John 1:1-5 punctuation

[Jonathan Robie]

NA28 and SBLGNT both place ὃ γέγονεν after the period in verse 3, as did Westcott-Hort:

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.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ...

Nestle 1904 and Antoniades1904 put it in the same sentence:

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.

Most translations seem to render it as in Nestle1904 and Antoniades1904.

Lumina's notes give this explanation:

There is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (Ì א* A B Δ al). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (Ì C D L W 050* pc). NA placed the phrase in v. 3; NA 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 ὃ γέγονεν (}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 the phrase was it 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 ὃ γέγονεν with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with ὃ γέγονεν 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 ἐν (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, ὃ γέγονεν) 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, St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.”

That argument makes sense to me. So why do the modern critical editions take it the other way? Is there a better argument for that approach?

[Jonathan Robie]

So why do the modern critical editions take it the other way? Is there a better argument for that approach?

I suppose one argument involves line length and the balance of sentences. In this version, the clauses are all of the same length and have the same balance and level of complexity:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει,
καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

In this version, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν stands out, it's longer and more complex than the other lines, and doesn't balance the same way when read out loud:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει,
καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

I don't see that as a strong argument, though.

[Jonathan Robie]

Metzger's notes in A Textual Commentary on the New Testament are helpful here.

The argument in favor of the NA28 / SBLGNT reading seems to be based on the writings of Ante-Nicene writers, who apparently saw ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν as a unit. He also mentions the "rhythmical balance", which I saw when I lined it out and mentioned previously.

Against that, Metzger says that this rhythmic balance is only found in a portion of the prologue, starting sentences with ἐν αὐτῷ is very Johannine, and καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν is more consistent with Johannine doctrine. This is the reading he favors.

Apologies if I'm wasting bandwidth thinking out loud ...

[cwconrad]

I'm not sure whether this question can be resolved without involving issues of theological implications and doctrinal history -- Metzger's note points to that; Raymond Brown's Community of the Beloved Disciple is speculative, but notably suggests three generations of growth of the gospel of John and that the writing of 1 John was intended to counteract some ways of interpreting the gospel. I no longer have a copy of Brown's commentary on John's gospel but that to is worth looking at with regard to where the questionable little clause belongs.

Some other points come to my mind:

1) I think the phrasing of both readings is awkward. I always thought, even before I studied Greek, that the phrasing, ".. and without him was not any thing made that was made" seemed somewhat silly. Of course, more accurately it's "and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being." Even so, the clause seems otiose.

2) ὂ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ construed with ζωὴ ἦν seems awkward phrasing too: is ἐν αὐτῷ adverbial with γέγονεν ("What has come into existence in him was life")? or is it adjectival (oddly positioned?): "What has come into existence is life-in-him")?

3) However awkward the reading with ὅ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῲ construed with what follows, it's not really any more awkward than the phrasing of 1 John 1:1-4 with its successive clauses beginning with the relative pronoun ὃ and a verb, where the antecedent of that ὃ doesn't come until we reach verse 3. In sum, we tend to speak rather glibly about the simplicity and readability of Johannine Greek. While more often than not Johannine Greek is simple and readable, there are some notable exceptions.

At any rate, as I see it, it's not so much a matter of one reading being clearly preferable to the other; rather it's a question of which way of reading it turns out to be the lectio difficilior?

[Jonathan Robie]

Thanks, Carl, I've gone back and read through most of these resources, this was helpful.

One thing I'm curious about:

At any rate, as I see it, it's not so much a matter of one reading being clearly preferable to the other; rather it's a question of which way of reading it turns out to be the lectio difficilior?

Is "the most difficult reading" really appropriate here? This is a matter of punctuation, not of textual criticism, and punctuation reflects interpretation.

For many sentences, I can think of a "most difficult reading" that is most certainly not what the author intended. In fact, that's where a lot of jokes come from - e.g. the more difficult reading of "I knew a man with a wooden leg named Sam" is the one that makes people laugh, but probably not what the original speaker intended.

[cwconrad]

Well, I guess I shouldn't have used that term (lectio difficilior) in this instance; what I intended to say was simply that the phrasing is as awkward and less than fully satisfactory no matter which of the alternative punctuations one chooses

[Stephen Carlson]

Is "the most difficult reading" really appropriate here?

I don't think so. To go off on a tangent, it's important to realize that, despite the brevity of the canon, the difficulty is supposed to be only at the superficial level of reading (presumably by a tired or hurried scribe). At a deeper level, the supposedly difficult reading should be better (presumably because the author put some thought into the expression).

[Jonathan Robie]

Is "the most difficult reading" really appropriate here?

I don't think so. To go off on a tangent, it's important to realize that, despite the brevity of the canon, the difficulty is supposed to be only at the superficial level of reading (presumably by a tired or hurried scribe). At a deeper level, the supposedly difficult reading should be better (presumably because the author put some thought into the expression).

I'm not sure I understand that second sentence. Can you say more?

[Stephen Carlson]

I'm not sure I understand that second sentence. Can you say more?

Only if it's prima facie difficult, on a quick reading of the text. The reading still has to fit the author.

From my book:

For instance, both authors and scribes attempt to produce a text that makes good sense, but the principle of the harder reading (lectio difficilior potior) assumes that authors and scribes make textual sense in different ways. In particular, a scribe’s correction usually appears smoother on the surface while the author’s form of the text fits better at a deeper level. (n. 55) In other words, the reading that appears harder to a scribe may, in essence, fit the author’s text better than what appears to be the easier reading. As a result, both the intrinsic and the transcriptional probabilities have to be balanced against each other to estimate which reading has priority over the other. By selecting the reading that appears relatively more authorial than scribal, the use of internal evidence attempts to establish an authorial text.

n.55: So HORT, 47: “It follows that, with the exception of pure blunders, readings originating with scribes must always at the same time have combined the appearance of improvement with the absence of its reality. If they had not been plausible, they would not have existed: yet their excellence must have been either superficial or partial, and the balance of inward and essential excellence must lie against them.”