[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