Philippians 2:7 Specifically ἑαυτὸν

[John Milton]

You said:
It's in the BGAD quote you provided. ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a. I didn't say they "prefer" any particular punctuation. I said it should be obvious to you that their comment referred to a specific construction. You shouldn't apply those remarks to the phrase ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν as though there were no difference.

The quote is:
β. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b (ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως ParJer 9:14). ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a; cp. 1J 5:11b.

How does the KJV punctuation demonstrate that he received life from God? With a full stop after ο γεγονεν the life in him is governed by ην, a stative verb and the start of life in him is not visible in the syntax.

I don't know how to make you understand this. "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" is not equivalent to "ἐν "αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν." BDAG is clearly using the punctuation that you think is wrong. The syntax of the former is different from that of the latter. The remarks in BDAG only apply to the phrase ἐν "αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν.

I am tired of your inability to stay on topic. Let me tell you where I am, and we'll see if it helps: We were/are discussing the content of John 1:3-4 in the NA 28. If you are discussing a specific translation of those verses (like the KJV), you are off-topic. If you are discussing another passage, you are off-topic. If you are using a reference that isn't discussing something specifically about the contents of John 1:3-4, you are off-topic. For the final time, please try to stay on topic or just admit that you've got nothing else to add and move on. Your entire argument hinges on two separate "coming into existence" events and the text 100% does not allow that. It's not like you can overcome that fact anyway.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

I don't know how to make you understand this. "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" is not equivalent to "ἐν "αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν."

Of course it's not! The latter phrase includes the entire sentence from our modern critical editions and has six words. The latter includes where 5:26 intersects 1:4 and is a partial quote which is common in BDAG.

My main point which is certainly on topic for John 1:3-4 is that the unscholarly reading from the TR does not fit the gloss of having received life from the God. Merely saying "in him was life" with the stative ην gives a different interpretation.

And in fact, since it is received life from God, and not the Father from J 5:26 it's quite impossible that the gloss is not meant for both 5:26 and 1:4, which is why the semicolon is after 1:4.

You never addressed these

BDAG is clearly using the punctuation that you think is wrong.

Nope

The syntax of the former is different from that of the latter. The remarks in BDAG only apply to the phrase ἐν "αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν.

See above.

I am tired of your inability to stay on topic. Let me tell you where I am, and we'll see if it helps: We were/are discussing the content of John 1:3-4 in the NA 28. If you are discussing a specific translation of those verses (like the KJV), you are off-topic. If you are discussing another passage, you are off-topic. If you are using a reference that isn't discussing something specifically about the contents of John 1:3-4, you are off-topic. For the final time, please try to stay on topic or just admit that you've got nothing else to add and move on. Your entire argument hinges on two separate "coming into existence" events and the text 100% does not allow that. It's not like you can overcome that fact anyway.

You seem upset. I can understand why. What BDAG says about J 1:4 and 5:26 is SHOCKING to the sensibilities of some theological persuasion.

And really, even though it's possible that the gloss is from the aberrant punctuation so many must have it does not change what BDAG says.

If we use BDAG it should be for what they say, not what they don't.

I have made a note to look at BAGD, BAG and the German version which are packed away. Danker might have kept the old e try and just changed the gloss.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Of course it's not! The latter phrase includes the entire sentence from our modern critical editions and has six words. The latter includes where 5:26 intersects 1:4 and is a partial quote which is common in BDAG.

My main point which is certainly on topic for John 1:3-4 is that the unscholarly reading from the TR does not fit the gloss of having received life from the God. Merely saying "in him was life" with the stative ην gives a different interpretation.

And in fact, since it is received life from God, and not the Father from J 5:26 it's quite impossible that the gloss is not meant for both 5:26 and 1:4, which is why the semicolon is after 1:4.

You never addressed these




Nope


See above.



You seem upset. I can understand why. What BDAG says about J 1:4 and 5:26 is SHOCKING to the sensibilities of some theological persuasion.

And really, even though it's possible that the gloss is from the aberrant punctuation so many must have it does not change what BDAG says.

If we use BDAG it should be for what they say, not what they don't.

I have made a note to look at BAGD, BAG and the German version which are packed away. Danker might have kept the old e try and just changed the gloss.

You said:
Your entire argument hinges on two separate "coming into existence" events and the text 100% does not allow that. It's not like you can overcome that fact anyway.

My analysis uses the Nestle Aland punctuation. I don't argue that it is the only possibility, but this scholarly critical edition is the basis.

So we have two statements:

(NA28) 3 πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο ⸂οὐδὲ :ἕν⸃.
(NA28) ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν

You assert that this is one event. I see differences

• The πάντα came into existence through him and ζωὴ came into existence in him.
• πάντα is not the same as ζωὴ.
• There is no syntax that connects the two, not even the και used at 1:1.

These differences are in the text.
The burden of proof is on those who see them as the same. That would be you.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You said:
Your entire argument hinges on two separate "coming into existence" events and the text 100% does not allow that. It's not like you can overcome that fact anyway.

My analysis uses the Nestle Aland punctuation. I don't argue that it is the only possibility, but this scholarly critical edition is the basis.

So we have two statements:

(NA28) 3 πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο ⸂οὐδὲ :ἕν⸃.
(NA28) ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν

You assert that this is one event. I see differences

• The πάντα came into existence through him and ζωὴ came into existence in him.
• πάντα is not the same as ζωὴ.
• There is no syntax that connects the two, not even the και used at 1:1.

These differences are in the text.
The burden of proof is on those who see them as the same. That would be you.

I agree that ὃ γέγονεν goes with verse 4 . This is the correct reading, the other reading (taking it with the end of verse 3) IMHO is Satanic. I feel that strongly against it.

 

[John Milton]

Of course it's not! The latter phrase includes the entire sentence from our modern critical editions and has six words. The latter includes where 5:26 intersects 1:4 and is a partial quote which is common in BDAG.

In other words, BDAG doesn't agree with the punctuation you have proposed, which was my first point.

My main point which is certainly on topic for John 1:3-4 is that the unscholarly reading from the TR does not fit the gloss of having received life from the God. Merely saying "in him was life" with the stative ην gives a different interpretation.

You seem to be getting closer. Saying "'in him was life' with the stative ην" certainly does "give a different interpretation" than that which you have proposed. There is nothing in John 1:3-4, with either punctuation, that supports the idea that Jesus received life from the Father! To get there you have to resort to theological arguments, which is what you are doing and what the author(s) of BDAG have done in their gloss. My point in mentioning your abuse of your source is point out to you that you are rejecting one conclusion that the authors made (that the verse should be punctuated before ην) while erroneously applying their remarks to an entirely different phrase.

And in fact, since it is received life from God, and not the Father from J 5:26 it's quite impossible that the gloss is not meant for both 5:26 and 1:4, which is why the semicolon is after 1:4.

It is perfectly clear that the author(s) of BDAG believed that the "life" that Jesus possesses in John 1:4 came from the Father, the problem that you (and they) have is the text does not say that. The one who created "ὃ γέγονεν" is clearly the word from verse 3.

You never addressed these

I never addressed those verses because they have not a single thing to do with the grammar of the text. The only thing that they demonstrate is the authors' theology. Maybe you would understand it better if I apply your label to it. They are theological "context."

Nope

BDAG clearly cites "ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" rather than "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν." By saying "nope" you are simply stomping your foot and denying reality.

See above.

You seem to agree that the two different phrases have different syntax. That's good. Now note this: If their remarks didn't contradict your preferred punctuation they would've included "ὃ γέγονεν" as a necessary part of the citation, or, at the very least, they would have included a reference to the end of 1:3 as well.

You seem upset. I can understand why. What BDAG says about J 1:4 and 5:26 is SHOCKING to the sensibilities of some theological persuasion.

It is an off-topic theological discussion. That is why I am irritated by it. I have made perfectly clear to you.

And really, even though it's possible that the gloss is from the aberrant punctuation so many must have it does not change what BDAG says.

If we use BDAG it should be for what they say, not what they don't.

BDAG is a lexicon. You shouldn't be using it as a grammar or a textual commentary in the first place. Nor should you interpret John 1:3-4 on the basis of a theological conclusion. You are the only one of us who is actually guilty of circular reasoning.

I can only suppose that you would cite any scholar who you think agrees with you. If you can't find a single textual commentary that agrees that your view of the text is possible, it should be apparent, even to you, that you are likely wrong.

I have made a note to look at BAGD, BAG and the German version which are packed away. Danker might have kept the old e try and just changed the gloss.

As I have said innumerable times before. It really doesn't matter. Your conclusion cannot be correct regardless of how you punctuate the passage.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

In other words, BDAG doesn't agree with the punctuation you have proposed, which was my first point.

You seem to be getting closer. Saying "'in him was life' with the stative ην" certainly does "give a different interpretation" than that which you have proposed. There is nothing in John 1:3-4, with either punctuation, that supports the idea that Jesus received life from the Father! To get there you have to resort to theological arguments, which is what you are doing and what the author(s) of BDAG have done in their gloss. My point in mentioning your abuse of your source is point out to you that you are rejecting one conclusion that the authors made (that the verse should be punctuated before ην) while erroneously applying their remarks to an entirely different phrase.

It is perfectly clear that the author(s) of BDAG believed that the "life" that Jesus possesses in John 1:4 came from the Father, the problem that you (and they) have is the text does not say that. The one who created "ὃ γέγονεν" is clearly the word from verse 3.


I never addressed those verses because they have not a single thing to do with the grammar of the text. The only thing that they demonstrate is the authors' theology. Maybe you would understand it better if I apply your label to it. They are theological "context."


BDAG clearly cites "ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" rather than "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν." By saying "nope" you are simply stomping your foot and denying reality.


You seem to agree that the two different phrases have different syntax. That's good. Now note this: If their remarks didn't contradict your preferred punctuation they would've included "ὃ γέγονεν" as a necessary part of the citation, or, at the very least, they would have included a reference to the end of 1:3 as well.

It is an off-topic theological discussion. That is why I am irritated by it. I have made perfectly clear to you.

BDAG is a lexicon. You shouldn't be using it as a grammar or a textual commentary in the first place. Nor should you interpret John 1:3-4 on the basis of a theological conclusion. You are the only one of us who is actually guilty of circular reasoning.

I can only suppose that you would cite any scholar who you think agrees with you. If you can't find a single textual commentary that agrees that your view of the text is possible, it should be apparent, even to you, that you are likely wrong.

As I have said innumerable times before. It really doesn't matter. Your conclusion cannot be correct regardless of how you punctuate the passage.

Here is the BDAG position on the punctuation. From the entry for εις:


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.

So BDAG allows for consideration of alternative punctuation but your TR punctuation is an "alternative" not primary.

You said: In other words, BDAG doesn't agree with the punctuation you have proposed, which was my first point.

As you can see that is not correct.

The fact remains that the "alternative" punctuation that is a minority view (see list) does not say that the life in the Word came to be. But BDAG prefers the scholarly view.

 

[John Milton]

You said:
Your entire argument hinges on two separate "coming into existence" events and the text 100% does not allow that. It's not like you can overcome that fact anyway.

My analysis uses the Nestle Aland punctuation. I don't argue that it is the only possibility, but this scholarly critical edition is the basis.

So we have two statements:

(NA28) 3 πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο ⸂οὐδὲ :ἕν⸃.
(NA28) ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν

You assert that this is one event. I see differences

• The πάντα came into existence through him and ζωὴ came into existence in him.
• πάντα is not the same as ζωὴ.
• There is no syntax that connects the two, not even the και used at 1:1.

These differences are in the text.
The burden of proof is on those who see them as the same. That would be you.

The rebuttal of your argument is as easy as breathing, even using your preferred punctuation.
1) Verse three says that all things came into existence through the word. It says "all things" not some things.
2) Nothing new comes into existence in verse 4. The things that are mentioned (ὃ γέγονεν) have ALREADY come into existence (note the perfect). Besides this, since verse three says that all things came into existence through the word, you cannot have a separate creation event without contradicting what the text actually says in verse 3. And, for what it's worth, the verb ἦν doesn't allow for a new/separate creation either.
3) The word is already said to be in existence before all things came into existence through him. More specifically, John 1 never mentions a time when the word did not exist nor does it say that the word came into existence. If he had that would've contradicted his remarks in verse 3. This makes it even more likely that when he wrote "all things" he did, in fact, refer to "all things."
4) Whatever you think "life" means in verse 4, it applies only to the things "ὃ γέγονεν." Your (apparent) application of that "life" to the word is something else that the text doesn't allow.

 

[John Milton]

Here is the BDAG position on the punctuation. From the entry for εις:


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.

So BDAG allows for consideration of alternative punctuation but your TR punctuation is an "alternative" not primary.

You introduced the term "primary," not BDAG. BDAG simply says that both punctuations are worthy of consideration.

You said: In other words, BDAG doesn't agree with the punctuation you have proposed, which was my first point.

As you can see that is not correct.

Let me make sure I've understood you. You think that "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν." is the "primary" punctuation, and that "ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" is the "alternative" punctuation, right?

If that is the case and the authors knew of the different ways to divide the text and yet only cited and discussed one of them, then, by your own admission, you must go with what the authors say. Their comments refer to what you have deemed the "alternative punctuation." Otherwise, they would have cited the entire "primary" phrase as it appears in the NA 28 "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν."

If I have understood you correctly, you should now be able to understand why you are mistaken.

The fact remains that the "alternative" punctuation that is a minority view (see list) does not say that the life in the Word came to be. But BDAG prefers the scholarly view.

The "alternative" punctuation is exactly what the authors said meant that Christ received life from the Father. Are you confused, or did I misunderstand you?

 

[The Real John Milton]

2) Nothing new comes into existence in verse 4. The things that are mentioned (ὃ γέγονεν) have ALREADY come into existence (note the perfect). Besides this, since verse three says that all things came into existence through the word, you cannot have a separate creation event without contradicting what the text actually says in verse 3. And, for what it's worth, the verb ἦν doesn't allow for a new/separate creation either.
3) The word is already said to be in existence before all things came into existence through him. More specifically, John 1 never mentions a time when the word did not exist nor does it say that the word came into existence. If he had that would've contradicted his remarks in verse 3. This makes it even more likely that when he wrote "all things" he did, in fact, refer to "all things."
4) Whatever you think "life" means in verse 4, it applies only to the things "ὃ γέγονεν." Your (apparent) application of that "life" to the word is something else that the text doesn't allow.

That's the point. All things came into existence through it (i.e. the Logos), and later on life itself came into existence in the Logos. In other words at the time when all things came into existence through it, it was not living, not literally alive. When the text says 4 ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, it's referring to the Virgin birth.

 

[John Milton]

That's the point. All things came into existence through it (i.e. the Word), and later on life itself came into existence in the Word. In other words at the time all things came into existence through it, it was not living, not literal alive.

I'm afraid you have missed the point. "Life itself" had to have come into existence at the same time that "all things came into existence" per the text. Besides, logic dictates that the word had to exist in order to be able to bring all things into existence, and this, also, is what the text says. How these ideas fit with your definition of "literal alive," I don't know. But if your understanding doesn't involve the word being a sentient being before there was "literal" life, then your understanding is wrong.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

You said: The rebuttal of your argument is as easy as breathing, even using your preferred punctuation.
1) Verse three says that all things came into existence through the word. It says "all things" not some things


Did I miss your rebuttal to the fact that the Father is a thing too in 1 Co 15?.

The Greek Grammar by Blass and Debrunner (BDF) says:

"Further ellipses: (1) The omission of the notion 'other, whatever' (§ 306 (5)) is specifically Greek."

And so we find examples like:

NRS Sirach 1:4 Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity. προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφία καὶ σύνεσις φρονήσεως ἐξ αἰῶνος

You said:
2) Nothing new comes into existence in verse 4. The things that are mentioned (ὃ γέγονεν) have ALREADY come into existence (note the perfect). Besides this, since verse three says that all things came into existence through the word, you cannot have a separate creation event without contradicting what the text actually says in verse 3.

Not according to my own expository rendering of the text:

All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else.

But the life that was the light of men was made in him and the darkness has not overtaken it.

The asyndeton provides a contrast between the two statements.

You said:
And, for what it's worth, the verb ἦν doesn't allow for a new/separate creation either.


Thanks for your opinion. You have a tendency to assert it and assume you are correct.




3) The word is already said to be in existence before all things came into existence through him. More specifically, John 1 never mentions a time when the word did not exist nor does it say that the word came into existence. If he had that would've contradicted his remarks in verse 3. This makes it even more likely that when he wrote "all things" he did, in fact, refer to "all things."

See above. You again make an assertion about some sort of chronological sequence without considering the text as a whole.


4) Whatever you think "life" means in verse 4, it applies only to the things "ὃ γέγονεν." Your (apparent) application of that "life" to the word is something else that the text doesn't allow.


I am the only one who has defined the life in the Word. You have not. It's the life God gave him according to BDAG. When one has life in oneself it's always ones own life without exception, even if it is used to give others life.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

You introduced the term "primary," not BDAG. BDAG simply says that both punctuations are worthy of consideration.

BDAG gives what they say is a good reason for the NA punctuation and then say the alternative can be considered because of the lack of punctuation in the Uncials.

That does not put them on equal foot

Let me make sure I've understood you. You think that "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν." is the "primary" punctuation, and that "ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" is the "alternative" punctuation, right?

No, the alternative punctuation is putting a period after ὃ γέγονεν

If that is the case and the authors knew of the different ways to divide the text and yet only cited and discussed one of them, then, by your own admission, you must go with what the authors say. Their comments refer to what you have deemed the "alternative punctuation." Otherwise, they would have cited the entire "primary" phrase as it appears in the NA 28 "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν."

No, I already addressed that. Go back and read it

If I have understood you correctly, you should now be able to understand why you are mistaken.

The "alternative" punctuation is exactly what the authors said meant that Christ received life from the Father. Are you confused, or did I misunderstand you?

The word alternative is not in that section. Reread it.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I'm afraid you have missed the point. "Life itself" had to have come into existence at the same time that "all things came into existence" per the text.

That’s silly. For example Adam was not alive at the time “all things came into existence.”

Besides, logic dictates that the word had to exist in order to be able to bring all things into existence, and this, also, is what the text says. How these ideas fit with your definition of "literal alive," I don't know. But if your understanding doesn't involve the word being a sentient being before there was "literal" life, then your understanding is wrong.

The Word was not the source of Creation, God was. Everything was created “through” it, not “by” it.

You should be banned from reading John chapter 1 IMHO, for your own good and for what remains of your own sanity

 

[John Milton]

You said: The rebuttal of your argument is as easy as breathing, even using your preferred punctuation.
1) Verse three says that all things came into existence through the word. It says "all things" not some things


Did I miss your rebuttal to the fact that the Father is a thing too in 1 Co 15?.

The Greek Grammar by Blass and Debrunner (BDF) says:

"Further ellipses: (1) The omission of the notion 'other, whatever' (§ 306 (5)) is specifically Greek."

And so we find examples like:

NRS Sirach 1:4 Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity. προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφία καὶ σύνεσις φρονήσεως ἐξ αἰῶνος

There was no need for a rebuttal. I told you repeatedly that I am dealing with John 1:3-4. You have asked me before to take a stance and defend a position, and I am doing so. Why do you keep running off-topic? If the grammar allows your interpretation, you should be able to defend it from the source text John 1:3-4. As far as I'm concerned, your failure to do so is as good as a concession.

But since you mentioned this passage, I will at least say this. Two different individuals may conceptualize or explain the same events in different, even seemingly contradictory ways that, that can easily be reconciled. This is especially true when we try to describe spiritual things that are beyond our understanding. I doubt you contend that God has "feet" or that he actually intends to use the things he has subjugated as an actual footstool.

Not according to my own expository rendering of the text:

Thanks for the laugh, Roger! As I said before, what scholar agrees with the "great" Roger Thornhill?

All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else.

But the life that was the light of men was made in him and the darkness has not overtaken it.

I'll be nice and say this is a horrible paraphrase. (It can't be more than that after all.)
I assume this is what you are trying to translate?
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,
"All things were made through the personal agency of the Word"
This is acceptable. Your paraphrase choice "personal agency" is artificially narrow, but the text could be understood in that manner.

καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
"and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else"
(It's hard to tell where you intended the text to stop, so feel free to tell me if this is not the break you had in mind. Up to this point I am trying to use your punctuation as a guide.)
This is just horrible. You start by perpetuating your "and so" error, and then you introduce "through the personal agency of anyone else." It is absent here. If your understanding of δι’ is wrong, so is your gloss. The fact is that there are examples in the NT where διά refers to agency and origination. You like to look at references, go see if you can find some.

ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
But the life that was the light of men was made in him and the darkness has not overtaken it.
(At this point it is entirely impossible to know what you thought you were translating. Again, feel free to explain what you meant by this hot mess!)
There are so many mistakes here I don't even know where to begin!
1) You started by adding the word "but." There is no contrast in the passage.
2) You have combined two different sentences into one, taking liberties with the grammar. ("ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" and "καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων."
3) The passage does not say that "life was made." "Life" describes what "had come into existence."
4) ἐν αὐτῷ can be taken in a number of different ways besides that which you have suggested. This one is a possibility.
5) You didn't gloss "καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει" at all.
6) If you intend to make your thinking clear to the reader, this is a very poor paraphrase. Those unfamiliar with the controversies of this passage would not understand you in the manner you intend. The reader is most likely going to think that some of the things that the word created were outside of him and some were inside of him (whatever they think that would mean). They won't understand that you envision these as two separate creation events.

The asyndeton provides a contrast between the two statements.

I don't know which two statements you are talking about.

You said:
And, for what it's worth, the verb ἦν doesn't allow for a new/separate creation either.

Thanks for your opinion. You have a tendency to assert it and assume you are correct.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Find one scholar who agrees with your opinion. The reason for that is what I have told you is a FACT. If you knew what they looked like, you wouldn't have to take solace in your prized prostitute "ad hominem."

3) The word is already said to be in existence before all things came into existence through him. More specifically, John 1 never mentions a time when the word did not exist nor does it say that the word came into existence. If he had that would've contradicted his remarks in verse 3. This makes it even more likely that when he wrote "all things" he did, in fact, refer to "all things."

See above. You again make an assertion about some sort of chronological sequence without considering the text as a whole.

If I tell you a fact, you accuse me of asserting something without proof, despite the fact that nearly everyone in the history of Christianity agrees with me and despite the fact that I could, if I so chose, find several scholars that would say exactly what I have said. But I'm supposed to believe that you aren't just making things up and that I haven't done the study that I know I have done? Where do you get off? Where are your facts? Where is your argument? Here's a fact for you: the whole prologue is a chronological sequence! First, the word was with God. Then, the word created something. Finally, the word will be born and called Jesus. What a joke you are!

4) Whatever you think "life" means in verse 4, it applies only to the things "ὃ γέγονεν." Your (apparent) application of that "life" to the word is something else that the text doesn't allow.

I am the only one who has defined the life in the Word. You have not. It's the life God gave him according to BDAG. When one has life in oneself it's always ones own life without exception, even if it is used to give others life.

The word was already a sentient being. As I told RJM, any concept of "life" that you hold is flawed if it doesn't take that into consideration. I was trying to give you some opportunity to develop your thoughts, but, since don't appear to have any, I'll say what I could've said earlier. BDAG actually says "of Christ who received life from God." We aren't talking about the Christ at this point, RJM, we are talking about the word. So, if you want to operate on what BDAG actually says, it 100% identifies the pre-incarnate word with the Christ or it isn't talking about the word at all. Even if one thinks that God gave the word life, it does not follow that he was the originator of Christ in the first place (that is to say it does not mean that the word could not be eternal). It need only mean that at some point God gave the word life. And, lo and behold! that's exactly what John records. One of the difficult things to keep in mind is that by the time John wrote his gospel, Christ had already created the world, been born, been killed, and been resurrected. It is hard to know for certain what, exactly, John had in mind. Either way, as I have already said, there are certain things that we can know with near certainty, and those are the ones you don't appear to have a hint of an answer for.

 

[John Milton]

BDAG gives what they say is a good reason for the NA punctuation and then say the alternative can be considered because of the lack of punctuation in the Uncials.

That does not put them on equal foot

BDAG doesn't say anything one way or the other about how the alternative should be weighted. That is your eisgesis.

No, the alternative punctuation is putting a period after ὃ γέγονεν

I meant to put a period there. That was a typo. Good catch.

No, I already addressed that. Go back and read it

You are speaking with a forked tongue. You didn't address that. Anyone reading the drivel you've written knows you didn't address that. You said we should look at what was actually written, and what the authors actually wrote was the version you deemed the inferior alternative and they made this clear by specifying that they meant John 1:4a. You impaled yourself while running away from the gallows.

The word alternative is not in that section. Reread it.

I was quoting you, genius.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

There was no need for a rebuttal. I told you repeatedly that I am dealing with John 1:3-4. You have asked me before to take a stance and defend a position, and I am doing so. Why do you keep running off-topic? If the grammar allows your interpretation, you should be able to defend it from the source text John 1:3-4. As far as I'm concerned, your failure to do so is as good as a concession.

But since you mentioned this passage, I will at least say this. Two different individuals may conceptualize or explain the same events in different, even seemingly contradictory ways that, that can easily be reconciled. This is especially true when we try to describe spiritual things that are beyond our understanding. I doubt you contend that God has "feet" or that he actually intends to use the things he has subjugated as an actual footstool.

Thanks for the laugh, Roger! As I said before, what scholar agrees with the "great" Roger Thornhill?

I'll be nice and say this is a horrible paraphrase. (It can't be more than that after all.)
I assume this is what you are trying to translate?
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,
"All things were made through the personal agency of the Word"
This is acceptable. Your paraphrase choice "personal agency" is artificially narrow, but the text could be understood in that manner.

καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
"and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else"
(It's hard to tell where you intended the text to stop, so feel free to tell me if this is not the break you had in mind. Up to this point I am trying to use your punctuation as a guide.)
This is just horrible. You start by perpetuating your "and so" error, and then you introduce "through the personal agency of anyone else." It is absent here. If your understanding of δι’ is wrong, so is your gloss. The fact is that there are examples in the NT where διά refers to agency and origination. You like to look at references, go see if you can find some.

ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
But the life that was the light of men was made in him and the darkness has not overtaken it.
(At this point it is entirely impossible to know what you thought you were translating. Again, feel free to explain what you meant by this hot mess!)
There are so many mistakes here I don't even know where to begin!
1) You started by adding the word "but." There is no contrast in the passage.
2) You have combined two different sentences into one, taking liberties with the grammar. ("ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" and "καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων."
3) The passage does not say that "life was made." "Life" describes what "had come into existence."
4) ἐν αὐτῷ can be taken in a number of different ways besides that which you have suggested. This one is a possibility.
5) You didn't gloss "καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει" at all.
6) If you intend to make your thinking clear to the reader, this is a very poor paraphrase. Those unfamiliar with the controversies of this passage would not understand you in the manner you intend. The reader is most likely going to think that some of the things that the word created were outside of him and some were inside of him (whatever they think that would mean). They won't understand that you envision these as two separate creation events.

I don't know which two statements you are talking about.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Find one scholar who agrees with your opinion. The reason for that is what I have told you is a FACT. If you knew what they looked like, you wouldn't have to take solace in your prized prostitute "ad hominem."

If I tell you a fact, you accuse me of asserting something without proof, despite the fact that nearly everyone in the history of Christianity agrees with me and despite the fact that I could, if I so chose, find several scholars that would say exactly what I have said. But I'm supposed to believe that you aren't just making things up and that I haven't done the study that I know I have done? Where do you get off? Where are your facts? Where is your argument? Here's a fact for you: the whole prologue is a chronological sequence! First, the word was with God. Then, the word created something. Finally, the word will be born and called Jesus. What a joke you are!

The word was already a sentient being. As I told RJM, any concept of "life" that you hold is flawed if it doesn't take that into consideration. I was trying to give you some opportunity to develop your thoughts, but, since don't appear to have any, I'll say what I could've said earlier. BDAG actually says "of Christ who received life from God." We aren't talking about the Christ at this point, RJM, we are talking about the word. So, if you want to operate on what BDAG actually says, it 100% identifies the pre-incarnate word with the Christ or it isn't talking about the word at all. Even if one thinks that God gave the word life, it does not follow that he was the originator of Christ in the first place (that is to say it does not mean that the word could not be eternal). It need only mean that at some point God gave the word life. And, lo and behold! that's exactly what John records. One of the difficult things to keep in mind is that by the time John wrote his gospel, Christ had already created the world, been born, been killed, and been resurrected. It is hard to know for certain what, exactly, John had in mind. Either way, as I have already said, there are certain things that we can know with near certainty, and those are the ones you don't appear to have a hint of an answer for.

You said:
I don't know which two statements you are talking about.

Go back and read it then. You apparently don't know what asyndeton is.

 

[John Milton]

That’s silly. For example Adam was not alive at the time “all things came into existence.”

Since the context of the passage makes that clear, that's not a problem for the intelligent reader...

The Word was not the source of Creation, God was. Everything was created “through” it, not “by” it.

You should be banned from reading John chapter 1 IMHO, for your own good and for what remains of your own sanity

It depends on how you define "source" and "agency." So there is no right or wrong answer to the question, per se. I suppose my being banned from reading or commenting would make it easier for you and Roger to pretend like you have some kind of valid arguments. It's too bad for you. I've already burst your bubble.

But while I have you here: why is it that crazy folks like you enjoy calling others crazy?

 

[John Milton]

You said:
I don't know which two statements you are talking about.

Go back and read it then. You apparently don't know what asyndeton is.

You quoted several different verses. I honestly don't know which clauses, phrases, or verses you were referring to. I don't know if you realize this or not, but it is clear proof you don't understand what you say when you can't even discuss your remarks intelligently. If you understood what it meant, you wouldn't have any trouble pointing it out.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

You quoted several different verses. I honestly don't know which clauses, phrases, or verses you were referring to. I don't know if you realize this or not, but it is clear proof you don't understand what you say when you can't even discuss your remarks intelligently. If you understood what it meant, you wouldn't have any trouble pointing it out.

Lol! I'll repeat it word for word:

All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else.

But the life that was the light of men was made in him and the darkness has not overtaken it.

The asyndeton provides a contrast between the two statements.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Since the context of the passage makes that clear, that's not a problem for the intelligent reader...

It depends on how you define "source" and "agency." So there is no right or wrong answer to the question, per se. I suppose my being banned from reading or commenting would make it easier for you and Roger to pretend like you have some kind of valid arguments. It's too bad for you. I've already burst your bubble.

I don't see you punching back, that is, don't see a real counter argument.

So here is a question: Would you agree that ὃ γέγονεν with verse 4 negates the notion that Jesus is God ?

But while I have you here: why is it that crazy folks like you enjoy calling others crazy?

Never called you that. You seem to be sensitive about it though.