The "gods" of John 10:34-35

It better fits the biblical languages forum on CARM. This is just the part on Asyndeton.


Thread 'John's use of Asyndeton in the prologue of John'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/johns-use-of-asyndeton-in-the-prologue-of-john.5236/

No, stop kidding yourself. You don't know what your talking about, and your paper proves it.

FTI, the Greek text does not say, there is no meaningful justification for writing: "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." That's not Scripture. That's your fabrication

As a matter of I just used a gloss from Danker's Greek lexicon. It's in the footnote.

Danker's Concise Greek Lexicon
διά
[basic sense ‘through’] through—A. w. gen.—a. place Mk 9:30; Lk 6:1; 1 Cor 10:1; thing Mt 7:13; Mk 10:25; group 2 Cor 8:18.—b. temporal use, of duration Mk 5:5; Ac 16:9; during Lk 9:37 v.l.; Ac 5:19. διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν throughout the lifetime Hb 2:15.—c. instrumentality—α. thing Ac 5:12; Gal 1:15; Eph 1:7; prevailing condition under which someth. takes place Ro 2:23; 3:24; 10:17; 2 Cor 1:11; Phil 1:20; causal 1 Cor 1:21.—β. personal agency Mt 1:22; 11:2; Lk 17:1; J 1:3; Ac 1:2; Ro 1:2; supported by 2 Ti 2:2.—B. w. acc.—a. spatially through Lk 17:11.—b. causally because (of), for the sake of, Mt 6:25; Mk 2:4; Ac 10:21; of emotional states, such as envy, fear, love from, out of Mt 27:18; J 7:13; Eph 2:4.—διὰ τί; because of what? = why? J 7:45; 1 Cor 6:7; διὰ τοῦτο therefore Ro 1:26; 2 Th 2:11.Δία, Διός acc. and gen. of

Did you not see the part I highlighted? Danker's Concise Greek Lexicon doesn't justify adding "so apart from him". Stop adding things to Scripture as to justify your heresies.

This is not a grammatical argument; it's a literary argument. Grammatical arguments relate to the Greek grammar involved in the Text. I doubt you've ever read a grammatical argument given this response. BTW, You're still trying to justify a blatant contradiction? You might as well admit 2 = 3.

That's because you are not familiar with Asyndeton. It's a conjunction just like και, δε or αλλά. Linguists mark it with θ.

The main intersentence conjunctions are asyndeton, de, kai, oun, gar, ara, men, te, alla, dio, tote, hōste when followed by an indicative - Polythress

If exegeting και in a Greek text is grammar so is θ, especially the way John uses them.

I'm perfectly familiar with Asyndeton. It's utterly irrelevant. You still have a blatant contradiction because you refuse to think through the implications of "without him was not anything made". Play around with all the de, kai, oun, gar, ara, men, te, alla, dio, tote, or hōste you want and you still won't justify your rewriting of John 1:3-4. In short, using your punctuation, Scripture says "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people." NRSV. You say "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." You rewrote, changed Scripture as to allow for your heresy. Shame on you.

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Did you not see the part I highlighted? Danker's Concise Greek Lexicon doesn't justify adding "so apart from him". Stop adding things to Scripture as to justify your heresies.

You don't understand (or acknowledge) where I get "so". It's the gloss "and so" for και. It's not part of the phrase that follows και.

I have three resources that give "and so" for και when και connects clauses and not single words. In all the examples there is a temporal sequence between clauses linked with και.



I don't claim Danker glosses "and so" for και at John 1:1, but he does include it in the examples which all show a temporal sequence and he does not gloss it with anything different

BDAG καὶ - 1. marker of connections, and … b. clauses and sentences… ζ. to introduce a result that comes fr. what precedes: and then, and so Mt 5:15; 23:32; Mk 8:34; 2 Cor 11:9; Hb 3:19; 1J 3:19.

[Note: In each of the citations from BDAG the second clause follows temporally from what preceded it. (Mt 5:15 after lighting a lamp [καὶ ] puts it under the bushel; 23:32 [καὶ ] Fill up, then; Mk 8:34; 2 Cor 11:9 So [καὶ ] I refrained and [καὶ ] will continue to refrain from burdening you in any way.; Hb 3:19 So [καὶ ] we see that; 1J 3:19 we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him - Glosses from the New Revised Standard Version.

Danker ϰαί - [etym. complex] used as a function word to mark connection or addition — 1. as connective (copula) and (the extraordinary flexibility of ϰ. in context can generate a broad range of other glosses, e.g. when, but, that, namely, as well as, including, and so, indeed, yet, then, in fact, but the primary lexical feature is the connective aspect) — a. joining single words Mt 13:55; Lk 6:14 – 16; 14:21; Ac 1:13; Ro 7:12; Hb 1:1; Rv 7:12 al.; joining numerals Lk 13:16; J 2:20; Ac 13:20.— b. joining clauses and sentences Mt 1:23; 3:12; 5:15b (and so); Mk 1:5; 5:4; Lk 2:48; J 1:1 (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the new Testament, 2009, p. και)

Note: As in BDAG, all the examples are sequential temporally, but Danker includes
John 1:1 into these citations (Mt 1:23
Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and [καὶ ] they shall name him Emmanuel; 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and [καὶ ] he will clear his threshing floor and [καὶ ] will gather his wheat into the granary; 5:15b (and so) - No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and [and so καὶ ] it gives light to all in the house.; Mk 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins Mk 1:5 And [καὶ ] people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and [καὶ ] were baptized by him; 5:4 for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains… and [καὶ ] the shackles he broke in pieces; and [καὶ ] no one had the strength to subdue him. Lk 2:48 When [καὶ ] his parents saw him they were astonished; and [καὶ ] his mother said to him; J 1:1)

καί 59.20 Basic function: indicates addition – καί connects two elements, adding the second to the first: … – connecting sentences (i.e. beginning a sentence), indicating that the new sentence is closely linked to the previous one; for instance in narratives to indicate that one action closely follows upon, or is the direct consequence of, another (and, also, and so, and then); (The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, 2019
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I'm perfectly familiar with Asyndeton. It's utterly irrelevant. You still have a blatant contradiction because you refuse to think through the implications of "without him was not anything made". Play around with all the de, kai, oun, gar, ara, men, te, alla, dio, tote, or hōste you want and you still won't justify your rewriting of John 1:3-4. In short, using your punctuation, Scripture says "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people." NRSV. You say "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." You rewrote, changed Scripture as to allow for your heresy. Shame on you.

God Bless

You have never told me how much Greek you know. I was assuming you knew more. See the three lexicons that give "and so" as a gloss for και when it links clauses from my previous reply.

καὶ and so χωρὶς apart from αὐτοῦ him
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
No, stop kidding yourself. You don't know what your talking about, and your paper proves it.

What I provided was a linguist that considers Asyndeton as providing a contrast like αλλά (but) in John's prologue as well as a mapping of each inter-sentence conjunction in the prologue. From John's usage in the prologue it must be a contrast.

You are welcome to your opinion but you have not damaged my analysis in the slightest.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You say "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." You rewrote, changed Scripture as to allow for your heresy. Shame on you.

God Bless

Even though you misunderstood the "and so apart from him" I decided to clarify the rendering to:

All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made [through personal agency.]
 
Danker's Concise Greek Lexicon doesn't justify adding "so apart from him". Stop adding things to Scripture as to justify your heresies.
You don't understand (or acknowledge) where I get "so". It's the gloss "and so" for και. It's not part of the phrase that follows και.

I have three resources that give "and so" for και when και connects clauses and not single words. In all the examples there is a temporal sequence between clauses linked with και.

I don't claim Danker glosses "and so" for και at John 1:1, but he does include it in the examples which all show a temporal sequence and he does not gloss it with anything different

BDAG καὶ - 1. marker of connections, and … b. clauses and sentences… ζ. to introduce a result that comes fr. what precedes: and then, and so Mt 5:15; 23:32; Mk 8:34; 2 Cor 11:9; Hb 3:19; 1J 3:19.

[Note: In each of the citations from BDAG the second clause follows temporally from what preceded it. (Mt 5:15 after lighting a lamp [καὶ ] puts it under the bushel; 23:32 [καὶ ] Fill up, then; Mk 8:34; 2 Cor 11:9 So [καὶ ] I refrained and [καὶ ] will continue to refrain from burdening you in any way.; Hb 3:19 So [καὶ ] we see that; 1J 3:19 we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him - Glosses from the New Revised Standard Version.

Danker ϰαί - [etym. complex] used as a function word to mark connection or addition — 1. as connective (copula) and (the extraordinary flexibility of ϰ. in context can generate a broad range of other glosses, e.g. when, but, that, namely, as well as, including, and so, indeed, yet, then, in fact, but the primary lexical feature is the connective aspect) — a. joining single words Mt 13:55; Lk 6:14 – 16; 14:21; Ac 1:13; Ro 7:12; Hb 1:1; Rv 7:12 al.; joining numerals Lk 13:16; J 2:20; Ac 13:20.— b. joining clauses and sentences Mt 1:23; 3:12; 5:15b (and so); Mk 1:5; 5:4; Lk 2:48; J 1:1 (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the new Testament, 2009, p. και)

Note: As in BDAG, all the examples are sequential temporally, but Danker includes
John 1:1 into these citations (Mt 1:23
Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and [καὶ ] they shall name him Emmanuel; 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and [καὶ ] he will clear his threshing floor and [καὶ ] will gather his wheat into the granary; 5:15b (and so) - No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and [and so καὶ ] it gives light to all in the house.; Mk 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins Mk 1:5 And [καὶ ] people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and [καὶ ] were baptized by him; 5:4 for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains… and [καὶ ] the shackles he broke in pieces; and [καὶ ] no one had the strength to subdue him. Lk 2:48 When [καὶ ] his parents saw him they were astonished; and [καὶ ] his mother said to him; J 1:1)

καί 59.20 Basic function: indicates addition – καί connects two elements, adding the second to the first: … – connecting sentences (i.e. beginning a sentence), indicating that the new sentence is closely linked to the previous one; for instance in narratives to indicate that one action closely follows upon, or is the direct consequence of, another (and, also, and so, and then); (The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, 2019

Congrats, you established the possibility of one word out of four in question. 25% is a failing grade. Now you have "All things came into being through him, and so without him not one thing came into being." Thank you for wasting my time.

I'm perfectly familiar with Asyndeton. It's utterly irrelevant. You still have a blatant contradiction because you refuse to think through the implications of "without him was not anything made". Play around with all the de, kai, oun, gar, ara, men, te, alla, dio, tote, or hōste you want and you still won't justify your rewriting of John 1:3-4. In short, using your punctuation, Scripture says "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people." NRSV. You say "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." You rewrote, changed Scripture as to allow for your heresy. Shame on you.

You have never told me how much Greek you know. I was assuming you knew more. See the three lexicons that give "and so" as a gloss for και when it links clauses from my previous reply.

καὶ and so χωρὶς apart from αὐτοῦ him

Not one thing I said in this post had anything to do with the adding of the word so. Talk about being blind as a bat.

No, stop kidding yourself. You don't know what your talking about, and your paper proves it.

What I provided was a linguist that considers Asyndeton as providing a contrast like αλλά (but) in John's prologue as well as a mapping of each inter-sentence conjunction in the prologue. From John's usage in the prologue it must be a contrast.

You are welcome to your opinion but you have not damaged my analysis in the slightest.

Contrast or not, the Greek phrase χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν denies the possibility that Jesus was made. Contrast or not, the English phrase
"without him not one thing came into being" denies the possibility that Jesus was made.

You say "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." You rewrote, changed Scripture as to allow for your heresy. Shame on you.
Even though you misunderstood the "and so apart from him" I decided to clarify the rendering to:

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

The phrase "without him was not anything made" makes Jesus integral in the creation of all things. The phrase "apart from him nothing was made [through personal agency.]" means Jesus was possibility the only thing made without personal agency. You changed Scripture. Shame on you.

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Congrats, you established the possibility of one word out of four in question. 25% is a failing grade. Now you have "All things came into being through him, and so without him not one thing came into being." Thank you for wasting my time.

Lol!

Now I am at 100% and you are at 0%.

Danker's Concise
χωρίς
[χώρα] adv.—1. ‘in a separated state’, apart, by itself J 20:7.—2. functioning as prep. w. gen.: ‘in a condition or circumstance not including’, without, apart from—a. of pers. J 1:3; 15:5; Ro 10:14; 1 Cor 4:8; Eph 2:12; Hb 11:40; not counting, not to mention Mt 14:21; 15:38.—b. of thing Mt 13:34; Lk 6:49; Ro 3:21; 4:6; 7:9; 1 Ti 5:21; Phlm 14; Hb 4:15 and oft . in Hb; Js 2:18, 20, 26; separated ( from), outside (of) 2 Cor 12:3; not counting, not to mention 11:28.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The phrase "without him was not anything made" makes Jesus integral in the creation of all things. The phrase "apart from him nothing was made [through personal agency.]" means Jesus was possibility the only thing made without personal agency. You changed Scripture. Shame on you.

God Bless

Now that I have supplied Danker you have no excuse. BTW, lots of bibles have "apart from."

Are you KJV only?
 
Congrats, you established the possibility of one word out of four in question. 25% is a failing grade. Now you have "All things came into being through him, and so without him not one thing came into being." Thank you for wasting my time.
Lol!

Now I am at 100% and you are at 0%.

Danker's Concise
χωρίς
[χώρα] adv.—1. ‘in a separated state’, apart, by itself J 20:7.—2. functioning as prep. w. gen.: ‘in a condition or circumstance not including’, without, apart from—a. of pers. J 1:3; 15:5; Ro 10:14; 1 Cor 4:8; Eph 2:12; Hb 11:40; not counting, not to mention Mt 14:21; 15:38.—b. of thing Mt 13:34; Lk 6:49; Ro 3:21; 4:6; 7:9; 1 Ti 5:21; Phlm 14; Hb 4:15 and oft . in Hb; Js 2:18, 20, 26; separated ( from), outside (of) 2 Cor 12:3; not counting, not to mention 11:28.

In your previous post, you proved something that was utterly irrelevant to the point I was making, and now you're trying to justify something else. The text is not expressing that Jesus is something else that was created in a different way. You're literally doing the same thing that JWs do by randomly adding "other" into Colossians 1:16. John is using χωρίς ‘in a condition’, without. There is nothing made without Jesus. It is not expressing that Jesus falls into another category of created things. The definition "functioning as prep. w. gen.: ‘in a condition or circumstance not including’’, without, apart from" does not allow one to see him, Jesus, as falling into a different category for being made. It simply conditions all making with Jesus, or the circumstance of making never occurs without including Jesus; therefore, Jesus could not be considered something that was made.

The phrase "without him was not anything made" makes Jesus integral in the creation of all things. The phrase "apart from him nothing was made [through personal agency.]" means Jesus was possibility the only thing made without personal agency. You changed Scripture. Shame on you.

Now that I have supplied Danker you have no excuse. BTW, lots of bibles have "apart from."

Are you KJV only?

This response is simply silly. Translating it "without him was not anything made", "apart from him nothing was made", or "without him not one thing came into being." mean Jesus is integral in the creation of all things, no exceptions. None of them mean Jesus was possibility the only thing made without his own personal agency. You've read that back into v3 based upon your interpretation of v4.

KJV only? You've got to be kidding. The NIV and ESV translate it the exact same way. I even quoted the RSV translation on multiple occasions. You obviously have a tendency to jump to unwarranted conclusions that directly contradict previously established facts.


God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
In your previous post, you proved something that was utterly irrelevant to the point I was making, and now you're trying to justify something else. The text is not expressing that Jesus is something else that was created in a different way. You're literally doing the same thing that JWs do by randomly adding "other" into Colossians 1:16. John is using χωρίς ‘in a condition’, without. There is nothing made without Jesus. It is not expressing that Jesus falls into another category of created things. The definition "functioning as prep. w. gen.: ‘in a condition or circumstance not including’’, without, apart from" does not allow one to see him, Jesus, as falling into a different category for being made. It simply conditions all making with Jesus, or the circumstance of making never occurs without including Jesus; therefore, Jesus could not be considered something that was made.



This response is simply silly. Translating it "without him was not anything made", "apart from him nothing was made", or "without him not one thing came into being." mean Jesus is integral in the creation of all things, no exceptions. None of them mean Jesus was possibility the only thing made without his own personal agency. You've read that back into v3 based upon your interpretation of v4.

KJV only? You've got to be kidding. The NIV and ESV translate it the exact same way. I even quoted the RSV translation on multiple occasions. You obviously have a tendency to jump to unwarranted conclusions that directly contradict previously established facts.


God Bless

I said:
All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made [through personal agency.]

You said:
You say "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." You rewrote, changed Scripture as to allow for your heresy. Shame on you.

Then you said:
The phrase "apart from him nothing was made [through personal agency.]" means Jesus was possibility the only thing made without personal agency. You changed Scripture. Shame on you.

In this reply you explain your view of the context. I showed you where Danker glosses J 1:3 with "apart from."

You never claimed δια did not mean "personal agency" at J 1:3, but here he is on that:

Danker Concise on δια
β. personal agency Mt 1:22; 11:2; Lk 17:1;
J 1:3; Ac 1:2; Ro 1:2; supported by 2 Ti 2:2.

So, before you continue being long winded on your view of the context, I claim that there is nothing grammatically wrong with the following:

J 1:3 All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made [through personal agency.]

You have not given a grammatical reason. Do you have one to offer? You've been wrong twice now.
 
Last edited:
I said:
All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made [through personal agency.]

You said:
You say "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." You rewrote, changed Scripture as to allow for your heresy. Shame on you.

Then you said:
The phrase "apart from him nothing was made [through personal agency.]" means Jesus was possibility the only thing made without personal agency. You changed Scripture. Shame on you.

In this reply you explain your view of the context. I showed you where Danker glosses J 1:3 with "apart from."

You never claimed δια did not mean "personal agency" at J 1:3, but here he is on that:

Danker Concise on δια
β. personal agency Mt 1:22; 11:2; Lk 17:1;
J 1:3; Ac 1:2; Ro 1:2; supported by 2 Ti 2:2.

We are talking about "without him nothing was made", χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. Do you see δια in that clause?

So, before you continue being long winded on your view of the context, I claim that there is nothing grammatically wrong with the following:

J 1:3 All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made [through personal agency.]

You have not given a grammatical reason. Do you have one to offer? You've been wrong twice now.

I never said there was something grammatical wrong. I said, that's not what the text says. Grammar has nothing to do with what I'm saying or any of the arguments you've presented.

Again, The text is not expressing that Jesus is something else that was created in a different way. You're literally doing the same thing that JWs do by randomly adding "other" into Colossians 1:16. John is using
χωρίς ‘in a condition’, without. There is nothing made without Jesus. It is not expressing that Jesus falls into another category of created things. The definition "functioning as prep. w. gen.: ‘in a condition or circumstance not including’’, without, apart from" does not allow one to see him, Jesus, as falling into a different category for being made. It simply conditions all making with Jesus, or the circumstance of making never occurs without including Jesus; therefore, Jesus could not be considered something that was made.

God Bless
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
We are talking about "without him nothing was made", χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. Do you see δια in that clause?



I never said there was something grammatical wrong. I said, that's not what the text says. Grammar has nothing to do with what I'm saying or any of the arguments you've presented.

Again, The text is not expressing that Jesus is something else that was created in a different way. You're literally doing the same thing that JWs do by randomly adding "other" into Colossians 1:16. John is using
χωρίς ‘in a condition’, without. There is nothing made without Jesus. It is not expressing that Jesus falls into another category of created things. The definition "functioning as prep. w. gen.: ‘in a condition or circumstance not including’’, without, apart from" does not allow one to see him, Jesus, as falling into a different category for being made. It simply conditions all making with Jesus, or the circumstance of making never occurs without including Jesus; therefore, Jesus could not be considered something that was made.

God Bless
Here is the Greek:

3 πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο ⸂οὐδὲ ἕν⸃.

ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων⸌· (NA28)


John 1:3 in the Nestle Aland is a compound sentence with two clauses linked with καὶ. The verb in the first clause is ἐγένετο and it’s verbal action is limited by the genitive διʼ αὐτοῦ (through him.). So what came into existence in John 1:3a is what came into existence through his personal agency.

In 1:3b the same situation, same subject matter and participants are in view because it's linked to 1:3a with καὶ.

As linguist Heckert says:
Buth’s view (1991:13) is similar to Levinsohn’s: και has a conjunctive function, joining two or more elements of the same level to each other and indicating continuity with the context, “same situation, same subject matter, same subject or participant.” (Heckert, 1991)

John 1:3b coherently conforms to 1:3a with the χωρὶς αὐτοῦ (apart from him in the genitive like διʼ αὐτοῦ) and so the action of ἐγένετο is the same event and is anaphoric to ἐγένετο in 1:3a. It is also in reference to what God made through the Word in 1:3a.

So,
“All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and apart from him nothing was made” by itself means that apart from his personal agency nothing was made, even without my adding the clarification with [through personal agency].

If you note I have that in brackets. The term for this is ellipsis. It's not added to the text, it's carried over from the previous clause.

What you are trying to infer from the text is that the same verb form, ἐγένετο, in the same co-text (not context) and the same subject participants has changed its meaning from the first part of the same sentence. You want it to be anything that was made even if it was made by the Father alone. You attempt to force your interpretation on me when it's not the only possible grammatical possibility.

A good reason to reject your view is that linguists see cohesive continuity with two clauses linked with και.

Another good reason to reject it is because the text needs the punctuation to fall after ο γεγονεν as it appears in the punctuation that is found starting about the 4th century in order to force your view.

The NET footnote acknowledges the reason for this change even though it argues on weak doctrinal grounds for your preferred punctuation. Nestle Aland changed to the current punctuation for the following reasons:


K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (ho gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. (NET footnote on J 1:3)

The reason is obvious. Attaching ο γεγονεν at the end of verse 3 gives “and apart from him nothing was made that was made.”

This has the meaning you are trying to attach to the Nestle punctuation! It is what is needed to make the grammatical statement you are trying to force. The pneumomachians said the Holy Spirit was the first thing created by God through the Word. The changed punctuation prevents that interpretation in their theology.

This proves that the current Nestle Aland punctuation does not force your interpretation.

I'm not claiming it's the only possible interpretation, but what I propose is certainly grammatical, co-textual and contextual with the Nestle Aland punctuation.
 
Last edited:

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
We are talking about "without him nothing was made", χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. Do you see δια in that clause?



I never said there was something grammatical wrong. I said, that's not what the text says. Grammar has nothing to do with what I'm saying or any of the arguments you've presented.

Again, The text is not expressing that Jesus is something else that was created in a different way. You're literally doing the same thing that JWs do by randomly adding "other" into Colossians 1:16. John is using
χωρίς ‘in a condition’, without. There is nothing made without Jesus. It is not expressing that Jesus falls into another category of created things. The definition "functioning as prep. w. gen.: ‘in a condition or circumstance not including’’, without, apart from" does not allow one to see him, Jesus, as falling into a different category for being made. It simply conditions all making with Jesus, or the circumstance of making never occurs without including Jesus; therefore, Jesus could not be considered something that was made.

God Bless
I think I see where you were coming from.

χωρίς can also mean "besides" as can "apart from" in English. See Mt 14:21 and IEph 11:2.

So this would read, "All things were made through him and apart from (i.e. besides) him nothing was made."

That's grammatical, co-textual and contextual as well. It is also unaffected by the punctuation.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

;)
 
Here is the Greek:

3 πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο ⸂οὐδὲ ἕν⸃.

ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ⸀ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων⸌· (NA28)


John 1:3 in the Nestle Aland is a compound sentence with two clauses linked with καὶ. The verb in the first clause is ἐγένετο and it’s verbal action is limited by the genitive διʼ αὐτοῦ (through him.). So what came into existence in John 1:3a is what came into existence through his personal agency.

In 1:3b the same situation, same subject matter and participants are in view because it's linked to 1:3a with καὶ.

As linguist Heckert says:
Buth’s view (1991:13) is similar to Levinsohn’s: και has a conjunctive function, joining two or more elements of the same level to each other and indicating continuity with the context, “same situation, same subject matter, same subject or participant.” (Heckert, 1991)

John 1:3b coherently conforms to 1:3a with the χωρὶς αὐτοῦ (apart from him in the genitive like διʼ αὐτοῦ) and so the action of ἐγένετο is the same event and is anaphoric to ἐγένετο in 1:3a. It is also in reference to what God made through the Word in 1:3a.

So,
“All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and apart from him nothing was made” by itself means that apart from his personal agency nothing was made, even without my adding the clarification with [through personal agency].

If you note I have that in brackets. The term for this is ellipsis. It's not added to the text, it's carried over from the previous clause.

What you are trying to infer from the text is that the same verb form, ἐγένετο, in the same co-text (not context) and the same subject participants has changed its meaning from the first part of the same sentence. You want it to be anything that was made even if it was made by the Father alone. You attempt to force your interpretation on me when it's not the only possible grammatical possibility.

A good reason to reject your view is that linguists see cohesive continuity with two clauses linked with και.

Another good reason to reject it is because the text needs the punctuation to fall after ο γεγονεν as it appears in the punctuation that is found starting about the 4th century in order to force your view.

The NET footnote acknowledges the reason for this change even though it argues on weak doctrinal grounds for your preferred punctuation. Nestle Aland changed to the current punctuation for the following reasons:


K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (ho gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. (NET footnote on J 1:3)

The reason is obvious. Attaching ο γεγονεν at the end of verse 3 gives “and apart from him nothing was made that was made.”

This has the meaning you are trying to attach to the Nestle punctuation! It is what is needed to make the grammatical statement you are trying to force. The pneumomachians said the Holy Spirit was the first thing created by God through the Word. The changed punctuation prevents that interpretation in their theology.

This proves that the current Nestle Aland punctuation does not force your interpretation.

I'm not claiming it's the only possible interpretation, but what I propose is certainly grammatical, co-textual and contextual with the Nestle Aland punctuation.

A few things:
  1. What makes you think I don't think "In 1:3b the same situation, same subject matter and participants are in view because it's linked to 1:3a with καὶ."? You spend all this time arguing a point I agree with. Not one thing I ever wrote could be taken to think I reject this premise. In reality, my argument is using this premise. You think the "All things" in the first clause exculdes the Word which was made "by the Father alone." However, "All things" is clarified by the second clause to mean all thing that were ever made period, i.e. there was nothing made "by the Father alone."
  2. "A good reason to reject your view is that linguists see cohesive continuity with two clauses linked with και." Such doesn't conflict with my view.
  3. "the text needs the punctuation to fall after ο γεγονεν as it appears in the punctuation that is found starting about the 4th century in order to force your view." What? I don't have any clue what your getting at. My view does not need my preferred punction. The sentence "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." alone eliminates any possibility that the Word is in the category of creation as opposed to being creator.
  4. “and apart from him nothing was made that was made.” and "and without him not one thing came into being." mean the same thing.
  5. Notice, "The pneumomachians said the Holy Spirit was the first thing created by God through the Word. The changed punctuation prevents that interpretation in their theology." but, no one thought either punctuation allowed for the Word to be part of the created order. Therefore, none of this proves or even hints that "the current Nestle Aland punctuation does not force your interpretation."

God Bless
 
Top