From: Andrew Kulikovsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 01 1997 - 11:01:30 EDT
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, James H. Vellenga wrote:
> > From: "Paul S. Dixon" <email@example.com>
> > Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 00:13:15 EDT
> > Where should the punctuation period go in Jn 1:3, after hO GEGONEN, or
> > after OUDE hEN?
> > Wescott says, " It would be difficult to find a more complete consent of
> > ancient authorites in favor of any reading, than that which supports the
> > second punctuation; Without Him was not anything made. That which hath
> > been made in Him was life" (Wescott commentary).
> > Most modern translations (8 of 10, so far) favor, rather, the former
> > punctuation.
> > Westcott adds, "The difficulty in either case centres in the use of the
> > imperfect ("was life ..." "was the light ...") ... It is indeed by no
> > means clear in what sense it can be said: Life was in the Word, and the
> > Life [thus spoken of as in the Word] was the Light of men; or again: That
> > which hath been made was Life in the Word, and the Life [thus enjoyed by
> > creation in the Word] was the Light of men."
> > It seems to me the problem Westcott addresses is solved if we take EN
> > AUTWi as a dative of means or agency, paralleling the preceding DI' AUTOU
> > of v. 3. This would then make excellent sense, "What has come into being
> > through him was life, and the life was the light of men." Life, then, is
> > life that came into existence at the time of creation, life resulting
> > from creation. This life (hH ZWH; anaphoric article), in all its
> > glorious form, was the light of men, that is, this life was (and still
> > is, FAINEI, v. 5) the natural revelation testifying to all men of God's
> > glory (cf Rom 1:19ff).
> > I would appreciate feedback on this. Am leaving in the morning and will
> > be gone for five days. Will certainly look forward to the responses when
> > I return.
> > Sincerely,
> > Paul Dixon
> Two things strike me as a little suspicious about the otherwise
> "excellent sense":
> 1) The idea of an instrumental dative (EN AUTWi) with a person
> rather than a thing -- although it's conceivable that things
> are, as you say, coming into being _through_ him more as
> an instrument than as an agent.
Looking at Colossian 1:15-16, we see that Christ is indeed the agent of
Does this exclude him being the instrument as well?
Are agency and instrumentality mutually exclusive?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:35 EDT