Baylor Handbook Question

Christian Alexander

I own Murray Harris' Exegetical Greek Guide to the NT volume on John and want to know if anyone who owns Novakovic's volume on John in the Baylor Handbook can excerpt a section from John 1:1-18 to compare. 

Don Awalt

Certainly...here is John 1:1-5:

1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ. Temporal. The article is often omitted in prepositional phrases that designate time (BDF §255.3; Robertson, 791). Since this PP is most likely an allusion to ἐν ἀρχῇ in LXX Gen 1:1, the anarthrous ἀρχῇ is definite (“in [the] beginning”; cf. Porter 1994, 105), referring to the beginning of the creation (see 1:3). In this clause, Ἐν ἀρχῇ is fronted as a temporal frame, which establishes an explicit frame of reference for the first declaration about ὁ λόγος, the main topic of the prologue (Runge 2010, 210–11).

ἦν. Impf act ind 3rd sg εἰμί. Because Greek does not distinguish between the imperfect and the aorist verb forms of εἰμί, ἦν is “aspectually vague” (Porter 1989, 443). The combination of the stative ἦν and the temporal PP Ἐν ἀρχῇ referring to “a point of time at the beginning of a duration” suggests the Word’s preexistence: “before the world was created, the Word (already) existed” (LN 67.65).

ὁ λόγος. Nominative subject of ἦν. According to the method for determining the subjects in clauses in which two nouns are linked with an equative verb devised by McGaughy (36–54), if one substantive is articular and another anarthrous, as here, the noun that has the article is the subject, and the anarthrous substantive is the predicate nominative.

καὶ. Coordinating conjunction.

ὁ λόγος. Nominative subject of ἦν. Fronted as a topical frame. According to Runge, “The two primary uses of topical frames are: to highlight the introduction of a new participant or topic, or to draw attention to a change in topics” (2010, 210). In this clause (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν), ὁ λόγος, which is introduced in the previous clause (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος), is placed in a fronted frame of reference to highlight its status as the main topic of the prologue (211).

ἦν. Impf act ind 3rd sg εἰμί.

πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Association (LN 89.112). In this PP, the force of πρός, a preposition of motion, is overridden by the stative verb εἰμί (Wallace 1996, 359). Porter, however, rightly notes that the usual translation (“with God”) “does not do full justice to this use of the preposition to mean face-to-face presence” (1994, 173). If one understands πρός + accusative as an equivalent to παρά + dative after εἶναι, then the PP denotes position, that is, punctiliar rest (cf. Mark 6:3//Matt 13:56; Mark 9:19//Luke 9:41; 1 John 1:2; cf. Harris 2012, 191), which could be translated in the local sense, such as “in God’s presence” (REB; Brown, 1:3) or “by the side of God” (Cassirer). But if one agrees with Robertson that “[t]he accusative with πρός is not indeed exactly what the locative would be, especially with persons” (625), then the PP conveys the relationship between ὁ λόγος and ὁ θεὸς, implying “a certain reciprocity of fellowship” (Harris 2012, 192). To express this dynamic sense of πρός, I have adopted Harris’ (190) translation of this phrase: “in fellowship with God.”

καὶ. Coordinating conjunction.

θεὸς. Predicate nominative. Fronted for emphasis. According to Colwell’s rule, “[d] efinite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article” (20). Consequently, “a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun” (20). Colwell’s rule, however, cannot establish the definiteness of predicate nominative (Porter 1994, 109). It establishes only that the definiteness of a preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative cannot be excluded a priori, i.e., it establishes what cannot be claimed rather than what can be claimed. For example, Colwell’s rule shows that θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος cannot be translated “the Word was divine” (Goodspeed; Moffatt) or “the Word was a god” (NWT) simply on the basis of the absence of the article before θεὸς, but it does not show that θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is equivalent to ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός (Wallace 1996, 257). In subsequent publications, Harner and Dixon have argued that the anarthrous preverbal predicate nominatives are usually qualitative, rather than definite or indefinite. Wallace summarizes the insights of Colwell, Harner, and Dixon into a general rule: “An anarthrous preverbal PN [predicate nominative] is normally qualitative, sometimes definite, and only rarely indefinite” (262). Thus, the arguments for the definitiveness of θεὸς in 1:1 are usually based on a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule (267–68). Wallace’s (269) own proposal that “[t]he most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative,” expressing the divine essence of the Word while distinguishing him from the person of the Father, seems to me quite plausible because it is consistent with Jesus’ claims in the FG that he and the Father are one (10:30; 17:11, 21, 22) yet distinct from one another. If so, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is not a convertible proposition that presumes complete interchangeability between the subject and the predicate nominative comparable to a mathematical equation. Rather, “a subset proposition is envisioned here. The λόγος belongs to the larger category known as θεός” (45) because, as Louw and Nida rightly point out, “[o] ne can … translate ‘the Word was God’ but not ‘God was the Word’ ” (LN 58.67). Robertson (767–68) remarks that a statement “ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (convertible terms) would have been Sabellianism.”

ἦν. Impf act ind 3rd sg εἰμί.

ὁ λόγος. Nominative subject of ἦν.

1:2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

οὗτος. Nominative subject of ἦν. Fronted as a topical frame. οὗτος refers to ὁ λόγος from the previous verse. The demonstrative pronoun functions as a third-person singular personal pronoun with a simple anaphoric force (Wallace 1996, 328–29).

ἦν. Impf act ind 3rd sg εἰμί.

ἐν ἀρχῇ. Temporal (see 1:1).

πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Association (see 1:1).

1:3 πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν

πάντα. Nominative subject of ἐγένετο. Fronted as a topical frame.

διʼ αὐτοῦ. Secondary (intermediate) agency. This formulation suggests that the primary (ultimate) agent of creation is God (Wallace 1996, 434).

ἐγένετο. Aor mid ind 3rd sg γίνομαι. This is the first aorist in the FG, which is juxtaposed to four imperfects of εἰμί in the previous two verses. “While this aorist refers to the ‘act’ of creation, the imperfect points back to its ‘background’ or, in other words, to a state ‘before’ creation” (Frey 2018, 80).

καὶ. Coordinating conjunction.

χωρὶς αὐτοῦ. Separation. Fronted as a topical frame. χωρίς (“without,” “apart from”) is an improper preposition. The main distinction between improper and proper prepositions is that the former cannot be prefixed to verb forms. When they are used in prepositional phrases, as here, improper prepositions function in the same way as proper prepositions (Porter 1994, 140).

ἐγένετο. Aor mid ind 3rd sg γίνομαι.

οὐδὲ. A combination of the negative particle οὐ and the postpositive conjunction δέ (LN 69.7). It negates ἕν. οὐδὲ ἕν is equivalent to οὐδέν (attested in 𝔓⁶⁶ א* D f¹ Cl^exThd), but it is more emphatic (Robertson, 750–51).

ἕν. Nominative subject of ἐγένετο.

ὃ. Nominative subject of γέγονεν. The relative pronoun ὃ introduces a relative clause whose function depends on the punctuation of the Greek text, which is absent in the oldest manuscripts of the FG (𝔓^66.75 א* A . NA²⁸/UBS⁵ and SBLGNT have the full stop after ἕν, indicating that the headless relative clause, in its entirety, should be seen as the subject of the sentence that continues in v. 4a: ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν (“what has come into being in him was life” [NRSV]). If the full stop is put after γέγονεν, however, the relative clause is not headless but modifies ἕν, resulting in a somewhat smoother syntax and translation (“and without him was not any thing made that was made” [ESV; KJV; cf. LEB; NIV]). While the punctuation of the text remains an open question, I am more persuaded by Metzger’s arguments (167–68) in his dissenting opinion from the UBS committee’s decision, which favors taking ὃ γέγονεν with the preceding sentence, such as “John’s fondness for beginning a sentence or clause with ἐν 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.)” and “Johannine doctrine (cf. 5:26, 39; 6:53).”

γέγονεν. Prf act ind 3rd sg γίνομαι. The verb form marks a shift from the acts of creation, conveyed through the repeated use of the aorist ἐγένετο, to the state of creation, expressed through the perfect-tense γέγονεν (Porter 1989, 261).

1:4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

ἐν αὐτῷ. Locative. Fronted as a topical frame.

ζωὴ. Nominative subject of ἦν. Fronted for emphasis.

ἦν. Impf act ind 3rd sg εἰμί. The present-tense variant ἐστιν is attested by א D it vg^mss et al., but this is most likely the result of an effort to solve the difficulty created by taking ὃ γέγονεν from v. 3 as the subject of ἦν. Moreover, the imperfect is required by the presence of the second ἦν in the clause that follows (Metzger, 168).

καὶ. Coordinating conjunction.

ἡ ζωὴ. Nominative subject of ἦν. Fronted as a topical frame. The article is anaphoric. When both substantives linked by an equative verb are articular, the one mentioned first is the subject (Porter 1994, 109; Wallace 1996, 44).

ἦν. Impf act ind 3rd sg εἰμί.

τὸ φῶς. Predicate nominative.

τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Objective genitive qualifying φῶς.

1:5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

καὶ. Coordinating conjunction.

τὸ φῶς. Nominative subject of φαίνει. Fronted as a topical frame.

ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ. Locative.

φαίνει. Pres act ind 3rd sg φαίνω. The verb stands in final, emphatic position.

καὶ. Coordinating conjunction. This is usually regarded as an adversative καί (Harris 2015, 24), but the adversative sense is not a special function of καί but an observation about the semantic relationship of two clauses joined by καί (Moule, 178). As Runge (2010, 23–27) explains, the basic function of καί is to join two items (individual words, phrases, or clauses) of equal status. “The labels adversative and connective may be helpful in determining an English translation, but they cause confusion when it comes to understanding the function of καί in Greek” (23).

ἡ σκοτία. Nominative subject of κατέλαβεν. Fronted as a topical frame.

αὐτὸ. Accusative direct object of κατέλαβεν.

οὐ. Negative particle normally used with indicative verbs.

κατέλαβεν. Aor act ind 3rd sg καταλαμβάνω. The verb stands in final, emphatic position. In this context, καταλαμβάνω could mean either “to overcome, to gain control of” (LN 37.19) or, in a figurative extension of the verb’s meaning, “to come to understand something which was not understood or perceived previously” (LN 32.18). A third option is that this is a deliberate double entendre typical for the FG (32.18; Moule, 197).