[B-Greek] John 1:3 hO GEGONEN punctuation
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jan 6 14:16:13 EST 2005
At 6:44 PM +0000 1/6/05, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:
>Quick question a JW friend of mine was argueing that hO GEGONEN in John
>1:3 actually belong in verse 4 according to older manuscripts. Such as
>Eusebius, and NA26 moved the relative clause to the beginning of verse 4.
>
>NET bible has an interesting footnote defending the current punctuation of
>it in verse 3, I was wondering if anyone has done any outside research on
>this topic and what conclusions did you fine.
>
>And does anyone have a good example of stairstep parallelism looks like.
Not to answer the stairstep parallelism here, but here's something from
Metzger's textual commentary on UBS4 that may be helpful, perhaps not for
solving but at least for appreciating the dimensions of this question.
==================
Metzger, Bruce M., _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_, 2nd
ed., 1994.
John 1:.3-4 OUDE hEN. hO GEGONEN {B}
Should the words hO GEGONEN be joined with what goes before or with what
follows? The oldest MSS (P66, 75*, Aleph* A B) have no punctuation here
and in any caase the presence of punctuation in Greek MSS, as well as in
versional and patristic souces, cannot be regarded as more than the
reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the
language.
A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene
writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took hO GEGONEN with what
follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian
heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to
be regarded as one of the ceated things, orthodox writers preferred to take
hO GEGONEN with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of
heretical use of the passage.
The punctuation adopted for the text is in accord with what a majority
regarded as the rhythmical balance of the opening verses of the Prologue,
where the climactic or "staircase" parallelism seems to demand that the end
of one line should match the beginning of the next.*1
*Note 1: for discussions in support of taking hO GEGONEN with what follows,
see K. Aland, "Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes. (Eine Untersuchung zu Joh.
1, 34)," in _Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor
of Kenneth Willis Clark_, ed. by Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs (=
_Studies and Documents_ XXIX; Salt Lake City, 1967), pp. 161-187 (an
expanded form of the study appeared in _Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, LIX [1968], pp. 17-209), and Ed. L. Miller,
_Salvation-History in the Prologue of John. The Significance of John 1:3/4_
(Leiden, 1989), pp. 17-44.
[On the other hand, however, none of these arguments is conclusive and
other considerations favor taking hO GEGONEN with the preceding sentence.
Thus, against the consideration of the so-called rhythmical balance (which
after all is present in only a portion of the Prologue, and may not
necessarily involve hO GEGONEN) must be set John's fondness for beginning a
sentence or clause with EN and a demonstrative pronoun (cf. 13.35; 15.8;
16.26; 1 Jn 2:3, 4, 5; 3.10, 16, 19, 24; 4.2, etc.). It was natural for
Gnostics, who sought support from the Fourth Gospel for their doctrine of
the origin of the Ogdoad, to take hO GEGONEN with the following sentence
("That which has been made in him was life" -- whatever that may be
supposed to mean),*2 It is more consistent with the Johannine repetitive
style, as well as with Johannine doctrine (cf. 5.26, 39; 6.53), to say
nothing concernng the sense of the passage, to punctuate with a full stop
after hO GEGONEN. B.M.M.]
*Note 2: Despite valiant attempts of commentators to bring sense out of
taking hO GEGONEN with wha follows, the passage remains intolerably clumsy
and opaque. One of the difficulties that standsin the way of ranging the
clause with EN AUTWi HN is that the perfect tense GEGONEN would require
ESTIN instead of HN (see also the comment on 1.4).
===================
Now here is the NET note explaining translation of the passage with hO
GEGONEN construed with what precedes and admitting that there's a problem.
================
The NET Bible ©1996 Biblical Studies Press
7tc (1:3) There is a major punctuation problem here: should this relative
clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest MSS have no punctuation (Ì66 Ì75*
Í* A B D). Many of the later MSS which do have punctuation place it before
the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (Ì75c C D L Q al). NA25 placed the
phrase in v. 3; NA26 moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a
detailed article 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 o} gevgonen (}o
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 them
were they attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility
that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original
reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the
emphasis which is built up there; while it also gives a terse, forceful
statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase o} gevgonen with v.
4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of
understanding v. 4 with o} gevgonen included `are almost impossibly clumsy'
(St. John, 157): "That which came into being--in it the Word was life";
"That which came into being--in the Word was its life." The following
stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John
frequently starts sentences with ejn (en); (2) he repeats frequently
("nothing was created that has been created"); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give
a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it
makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to
say that the created universe (what was made, o} gevgonen) was life in him.
In conclusion: The phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett,
Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown,
Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel
According to St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.
tn (1:3) Or "made"; Grk "that has come into existence."
=================
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list