Asyndeton in John 1:1-4

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Greek grammar does not permit this translation.
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]

You have me thinking about this and it's been productive.

There is an option I did not consider. The only legitimate way that ἡ ζωὴ is does not have an anaphoric article is if ἡ is not an individualizing article. Since ζωὴ is "in" him and therefore a part of him:

But what came into existence in him was life and so his life was the light of men.

This is also a grammatical option. I may prefer it.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
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.
You say you understand...
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!
And, then, you prove that you don't.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
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]

You have me thinking about this and it's been productive.

There is an option I did not consider. The only legitimate way that ἡ ζωὴ is does not have an anaphoric article is if ἡ is not an individualizing article. Since ζωὴ is "in" him and therefore a part of him:

But what came into existence in him was life and so his life was the light of men.

This is also a grammatical option. I may prefer it.
The phrase "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" tells us two things definitively.
1) There is no new creation event in this verse. The perfect "γέγονεν" can only refer to a past creation event. That must be the creation event in verse 3, because the text is clear there that there is/was no other.
2) "ζωὴ" is equated with the things that had come into existence in the word and not to the word specifically, as you seem to think.

The more you "consider," the less you get right.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The phrase "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" tells us two things definitively.
1) There is no new creation event in this verse. The perfect "γέγονεν" can only refer to a past creation event. That must be the creation event in verse 3, because the text is clear there that there is/was no other.
2) "ζωὴ" is equated with the things that had come into existence in the word and not to the word specifically, as you seem to think.

The more you "consider," the less you get right.

Of course γέγονεν refers to a past creation event, because the apostle is writing about events which occurred in the past ( including the time when life came into existence in the Logos). You also have not told us what this statement means if not that life came into existence in the Logos. What an ignorant empty barrel.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Of course γέγονεν refers to a past creation event, because the apostle is writing about events which occurred in the past ( including the time when life came into existence in the Logos). You also have not told us what this statement means if not that life came into existence in the Logos. What an ignorant empty barrel.
Do you not yet understand that the text does not say that "life came into existence in the Logos?"

According to Roger's preferred punctuation, the text says "what had come into existence in him was life." These are not the same. You two stooges are confusing what the text actually says with what you wish it said.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Do you not yet understand that the text does not say that "life came into existence in the Logos?"

According to Roger's preferred punctuation, the text says "what had come into existence in him was life." These are not the same. You two stooges are confusing what the text actually says with what you wish it said.
Ofcourse the text says that. You just don't know biblical Greek, that's all. What do you think the text says ?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I just told you. Do you not know English either? Wait, why am I even asking you? Your spelling and punctuation clearly demonstrate that you don't!
Nah, that's just not true. You have not told us what you think the text says if ὃ γέγονεν goes with verse 4. Next post tell us plainly what it says or hold your peace.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Nah, that's just not true. You have not told us what you think the text says if ὃ γέγονεν goes with verse 4. Next post tell us plainly what it says or hold your peace.
At this point, I don't see any other better explanations than these three that would account for your remarks: 1) You are profoundly stupid. 2) You are a willful liar. 3) You are profoundly stupid and a willful liar. Based on our interactions, I'd say option three is the most likely.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
At this point, I don't see any other better explanations than these three that would account for your remarks: 1) You are profoundly stupid. 2) You are a willful liar. 3) You are profoundly stupid and a willful liar. Based on our interactions, I'd say option three is the most likely.

Next post, point out in red where exactly you told us what you think the text says if ὃ γέγονεν goes with verse 4. I'm calling your bluff.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I'll even go first if you will agree to tell me afterwards which of those three options best describes you.
None of your options describe me. The reason you are not showing us (in red where exactly you told us what you think the text says if ὃ γέγονεν goes with verse 4) is because you can't. You are lying about having done so. A true empty barrel.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
None of your options describe me. The reason you are not pointing out ( where exactly you told us what you think the text says if ὃ γέγονεν goes with verse 4) is because you are lying about doing so. A true empty barrel.
Option 2 applies to you, because I had already told you "what...the text says if ὃ γέγονεν goes with verse 4" as is demonstrated below.
According to Roger's preferred punctuation, the text says "what had come into existence in him was life."
Your assertion that none of those three choices applied to you demonstrates that you aren't very bright. That taken with your obvious lie suggests that I was correct: option 3 best describes you! Thanks for clearing that up for me.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Option 2 applies to you, because I had already told you "what...the text says if ὃ γέγονεν goes with verse 4" as is demonstrated below. According to Roger's preferred punctuation, the text says "what had come into existence in him was life."

Part of the problem here is that you are not able to articulate yourself well in English. Underlined above could be taken to mean that according to Roger's preferred punctuation, the text (according to Roger) says "what had come into existence in him was life." You should have written the following instead: "According to Roger's preferred punctuation, I believe the text says "what had come into existence in him was life."

In anycase, now that you have finally clarified that according to Roger's preferred punctuation you believe the text says "what had come into existence in him was life," we can proceed.

Are you aware that the statement "what had come into existence in him was life" equals to saying "the thing that had come into existence in him was life" or "life had come into existence in him" ? ... O empty barrel, so slow of understanding.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Part of the problem here is that you are not able to articulate yourself well in English. Underlined above could be taken to mean that according to Roger's preferred punctuation, the text (according to Roger) says "what had come into existence in him was life." You should have written the following instead: "According to Roger's preferred punctuation, I believe the text says "what had come into existence in him was life."
I have already accepted the fact that you are stupid. You didn't have to demonstrate the particular manner that the text got the better of you. Be more careful next time, and maybe you won't make the same mistake.
In anycase, now that you have finally clarified that according to Roger's preferred punctuation you believe the text says "what had come into existence in him was life," we can proceed.
You've made another boo-boo, RJM. You are attributing your mistake to me. What you meant was now that you realized that you were wrong...
Are you aware that the statement "what had come into existence in him was life" equals to saying "the thing that had come into existence in him was life" or "life had come into existence in him" ? ... O empty barrel, so slow of understanding.
Unfortunately, the text got the better of you once again. :(

I have already told you that "what had come into existence in him was life" is not equivalent to "life had come into existence in him." Now that you should understand this, see if you can figure out why this is true on your own. To not be able to fix your mistakes when they are pointed out to you is even worse than being stupid. You certainly don't need to get worse!
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I have already told you that "what had come into existence in him was life" is not equivalent to "life had come into existence in him." Now that you should understand this, see if you can figure out why this is true on your own. To not be able to fix your mistakes when they are pointed out to you is even worse than being stupid. You certainly don't need to get worse!

Tell us what "what had come into existence in him was life" means if not "life had come into existence in him."

That was in fact my ultimate point when I said you're not pointing out what you think the text says if ὃ γέγονεν goes with verse 4. You're an empty barrel trying to be too cute by half, that's all.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Tell us what "what had come into existence in him was life" means if not "life had come into existence in him."

That was in fact my ultimate point when I said you're not pointing out what you think the text says if ὃ γέγονεν goes with verse 4.
I'll try to help you figure it out. Answer the following questions on your journey to understanding.
1) What is the subject of the following phrase: what had come into existence in him was life?
2) What is the predicate nominative of the following phrase: what had come into existence in him was life?
3) What Greek verb is needed to translate the following word: was?

4) What is the subject of the following phrase: life had come into existence in him?
5) What is the predicate nominative of the following phrase: life had come into existence in him?
6) What Greek verb is needed to translate the following phrase: had come into existence?

Compare your answers for numbers 1-3 with your answers from 4-6. Are those the same?
What should that tell you?

You're an empty barrel trying to be too cute by half, that's all.
The "empty barrel" made a fool of you, that's all. What does that make you?
 
Top