Asyndeton in John 1:1-4

[The Real John Milton]

It's a fact that I made no such comment in my post. Hence, you lied. Think about that.

I’m not saying you made any such comment. So your accusation of lying is itself a lie and a Trumpian type attempt at distraction.

Here is the truth, again:

What ὃ γέγονεν with verse 4 does NOT allow for is the notion that Jesus is God ( “YHWH”).

I’m just asking you to think about it.

 

[The Real John Milton]

It also reminds me of John 6:57: καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα.

Jesus said he lived because of the living Father.

Yes, Jesus said he lives διὰ ( by virtue of / because of) the Father.

 

[John Milton]

I’m not saying you made any such comment. So your accusation of lying is itself a lie and a Trumpian type attempt at distraction.

Here is the truth, again:

What ὃ γέγονεν with verse 4 does NOT allow for is the notion that Jesus is God ( “YHWH”).

I’m just asking you to think about it.

And this is another lie, because that is not all you said.

What ὃ γέγονεν with verse 4 does NOT allow for is the notion that Jesus is God ( “YHWH”). The rest of your post is empty noise.

Notice that phrase "the rest of your post." Now, shut up.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Not sure what you are getting at. The rest of your post is empty noise indeed. But your sentence in all caps with periods after each word was worse , it is incoherent nonsense. I put it in quotes to highlight how crazy your posts are, and not for any other purpose.

The only thing I want you to focus on is the following statement of fact which has nothing to do with your post:

What ὃ γέγονεν with verse 4 does NOT allow for is the notion that Jesus is God ( “YHWH”).

Think about this statement. Comment on it intelligently, if you can. That’s all I’m asking you to do next post, Mr Barrels.

 

[John Milton]

The only thing I want you to focus on is the following statement of fact which has nothing to do with your post:

What ὃ γέγονεν with verse 4 does NOT allow for is the notion that Jesus is God ( “YHWH”).

That's much better. Why was that so hard for you?

 

[The Real John Milton]

That's much better. Why was that so hard for you?

Have you considered that statement yet ?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

There are opposing views, but yours is not the prevailing one. Not too long ago it was en vogue to look for chiasms and songs everywhere in scripture. And people (like you, for instance) have a tendency to find what they are looking for in the data, even if it isn't actually there. Many of those claims have been and are being revisited.
.

Smyth does not say that Asyndeton as contrast only appears in poetry.

The quote from your source considers it to be prose and also says it is a contrast. It says the two adversative conjunctions and asyndeton indicate contrast.

It appears you were wrong .... again!



My expository rendering has been vindicated.

---
Asyndetons at 1:18(1) and 1:18(2) are unmarked uses (§9). We might have expected alla at 1:18(2) . But the line between types of contrast and tension requiring alla, de, and asyndeton in John is somewhat fluid. The two parts of 1:18 are in tension; but, viewed from a certain standpoint, they are not in virtual contradiction. Hence asyndeton might well be preferred to alla. Anyway, the distinctiveness of John lies in the higher, not lower, frequency of use of asyndeton. Hence this occurrence of asyndeton is not at all against Johannine authorship.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

You said:
But you missed the major point which was that you have assumed that in John 1:3-4 asyndeton = contrast. That doesn't work.

Your own source says it does.


Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions
JUNE 5, 2012 By Vern Poythress
Vern S. Poythress
[Published in
WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
46/2 (fall 1984) 350-369. Used with permission.]


Asyndetons at 1:18(1) and 1:18(2) are unmarked uses (§9). We might have expected alla at 1:18(2) . But the line between types of contrast and tension requiring alla, de, and asyndeton in John is somewhat fluid. The two parts of 1:18 are in tension; but, viewed from a certain standpoint, they are not in virtual contradiction. Hence asyndeton might well be preferred to alla. Anyway, the distinctiveness of John lies in the higher, not lower, frequency of use of asyndeton. Hence this occurrence of asyndeton is not at all against Johannine authorship.

 

[John Milton]

You said:
But you missed the major point which was that you have assumed that in John 1:3-4 asyndeton = contrast. That doesn't work.

Your own source says it does.


Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions
JUNE 5, 2012 By Vern Poythress
Vern S. Poythress
[Published in
WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
46/2 (fall 1984) 350-369. Used with permission.]


Asyndetons at 1:18(1) and 1:18(2) are unmarked uses (§9). We might have expected alla at 1:18(2) . But the line between types of contrast and tension requiring alla, de, and asyndeton in John is somewhat fluid. The two parts of 1:18 are in tension; but, viewed from a certain standpoint, they are not in virtual contradiction. Hence asyndeton might well be preferred to alla. Anyway, the distinctiveness of John lies in the higher, not lower, frequency of use of asyndeton. Hence this occurrence of asyndeton is not at all against Johannine authorship.

You confused John 1:3-4 with John 1:18. I'll give you some time to fix your own error. (Hint: You really should actually read the papers.)

 

[Roger Thornhill]

You confused John 1:3-4 with John 1:18. I'll give you some time to fix your own error. (Hint: You really should actually read the papers.)

Lol!

I use your source to show that in the prologue that Asyndeton can show a contrast like αλλά or δε. That is something you said it did not do.

 

[John Milton]

Lol!

I use your source to show that in the prologue that Asyndeton can show a contrast like αλλά or δε. That is something you said it did not do.

There are a few things wrong here.
1) I never said that asyndeton could not show contrast. I said it doesn't in John 1:3-4. You know this. You misspoke and owe me an apology, or you're lying. Which is it?
2) There is nothing in what you quoted that gives evidence of a contrast in John 1:3-4. You made a specific assertion that John 1:3-4 uses asyndeton to contrast two sentences. You have not provided ANY evidence for that claim. Do you even grasp the difference between 1) and 2)?
3) You haven't read the papers.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

You confused John 1:3-4 with John 1:18. I'll give you some time to fix your own error. (Hint: You really should actually read the papers.)

 

[Roger Thornhill]

There are a few things wrong here.
1) I never said that asyndeton could not show contrast. I said it doesn't in John 1:3-4. You know this. You misspoke and owe me an apology, or you're lying. Which is it?
2) There is nothing in what you quoted that gives evidence of a contrast in John 1:3-4. You made a specific assertion that John 1:3-4 uses asyndeton to contrast two sentences. You have not provided ANY evidence for that claim. Do you even grasp the difference between 1) and 2)?
3) You haven't read the papers.

My expository rendering shows a contrast which is consistent with what Smyth and your source says about Asyndeton. Thanks for that reference. I've updated my paper to include it and it also gives the details that provide the reason for the contrast.

I don't claim that this is the only way to view this text, just that it's reasonable.

So if you would like to prove otherwise, you have my attention. If you merely voice your opinion, that and 99 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

 

[John Milton]

I don't claim that this is the only way to view this text, just that it's reasonable.

You throw out whatever impossible thing you wish were true and then try to hide behind your pathetic mantra as though it could justify and absolve your asinine remarks.

Yours is not a reasonable understanding of the text. It's not even a possible one. That's why, as with everything you ever say, you don't have a single scholarly source that supports you. Meanwhile, you have been given solid scholarship that gives thorough consideration to the topic of asyndeton in John. If you had actually taken the time to read the papers I posted, you would've seen that one of them specifically addresses the first 18 verses of John. What does it say? I bet you didn't add that paper to your citation did you, you little weasel.

 

[John Milton]

I notice that you didn't apologize to me. Did you forget, or are you finally acknowledging what you are?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I notice that you didn't apologize to me. Did you forget, or are you finally acknowledging what you are?

I felt so bad I decided to do a bit more analysis. Here it is:


Conjunctions and Asyndeton at the beginning of a sentence or complex clause in John’s prologue.

Symbols used.
ΦΝ New paragraph, new subject (7)
ΦS Summary of previous ΦΝ (3)
ΦB Contrast like δε (but) (5)
ΦBI Φ οὐκ … αλλά; = not … but (2)
KA Add new subject to previous or add new information to previous element. (2)
ὅτι - Explanatory (2)

Asyndeton (Φ) in the prologue come in pairs. The Φ that follows is either a summary of the first (ΦS) or a contrast. It is also noteworthy that every ΦS begins with οὗτος. These account for 10 of the 17 instances of Φ in the prologue.

In the remaining instances of Asyndeton, they all show contrast. The external evidence of English renderings include conjunctions that indicate contrast with ‘but’ at verses 18, 17 and 12. In verses 8 and 13 contrast is amplified where αλλά is also in a subordinate clause in addition to the entire clause showing contrast to the previous. Weakened contrast is shown in verse 10 where some English versions use “but” and “yet” in a subordinate clause.

Verse 4 is controversial. It should be noted that there are no examples of ΦS that don't begin with οὗτος in the prologue and all the other Φ indicate contrast. Thus John's use of Φ in the prologue highly favors a contrast as well.

---

ΦN 1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. [The Word was in the beginning and so the Word was with God and so the Word was divine.]
ΦS 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. [This one was with God in the beginning.]


ΦN 3 πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο ⸂οὐδὲ :ἕν⸃. [All things were made through the intermediate personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made through the intermediate personal agency of anyone else.]
ΦB ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς ⸋τῶν ἀνθρώπων⸌· [But the life that was the light of men was made in him and the darkness has not overtaken it.]
ΚA 5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. [And so the light is shining in the darkness and the darkness has not overpowered it.]

ΦN 6 Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ ⸀θεοῦ,⸆ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης·[There came to be a man named John sent from God.]
ΦS 7 οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός, ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν διʼ αὐτοῦ. [This one came as a witness to bear witness concerning that light in order that all would believe through him.]
ΦBI 8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλʼ ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός [He was not that light but he came to witness concerning that light.]


ΦN 9 Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. [The true light that gives light to all men was coming into the world.]
ΦB 10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω. [But the world did not know him even though he was in the world and the world came into existence through him. Cp. CEV, ESV.]

ΦN 11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. [He came to his own relatives and they did not receive him.]
ΦB 12 ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, [But to all the others who received him and believed in his name he gave authority to become children of God. Cp. NASB, ESV)
ΦBI 13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς ⸋οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς⸌ ἀλλʼ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. [They were not from blood relations not from the will of fleshly man but they were born from God.]

ΚA 14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. [And so the Word became flesh and resided among us and so we saw his glory as befits the uniquely begotten firstborn of God full of grace and truth.]

ΦN 15( Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων· [John witnesses concerning him and cried out]
ΦS οὗτος ἦν ⸂ὃν εἶπον⸃· ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ⸆ ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.)
[(This is the one of whom I said: The one coming from behind me has moved ahead of me, because he was before me.)]

ὅτι 16 ⸀ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος· [For from his fullness we have all received grace and truth]
ὅτι 17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, [Because the law was given through the intermediate personal agency of Moses]
ΦΒ ἡ ⸀χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο [But the grace and the truth came through the intermediate personal agency of Jesus Christ. Cp. CEV, NET.]

ΦN 18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· [No one has seen God at any time]
ΦB ⸂μονογενὴς θεὸς⸃ ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο⸆. [But the uniquely begotten deity who is at the Fatner’s side has made him known. Cp. NIV.]

 

[Roger Thornhill]

There are a few things wrong here.
1) I never said that asyndeton could not show contrast. I said it doesn't in John 1:3-4. You know this. You misspoke and owe me an apology, or you're lying. Which is it?
2) There is nothing in what you quoted that gives evidence of a contrast in John 1:3-4. You made a specific assertion that John 1:3-4 uses asyndeton to contrast two sentences. You have not provided ANY evidence for that claim. Do you even grasp the difference between 1) and 2)?
3) You haven't read the papers.

You said:
You still miss the point. If you were only saying that asyndeton can show contrast, then you would be correct. But that is not what you are saying. You are saying that the asyndeton in John 1:3-4 can show contrast. And THAT is not true. Not all asyndeton shows contrast, and contrast isn't possible everywhere asyndeton appears. In this passage the idea expressed in 1:4 depends upon the information given in John 1:3. There is no evidence of a contrast. You say it's possible, but you haven't given any reasons why. All YOU have given is your opinion.

So you also deny that "John 1:3-4 can show contrast" and not merely that "it doesn't in John 1:3-4."

You have given some reasons why you don't think it does, but that's not proving what you said.

My recent analysis shows that there is contrast shown in most of the cases of Asyndeton in the prologue except for one category that does not match John 1:3-4.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You said:
You still miss the point. If you were only saying that asyndeton can show contrast, then you would be correct. But that is not what you are saying. You are saying that the asyndeton in John 1:3-4 can show contrast. And THAT is not true. Not all asyndeton shows contrast, and contrast isn't possible everywhere asyndeton appears. In this passage the idea expressed in 1:4 depends upon the information given in John 1:3. There is no evidence of a contrast. You say it's possible, but you haven't given any reasons why. All YOU have given is your opinion.

So you also deny that "John 1:3-4 can show contrast" and not merely that "it doesn't in John 1:3-4."

You have given some reasons why you don't think it does, but that's not proving what you said.

My recent analysis shows that there is contrast shown in most of the cases of Asyndeton in the prologue except for one category that does not match John 1:3-4.

Absolutely. As usual, he managed to put foot in mouth.

I don't know how you have the patience, but please continue. These posts are instructive, on more than one level.

 

[John Milton]

ΦB ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς ⸋τῶν ἀνθρώπων⸌· [But the life that was the light of men was made in him

Greek grammar does not permit this translation.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Greek grammar does not permit this translation.

How so ? As far as I can tell, it does, even if I would not translate ἐν αὐτῷ as "in him" but rather as "in it."