[B-Greek] John 1 Questions
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at ioa.com
Sat Aug 6 07:53:52 EDT 2005
On Aug 6, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Dony K. Donev wrote:
> While I agree with Metzger's reading, I still have a question. Is it
> possible that the redundancy of GENOMAI in 1:3 is an attempt to
> match the
> triple repetitive of EIMI in 1:1? If so, the 3rd GENOMAI seems to
> belong to
> 1:3 with the preceding two GENOMAIs, and not with the 2 EIMIs in 1:4.
I don't really think so; the three forms of EIMI/HN in 1:1 are
parallel and progressive sorts of clauses stating (a) temporal
location of the LOGOS, (b) spatial localtion of the LOGOS vis-a-vis
God, and (c) identity (or predicated nature) of the LOGOS. (I don't
want to trigger the knee-jerk reactions we get everytime we discuss
John 1:1c over the precise nature of the anarthrous QEOS there; the
archives are chock-full of heated discussions of that question). On
the other hand, it seems to me that the two clauses of 1:3 set forth
positive and negative formulations of the same assertion: (a) the
LOGOS was involved generation of everything, and (b) not a single
thing came to be without participation of the LOGOS. hO GEGONEN
doesn't add anything to the proposition set forth in those two
clauses at all.
On the other hand there remain the two possible linkages of hO GEGONEN:
(1) if it relates to what precedes, then it may be that the perfect-
tense form affords a clarifying extension to the rather rare OUDE
hEN, so that CWRIS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE hEN hO GEGONEN might be taken
as "Not a single thing that has creaturely existence came into being
apart from him." That does make sense, I think.
(2) If it relates to what follows, we might see in the two
propositions of 1:4 a relationship more like that of the three
clauses in 1:1. I'd make it something llike this: "That which is
creaturely existence was life in him, and the life was the light of
human beings." it would be all too easy to get beyond what the Greek
text actually states here into expansive exegetical discussion which
I think is inappropriate. But surely "life in him" as an essential
feature of the creativity of the LOGOS is surely a major theme of
John's gospel.
So, I will continue to affirm the viability of both of the
alternative positions for the little clause hO\ GEGONEN. I think a
case may be made for each arrangement as making a statement that is
not inconsistent with Johannine style and Johannine conceptions. I
might add, I am somewhat astounded if ever I see any claim to have
arrived at a fully satisfactory and exhaustive interpretation of the
Johannine prologue.
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> I'm not really arguing the matter one way or the other; granted that
>> hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN is difficult, but on the other hand, hO
>> GEGONEN seems troublesome as a redundancy and a stylistic anticlimax.
>>
>> Carl W. Conrad
>>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list