so I have diagrammed it as though it
were another attributive participle coordinate with me,nousan. I cannot find any finite
verb with which it would naturally coordinate, nor I cannot see how I might diagram an
ordinary clause baseline (perhaps supplying an elliptical relative pronoun h[ as the
subject) in coordinate relationship to the attributive participle me,nousan. So I am left
to diagram according to the sense rather than according to strict grammar.
2Jo 6 auvth|/ — Along with NIV, I am taking the pronoun as referring back to
avga,ph. If it is instead to be understood as referring to evntolh,, then probably the
i[na clause would be better construed as adverbial to hvkou,sate, expressing purpose.
I find it difficult, though, to follow the logic of the statement under that construction. On
the other hand, the circularity of logic in the NIV rendering may be objectionable. It does
not appear to me to be out of keeping with John’s thought, however. It strikes me not as
an objectionable redundancy but rather as a simple reinforcement of basic truth: love
means keeping God’s commands; God commands that we love. So love (properly
defined, of course) is the cardinal Christian virtue.
2Jo 7 — The opening o[ti might well be construed as introducing a subordinate clause
rather than opening a new sentence. If so, it would probably be diagrammed best as
modifying peripath/te in v. 5. I have simply followed the punctuation of NA27.
2Jo 2 e;stai — I am at a loss for a really good way to diagram the word. Kai, seems
clearly to parallel it with the preceding participle, so I have diagrammed it as though it
were another attributive participle coordinate with me,nousan. I cannot find any finite
verb with which it would naturally coordinate, nor I cannot see how I might diagram an
ordinary clause baseline (perhaps supplying an elliptical relative pronoun h[ as the
subject) in coordinate relationship to the attributive participle me,nousan. So I am left
to diagram according to the sense rather than according to strict grammar.
2Jo 6 auvth|/ — Along with NIV, I am taking the pronoun as referring back to
avga,ph. If it is instead to be understood as referring to evntolh,, then probably the
i[na clause would be better construed as adverbial to hvkou,sate, expressing purpose.
I find it difficult, though, to follow the logic of the statement under that construction. On
the other hand, the circularity of logic in the NIV rendering may be objectionable. It does
not appear to me to be out of keeping with John’s thought, however. It strikes me not as
an objectionable redundancy but rather as a simple reinforcement of basic truth: love
means keeping God’s commands; God commands that we love. So love (properly
defined, of course) is the cardinal Christian virtue.
2Jo 7 — The opening o[ti might well be construed as introducing a subordinate clause
rather than opening a new sentence. If so, it would probably be diagrammed best as
modifying peripath/te in v. 5. I have simply followed the punctuation of NA27.