John 1:4 ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Yes, but in neither verse does εν + dative mean “by means of.” Rather in each the meaning of the preposition is “in,” denoting position/location.

I think Wallace makes a good point that this depends whether or not you use the case or 5 case system.

In any event the quote of him that I found this morning does provide a good reason for a double sense, something that John appears to do more than once.

Or you could side with @Gryllus Maior and @John Milton who have no scholarly support. ;)

Following the eight-case system, one must see u{dati aseither instrumental or locative, but not both. In the five-case system, it is possible to see u{dati as both the means and the sphere in which John carried out his baptism. (Wallace GGBB)
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Oh, poor baby. Don't make stupid claims, and I won't bat them down.
Following the eight-case system, one must see u{dati aseither instrumental or locative, but not both. In the five-case system, it is possible to see u{dati as both the means and the sphere in which John carried out his baptism. [Thus, his baptism would have been done both by means of water and in the sphere of water.]. (Daniel Wallace refuting John Milton)
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I think Wallace makes a good point that this depends whether or not you use the case or 5 case system.

In any event the quote of him that I found this morning does provide a good reason for a double sense, something that John appears to do more than once.

Or you could side with @Gryllus Maior and @John Milton who have no scholarly support. ;)

Following the eight-case system, one must see u{dati aseither instrumental or locative, but not both. In the five-case system, it is possible to see u{dati as both the means and the sphere in which John carried out his baptism. (Wallace GGBB)
No. We are intelligent enough to know that the author had one of these ideas in mind.

Take the English phrase "I jumped in the pool." What do I mean?

I could be saying that I took a flying leap into a swimming pool, or I be saying that I was already in the pool and then I jumped. The context of the utterance would almost certainly make it clear which was intended. Context makes it clear what John meant here.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
No. We are intelligent enough to know that the author had one of these ideas in mind.

Take the English phrase "I jumped in the pool." What do I mean?

I could be saying that I took a flying leap into a swimming pool, or I be saying that I was already in the pool and then I jumped. The context of the utterance would almost certainly make it clear which was intended. Context makes it clear what John meant here.

I don't claim that my view is the only view, just that it's grammatical. Now Wallace backs me up.

On the other hand, it's lame to cite "context" over grammar when it's really a pretext.

I see εν αυτώ at J 1:1b as being both and am not certain of 1:1a, but it's possibly what Athanasius had in mind.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I don't claim that my view is the only view, just that it's grammatical.
Your view of John 1:1 is not grammatical.
Now Wallace backs me up.
No, he doesn't. He says such an understanding is possible. He didn't say it is possible in every case. Your failure to understand the difference between the two is one of your many foundational errors.
On the other hand, it's lame to cite "context" over grammar when it's really a pretext.
It's how language works, however much the damsel doth protest.
I see εν αυτώ at J 1:1b as being both and am not certain of 1:1a, but it's possibly what Athanasius had in mind.
It's funny, now you are saying that the Word made life in 1:4. You affirm his pre-existence after all!
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
It's funny, now you are saying that the Word made life in 1:4. You affirm his pre-existence after all!

As per BDAG, the Word received life from God at J 1:4. After that he was certainly alive and I do see this as Jesus' prehuman existence.

I see Adam having life breathed into his newly created lifeless body the same way. God created human life in and by means of Adam.

Also Eve was created in Adam and he was the instrument there as well.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
As per BDAG, the Word received life from God at J 1:4. After that he was certainly alive and I do see this as Jesus' prehuman existence.

I see Adam having life breathed into his newly created lifeless body the same way. God created human life in and by means of Adam.

Also Eve was created in Adam and he was the instrument there as well.
The text doesn't say the Word received life. You are putting your faith in BDAG over what John wrote.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
No, I am showing you that not everyone agrees with you, not even Greek scholars.
Even Greek scholars get some things wrong. However, I am not wrong when I say that the text in John 1:4 does not say that the word received life. He was alive before that. This should be clear to anyone, Greek scholar or no.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Even Greek scholars get some things wrong. However, I am not wrong when I say that the text in John 1:4 does not say that the word received life. He was alive before that. This should be clear to anyone, Greek scholar or no.

The earliest Greek as opposed to the reading that first appears in the 4th century has "What came into existence/was made/was created in him was life."

BDAG only gives two definitions for life, either physical life or transcendent life and here tags it as transcendent.

So unless life spontaneously appeared in him he got it from God, γίνομαι mandates he did not have it before.

That's true whether or not he was begotten as a uniquely begotten deity (Bauer as = firstborn), created or eternally generated.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
According to Wallace that depends on whether one advocates the 8 case or 5 case system. His example is exactly what I was proposing at John 1:1b and speculating for 1:1a.

(3) Such a difference in definition can affect, to some degree, one’s hermeneutics. In both systems, with reference to a given noun in a given passage of scripture, only one case will be noted. In the eight-case system, since case is defined as much by function as by form, seeing only one case for a noun usually means seeing only one function. But in the five-case system, since case is defined more by form than by function, the case of a particular word may, on occasion, have more than one function. (A good example of the hermeneutical difference between these two can be seen in Mark 1:8—ejgw© ejbavptisa uJmaçß ud{ ati, aujto©ß de© baptisei u v maJ ß e ç n pneu j mati a v giJ vw/[“I baptized you in water, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit”]. Following the eight-case system, one must see u{dati aseither instrumental or locative, but not both. In the five-case system, it is possible to see u{dati as both the means and the sphere in which John carried out his baptism. [Thus, his baptism would have been done both by means of water and in the sphere of water.] The same principle applies to Christ’s baptism ejn pneumati , which addresses some of the theological issues in 1 Cor 12:13).

@John Milton, you said before that it cannot be both. Does Wallace change your view?
Good grief, there is no 8 case system. It was popular for a while with a few 20th century scholars taken up with Sanskrit, but what we actually have is four functional cases with a variety of uses. No modern grammar uses or endorses any 8 case system, and Wallace should really know better.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Good grief, there is no 8 case system. It was popular for a while with a few 20th century scholars taken up with Sanskrit, but what we actually have is four functional cases with a variety of uses. No modern grammar uses or endorses any 8 case system, and Wallace should really know better.
Well, it's in the Greek grammar that many seminaries use today.

But that's really a side issue. In the passages he interprets along with that statement he sees both locative sphere and instrumental at the same time. And from what I have seen so far, he's not alone.

For example:
״baptism would have been done both by means of water and in the sphere of water״
 

John Milton

Well-known member
The earliest Greek as opposed to the reading that first appears in the 4th century has "What came into existence/was made/was created in him was life."
Another willful lie. The earliest Greek had no punctuation. You have been corrected on this count many times already.
BDAG only gives two definitions for life, either physical life or transcendent life and here tags it as transcendent.

So unless life spontaneously appeared in him he got it from God, γίνομαι mandates he did not have it before.
No, my simple friend. He had life before. We know this because he had been with God in the beginning and he brought all things into existence. He couldn't bring all things into existence if he weren't alive.
That's true whether or not he was begotten as a uniquely begotten deity (Bauer as = firstborn), created or eternally generated.
The Word was certainly a uniquely begotten deity: the only deity to ever be born as a man. However, he was not created because he had existed prior to his human generation, and "eternal generation" is theological mumbo-jumbo. Something is either eternal, or it's not. The concept of "eternal generation" is the equivalent of using aliens or magic in a work appearing to be set in modern times as a last minute justification for its impossible plot.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The Word was certainly a uniquely begotten deity: the only deity to ever be born as a man. However, he was not created because he had existed prior to his human generation, and "eternal generation" is theological mumbo-jumbo. Something is either eternal, or it's not. The concept of "eternal generation" is the equivalent of using aliens or magic in a work appearing to be set in modern times as a last minute justification for its impossible plot.

That's very interesting. So you view J 1:18 as referring to the human? I thought you believed in Jesus' preexistence. That's the verse for the gloss.

BDAG See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. μονογενὴς θεός (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36), another rdg. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56-79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222-32)prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.).—
 

John Milton

Well-known member
That's very interesting. So you view J 1:18 as referring to the human? I thought you believed in Jesus' preexistence. That's the verse for the gloss.

BDAG See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. μονογενὴς θεός (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36), another rdg. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56-79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222-32)prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.).—
What's interesting about the Word existing before becoming human? That's exactly what scripture says. The Word and Jesus are the same.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You are lying. The EARLIEST Greek had no punctuation. When you say otherwise, that makes you a liar.
I said:
The earliest Greek as opposed to the reading that first appears in the 4th century has "What came into existence/was made/was created in him was life."

Obviously I was referring to Greek that was punctuated like what appeared in the 4th century in this list.
 

Attachments

  • 1861B364-3669-4BA2-BD0C-0CED940082FF.jpeg
    1861B364-3669-4BA2-BD0C-0CED940082FF.jpeg
    178.8 KB · Views: 3
Top