John 1:1-9

A place for teachers to create lessons and discuss pedagogical concerns specifically related to the lessons we are creating in this subforum. General discussions of pedagogy belong elsewhere.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3486
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

John 1:1-9

Post by Jonathan Robie » December 20th, 2015, 9:36 am

Here's a handout I used in Sunday School class:
john1.1-9.pdf
(65.47 KiB) Downloaded 155 times
Here's a worksheet on lookalikes that arise in John 1.
john1-lookalikes.pdf
(25.66 KiB) Downloaded 128 times
Any thoughts on the best way to adapt this for use on the forum? What additional materials do we need to help students actively listen, speak, read, and write? How do we produce them?
0 x


ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3486
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 1:1-9

Post by Jonathan Robie » December 20th, 2015, 9:47 pm

Should John 1:9 be taught as a periphrastic participle or not? I initially read it as a periphrastic, but noticed that is not the only possible reading.
ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.
Regardless, this is one sentence that could probably benefit by simpler forms of the sentence leading up to the original sentence.
  • ἦλθεν τὸ φῶς
  • ἦλθεν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν
  • τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον
  • τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον
  • ἦλθεν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον
  • ἦλθεν τὸ φῶς εἰς τὸν κόσμον
  • ἦν ἐρχόμενον τὸ φῶς
  • ἦν τὸ φῶς ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον
  • ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον
  • ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον
... with appropriate questions along the way to build and test comprehension.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: John 1:1-9

Post by Stephen Hughes » December 20th, 2015, 10:49 pm

ἐρχόμενον jumps between masculine accusative singular and neuter nominative singular in those simplified sentences.

The ὃ makes a major break in this sentence.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3486
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 1:1-9

Post by Jonathan Robie » December 21st, 2015, 12:56 pm

Stephen Hughes wrote:ἐρχόμενον jumps between masculine accusative singular and neuter nominative singular in those simplified sentences.

The ὃ makes a major break in this sentence.
To me, that depends on how you interpret this sentence. Regardless, in these sentences τὸ φῶς ἦν ἐρχόμενον:
  • ἦλθεν τὸ φῶς
  • ἦν ἐρχόμενον τὸ φῶς
  • ἦν τὸ φῶς ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον
  • ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον
That leaves the one that comes directly from the text:
  • ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον
If it's periphrastic, then it still says τὸ φῶς ἦν ἐρχόμενον, "the light which was coming" (neuter nominative singular). If not, then it might be saying τὸ φῶς φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, "the light enlightens every person who comes into the world" (masculine accusative singular). There are other possible interpretations. Regardless, the scaffolding should probably build to one particular interpretation, rather than bring in all of this complexity at this basic level of instruction.

Here's the Expositor's Greek Testament:
ἐρχόμενον has been variously construed, with ἄνθρωπον, with τὸ φῶς, or with ἦν.

(1) The first construction is favoured by Chrysostom, Euthymius, the Vulgate, and A. V[25], “that was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world”; or with Meyer, “the true light which lightens every man coming into the world was present” (ἦν = aderat). To the objection that ἐρχόμ.… κόσμον is thus redundant, Meyer replies that there is such a thing as a solemn redundance, and that we have here an “epic fulness of words”. But the “epic fulness” is here out of place, emphasising πάντα ἄνθρωπον. Besides, in this Gospel, “coming into the world” is not used of human birth, but of appearance in one’s place among men. And still further ἐρχόμενον of this verse is obviously in contrast with the ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν of the next, and the subject of both clauses must be the same.

(2) The second construction, with τὸ φῶς, was advocated by Grotius (“valde mihi se probat expositio quae apud Cyrillum et Augustinum exstat, ut hoc ἐρχόμενον referatur ad τὸ φῶς,” cf. John 3:19, John 12:46, John 18:37), and has been adopted by Godet, who renders thus: “(That light) was the true light which lighteth every man, by coming (itself) into the world”. If this were John’s meaning, it is difficult to see why he did not insert οὗτος as in the second verse or τοῦτο.

(3) The third construction, with ἦν, has much to recommend it, and has been adopted by Westcott, Holtzmann, and others. The R. V[26] margin renders as if ἧν ἐρχόμενον were the periphrastic imperfect commonly used in N. T., “the true light which enlighteneth every man was coming into the world,” i.e., at the time when the Baptist was witnessing, the true light was dawning on the world. Westcott, however, thinks it best to take it “more literally and yet more generally as describing a coming which was progressive, slowly accomplished, combined with a permanent being, so that both the verb (was) and the participle (coming) have their full force and do not form a periphrasis for an imperfect”. And he translates: “There was the light, the true light which lighteth every man; that light was, and yet more, that light was coming into the world”.
Here's ICC:
ἦν τὸ φῶς κτλ. The constr. of the sentence has been taken in different ways, and the ambiguity was noticed as far back as the time of Origen.2

(I) The Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions take ἐρχόμενον with ἄνθρωπον. The Light enlightens every man who comes into the world. But if this were the meaning, (a) we should expect παντὰ τὸν ἐρχόμενον rather than παντὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον; (b) these words are wholly redundant, for they do not add anything to “every man”; (c) the expression “coming into the world” is not used elsewhere by Joh_3 of a man being born (16:21 is no exception). This last consideration excludes also the rendering “every man, as he comes into the world,” apart from the fact that, although Wordsworth suggests it in his Ode, the idea of any special Divine enlightenment of infants is not Scriptural.

(2) It is better to take ἐρχόμενον with φῶς (so R.V.). Jn. several times uses the phrase “coming into the world” of the Advent of Christ (6:14, 11:27, 16:28, 18:37); and elsewhere (3:19, 12:46) in the Gospel Christ is spoken of as “light coming into the world.” And if we render “the Light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world,” the constr. of ἦν with the present participle as used for the imperfect is one which appears frequently in Jn. (see on 1:28 below). ἦν … ἐρχόμενον means “was in the act of coming.”

Westcott, while retaining this meaning, endeavours to combine with it the conception of the Light having a permanent existence (ἦν, the verb used in v. 1). “There was the Light, the true Light which lighteth every man; that Light was, and yet more, that Light was coming into the world.” This seems, however, to attempt to get too much out of the words, and on our view of the whole passage the meaning is simpler.

We are still occupied with Jn.’s comment (vv. 6-9) on what the Logos Hymn has said about the Light (vv. 4, 5). The Baptist was not the perfect Light, but he came to bear witness to it; and this perfect Light was then coming into the world. When Jn. wrote the First Epistle he could say, “The true Light already shineth” (1 John 2:8), but it was only coming at the time when the Baptist’s mission began. Jesus had come into the world, indeed; but He had not yet manifested Himself as the Light.
For a beginning class, I think it's best to pick one interpretation and leave this complexity until later. The scaffolding you choose depends on the interpretation you pick.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2734
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: John 1:1-9

Post by Stephen Carlson » December 21st, 2015, 7:50 pm

Aren't periphrastics in Greek usually stative rather than eventive? (Contrary to English.) I suspect it's a bit of a "false friend" phenomenon to translate them with the English progressive.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3486
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 1:1-9

Post by Jonathan Robie » December 23rd, 2015, 1:19 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:Aren't periphrastics in Greek usually stative rather than eventive? (Contrary to English.) I suspect it's a bit of a "false friend" phenomenon to translate them with the English progressive.
I'm trying to figure out a graceful way to say "was in the state of coming" in English...
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3486
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 1:1-9

Post by Jonathan Robie » December 23rd, 2015, 5:41 pm

Here are some language objectives related to this section of text, focusing at first on verses 1-5. Some work on these is already done in the handouts in the OP, others are not yet covered at all. Do these seem like the right language objectives for the following text?
1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· 5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
1. Lookalikes (see existing John 1 lookalikes exercise in original post of this thread)

2. Asking and answering questions (see handout in original post of this thread):

τίς: τίς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν;
διὰ τίνος: διὰ τίνος ἐγένετο πάντα;
ἐν τίνι: ὃ γέγονεν ἐν τίνι ζωὴ ἦν;
πρὸς τίνα: πρὸς τίνα ἦν ὁ λόγος;
ποῦ: ποῦ ἦν ὁ λόγος ἐν ἀρχῇ;
πότε: πότε ἦν ὁ λόγος πρὸς τὸν θεόν;

3. Gender: prepositions, articles, and nouns (need a volunteer to prepare this):

αὐτός: ὁ λόγος, ὁ θεός, ὁ ἄνθρωπος
αὐτή: ἡ ἀρχή, ἡ ζωή, ἡ σκοτία
αὐτό: τὸ φῶς

4. Prepositions and Case (need a volunteer to prepare this):

In this section, prepositions are the most obvious thing that determines case, so I would focus on them for now.

Accusative: ὁ θεός versus πρὸς τὸν θεόν, τίς versus πρὸς τίνα
Dative: ἡ ἀρχή versus ἐν ἀρχῇ, ἡ σκοτία versus ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, τίς versus ἐν τίνι
Genitive: αὐτός versus δι’ αὐτοῦ / χωρὶς αὐτοῦ, τίς versus διὰ τίνος
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: John 1:1-9

Post by Stephen Hughes » December 24th, 2015, 3:38 pm

John 1:1 wrote:θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Taxonomic hierarchies expressed by inclusion or non inclusion of the article.

Teacher's reference language
ἔπιπλον - ἡ καθἐδρα, ἡ τράπεζα, τὸ ὑποπόδιον
σκεῦος - τὸ ποτήριον, ὁ ἀσκός
ἄνθρωπος - τὸ παιδάριον, τὸ κοράσιον, ἡ γυνή, ὁ ἀνήρ
τέκνον - ὁ υἱός, ἡ θυγάτηρ
μἐλος (τοῦ σώματος) - ὁ ποῦς, ὁ βραχίων
νόμισμα - τὸ τάλαντον, ἡ δραχμή, ἡ μνᾶ, ὁ στατήρ

Do you have pictures for any of them? Presumably your congregation know and would recognise your kids. You can take a bottle and glass to class and you will most likely have some furniture in the room. You can use the cognate / derivative words for the types of doctors - "a psychiatrist is a doctor", "a pediatrician is a doctor", etc. and that shouldn't need visual aids. Animals (ζῷον) also have a number in Greek, which are similar enough to the Greek to be recognisable.

Basic pattern
ἔπιπλόν ἐστιν ἡ καθἐδρα. "a chair is a piece of furniture".

Extended pattern
μέλη εἰσὶν ὁ ποῦς καὶ ὁ βραχίων "the leg and the arm are both parts (of the body)"

The point is to learn the grammar, not the vocabulary. You should be able to work with short-term memory to get them to reproduce correct sentences, without learning vocabulary. The point is the use and non-use of the article.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: John 1:1-9

Post by Stephen Hughes » December 26th, 2015, 4:03 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:3. Gender: prepositions, articles, and nouns (need a volunteer to prepare this):

αὐτός: ὁ λόγος, ὁ θεός, ὁ ἄνθρωπος
αὐτή: ἡ ἀρχή, ἡ ζωή, ἡ σκοτία
αὐτό: τὸ φῶς
This is probably one of the three most important skills that need to be developed. To be able to point at anything and say the correct gender, would help every learner's fluency greatly.

None of the examples that you have listed except ἄνθρωπος are particularly photogenic. So, it is probably a skill that could be learnt in the context of the wider language, and then the skill brought back to the text.

Your students could point to things and then say their required demonstrative. That can either be in the immediate teaching environment or in pictures that you or they bring.

I suggest that for error correction, you don't use a simple binary, right / wrong error correction response, but rather "misunderstand" the responses according to the gender. E.g. If your student is pointing at picture of a scene including a mountain (ὄρος), but they say αὐτός rather than the αὐτό that they wanted to say, better than simply correcting or commenting, you could find something in the picture that IS masculine and "pretend" that they are pointing at that. Concentrate on what they have done and said, not on what you assume that they wanted to say. That may be οὐρανός "sky" for masculine, as the space directly above the mountain, or ὀρεινή "hill-country" for feminine being the idea of the mountain included in its context of other mountains. In that way it becomes a little like the game of giving clues and making you guess what they are trying to let you understand. That requires real-life complex pictures, rather than abstracted sketches, and perhaps you would need to spend the time on having an answer for all three genders for each thing pointed at, if that is possible.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3486
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 1:1-9

Post by Jonathan Robie » December 29th, 2015, 8:10 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:Taxonomic hierarchies expressed by inclusion or non inclusion of the article.
I don't think the Greek article expresses taxonomic hierarchies. I'd suggest starting another thread for this topic if you do and want to discuss it.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Post Reply