Asyndeton in John 1:1-4

[John Milton]

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

I said that that the asyndeton in this passage cannot show contrast.

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

You've not proven that your understanding of the text is possible. Then what's the difference, you ask? The difference is that my assertions are correct, and your are not. I'm not wasting any more time with you. You don't know Greek, and not one scholar agrees with any of your assertions.

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.

Your third-grade level work of fiction disregards real scholarship that demonstrates that you have no understanding of John 1. Those are the facts, and that's all I am going to say on the matter, the inevitable whining that you will do afterward, notwithstanding.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

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."

It may be that he does not see ζωὴ in the first clause as having the same reference as ἡ ζωὴ in the second. I don't claim this is a word for word "interlinear" translation. But I did think about this and it's a classic anaphoric article with the anarthrous followed by the articular. If he can prove it is not anaphoric he can falsify my paper on the anaphoric article.

Or, it may be that he does not like me taking the substantivized verb and using the verb in my rendering. But I don't claim it's word for word. If the substantive is what was made, then it's inferred.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

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."

Here is a word for word rendering:

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 or But what was made in him was was life and this life was the light of men.]

Or possibly @John Milton just caught that I added part of verse 5 to the end of verse 4. He's pretty good at proof-reading.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I said that that the asyndeton in this passage cannot show contrast.

You've not proven that your understanding of the text is possible. Then what's the difference, you ask? The difference is that my assertions are correct, and your are not. I'm not wasting any more time with you. You don't know Greek, and not one scholar agrees with any of your assertions.

Your third-grade level work of fiction disregards real scholarship that demonstrates that you have no understanding of John 1. Those are the facts, and that's all I am going to say on the matter, the inevitable whining that you will do afterward, notwithstanding.

I would say his biblical Greek is better than yours. At least he invariably seems to be on the correct side of any significant grammatical and contextual issue as compared to you . For instance, no one who knows biblical Greek (and apostle John's writing style and contextual framework in the prologue, for that matter) at any basic level could deny that ὃ γέγονεν goes with ἐν αὐτῷ.

 

[John Milton]

I would say his biblical Greek is better than yours.

The fact that you would even claim this shows that you know as little as he does.

For instance, no one who knows biblical Greek (and apostle John's writing style and contextual framework in the prologue, for that matter) at any basic level could deny that ὃ γέγονεν goes with ἐν αὐτῷ.

I've never suggested that ἐν αὐτῷ goes with anything other than ὃ γέγονεν. Are you ignorant or intentionally lying? Either way, people who make multiple false statements, such as you have done here, don't warrant additional response.

 

[The Real John Milton]

The fact that you would even claim this shows that you know as little as he does.

I've never suggested that ἐν αὐτῷ goes with anything other than ὃ γέγονεν. Are you ignorant or intentionally lying? Either way, people who make multiple false statements, such as you have done here, don't warrant additional response.

I’m not sure you understand what you are saying. Bold above means that you read verse 4 as follows:

ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς ⸋τῶν ἀνθρώπων⸌·

This is the non- Trinitarian , Unitarian reading. Are you sure you want to read it like t hat Empty? More likely you did not understand what you agreed to.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I’m not sure you understand what you are saying. Bold above means that you read verse 4 as follows:

ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς ⸋τῶν ἀνθρώπων⸌·

This is the non- Trinitarian , Unitarian reading. Are you sure you want to read it like t hat Empty? More likely you did not understand what you agreed to.

I have read different ways to slice and dice the older original punctuation.

One is taking ὃ γέγονεν as Nominative Pendans and isolating it from it's clause and that's pretty ridiculous.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I’m not sure you understand what you are saying. Bold above means that you read verse 4 as follows:

ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς ⸋τῶν ἀνθρώπων⸌·

This is the non- Trinitarian , Unitarian reading. Are you sure you want to read it like t hat Empty? More likely you did not understand what you agreed to.

Have you see a Trinitarian commentary acknowledge the obvious implications?

 

[The Real John Milton]

Have you see a Trinitarian commentary acknowledge the obvious implications?

Nope.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Nope.

One poster in the Trinity forum initially did as it was obvious. He evidently felt comfortable because not many translations use the original punctuation.

But he changed and I think it may have been for some or all of the following reasons.

I made it clear that I am not dogmatic on the punctuation and that he bears the burden of proof to falsify it. Apologists that hold to a Nicene understanding can't allow any possibility of a legitimate Unitarian one but cannot give any adequate non-contrived explanation that fits their own view.

Or someone who understands the implications got to him.

Or he became aware of how undeniable the evidence for the original punctuation is with my graph

 

[The Real John Milton]

Or someone who understands the implications got to him.

Or he became aware of how undeniable the evidence for the original punctuation is with my graph

Bold above seems likely. I've seen this over and over again --

On another note, as far as I can tell apostle John never starts a sentence with ἐν αὐτῷ in his Gospel, or for that matter in any of his writings. This is something I remember apostle Paul doing, and notice that even then he begins with the conjunction ὅτι

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Bold above seems likely. I've seen this over and over again --

On another note, as far as I can tell apostle John never starts a sentence with ἐν αὐτῷ in his Gospel, or for that matter in any of his writings. This is something I remember apostle Paul doing, and notice that even then he begins with the conjunction ὅτι

Here is the BDAG position on the punctuation. From the entry for εις. Also note the only reason for the later is an argument from silence.

Freq. at the end of a sentence or clause (ref.fr. comedy in ESchwartz, NGG 1908, p. 534, 3. Also Hermocles [IV-III BC] p. 174, 17 Coll. Alex.; Dio Chrys. 21 [38], 23; Ael. Aristid. 28, 156 K.=49 p. 542 D.; 53 p. 617 D.; Epict. 2, 18, 26, Enchir. 1, 3; Philonides in Stob. 3, 35, 6 ed. Hense III p. 688; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 59, 5 [39 AD]; Bel 18 Theod.; 1 Macc 7:46) Ro 3:10; οὐδὲ ἕν foll. by ἐὰν μή J 3:27. This is a good reason for placing the period after οὐδὲ ἕν J 1:3 (s. GBergh van Eysinga, PM 13, 1909, 143-50. EHennecke, Congr. d’ Hist. du Christ. I 1928, 207-19; Md’Asbeck, ibid. 220-28; REisler, Revue de Philol. 3 sér. 4, 1930, 350-71; BVawter, CBQ 25, ’63, 401-6; KAland, ZNW 59, ’68, 174-209; Metzger 195f; γίνομαι 2a), but the lack of inner punctuation in the older mss. validates consideration of alternative punctuation.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Here is the BDAG position on the punctuation. From the entry for εις. Also note the only reason for the later is an argument from silence.

Freq. at the end of a sentence or clause (ref.fr. comedy in ESchwartz, NGG 1908, p. 534, 3. Also Hermocles [IV-III BC] p. 174, 17 Coll. Alex.; Dio Chrys. 21 [38], 23; Ael. Aristid. 28, 156 K.=49 p. 542 D.; 53 p. 617 D.; Epict. 2, 18, 26, Enchir. 1, 3; Philonides in Stob. 3, 35, 6 ed. Hense III p. 688; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 59, 5 [39 AD]; Bel 18 Theod.; 1 Macc 7:46) Ro 3:10; οὐδὲ ἕν foll. by ἐὰν μή J 3:27. This is a good reason for placing the period after οὐδὲ ἕν J 1:3 (s. GBergh van Eysinga, PM 13, 1909, 143-50. EHennecke, Congr. d’ Hist. du Christ. I 1928, 207-19; Md’Asbeck, ibid. 220-28; REisler, Revue de Philol. 3 sér. 4, 1930, 350-71; BVawter, CBQ 25, ’63, 401-6; KAland, ZNW 59, ’68, 174-209; Metzger 195f; γίνομαι 2a), but the lack of inner punctuation in the older mss. validates consideration of alternative punctuation.

Excellent post. Romans 3:10 seals the case for me, as per your post. Compare:

καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς;

with John 1:3

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Good example.

What amazes me is that the reason for the change from the older original punctuation to the newer is said to be to make the syntax clearly exclude anything from what was created in J 1:3, and yet people like @John Milton still try to argue that the older punctuation already did this.

So then, why the change? Both sides of the debate including Athanasius used the original punctuation until the 4th century.

And, this is good proof that one cannot argue that even with the original punctuation it proves Jesus was not created.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Yep…..

Also note John 3:27 —

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰωάννης καὶ εἶπεν Οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν οὐδὲ ἓν,

 

[John Milton]

I’m not sure you understand what you are saying. Bold above means that you read verse 4 as follows:

ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς ⸋τῶν ἀνθρώπων⸌·

This is the non- Trinitarian , Unitarian reading. Are you sure you want to read it like t hat Empty? More likely you did not understand what you agreed to.

The whole time we have discussed this passage, I have discussed the variant that Roger prefers for sake of discussion.

 

[John Milton]

Good example.

What amazes me is that the reason for the change from the older original punctuation to the newer is said to be to make the syntax clearly exclude anything from what was created in J 1:3, and yet people like @John Milton still try to argue that the older punctuation already did this.

What amazes me is that people, like you, don't realize that the earliest texts did not appear to have any punctuation. All of your "arguments" about which punctuation came first or which arose from the other are irrelevant, because they don't answer the question of what the author intended.

So then, why the change? Both sides of the debate including Athanasius used the original punctuation until the 4th century.

And, this is good proof that one cannot argue that even with the original punctuation it proves Jesus was not created.

I have already said that whatever punctuation that you use, neither states that Jesus was created. This is a fact.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I have already said that whatever punctuation that you use, neither states that Jesus was created. This is a fact.

What you “say” counts for nothing . What apostle John says counts for everything.
On this score ὃ γέγονεν with verse 4 is saying that life came into existence in the Word. If you don’t think this assertion makes the Word a creature, then you are an empty barrel indeed.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

What amazes me is that people, like you, don't realize that the earliest texts did not appear to have any punctuation. All of your "arguments" about which punctuation came first or which arose from the other are irrelevant, because they don't answer the question of what the author intended.

I have already said that whatever punctuation that you use, neither states that Jesus was created. This is a fact.

I do have a genuine curiosity as to what else "life" coming into existence "in" the Word could be, if it's not to be taken literally.

The only Trinitarian that tried to address this, in the forum by that name, used the analogy of life in the Word to life in a pregnant woman. He's trying to walk that back now, but that's the only thing I have been offered, even though I have asked you more than once.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

What amazes me is that people, like you, don't realize that the earliest texts did not appear to have any punctuation. All of your "arguments" about which punctuation came first or which arose from the other are irrelevant, because they don't answer the question of what the author intended.

I have already said that whatever punctuation that you use, neither states that Jesus was created. This is a fact.

You said:
What amazes me is that people, like you, don't realize that the earliest texts did not appear to have any punctuation. All of your "arguments" about which punctuation came first or which arose from the other are irrelevant, because they don't answer the question of what the author intended.

Lol! I quoted BDAG to you that made the point that one must consider the variant because uncials don't have punctuation. That's an argument from silence. So why are you amazed? You must amaze easily.

I am truly amazed that anyone can argue for the KJV punctuation when it only appears in the 4th century for the first time and even Athanasius quoted the NA28 punctuation!