G
gengwall
Guest
The Prologue in John (chap. 1 vss 1-18) has always fascinated me. One of the things that always intrigues me is: who are the male pronouns in vs. 7 and vss. 10-13 referring to. Everyone seems to accept they reference "Jesus" but grammar demands a more precise accounting. The pronouns must refer to some masculine entity we have already encountered, and Jesus has not been directly mentioned yet. Moreover, the most specific reference to the physical Jesus is "the light", which is neuter and would require a neuter pronoun when not referenced by name. Or would it...?
Here are my thoughts. I'd welcome others.
vs. 7 - Translations seem consistent that "him" is John the Baptist. But is everyone brought to belief by John? Vs. 8 also would seem to support a conclusion that "him" is John as the very next masculine pronoun in vs. 8 is most definitely John. But could vs. 8 be clarifying the issue for us. It seems a redundant verse unless it is helping the reader understand that the "him" in vs. 7 is not the "he" in vs. 8 but is indeed the "light" that is being spoken of. Could the "him" in vs. 7 be personifying the "light"? If so, are the references to "him" in vss. 10 - 13 then referring to the light? It would seem to me that makes the most sense.
vss. 10-13 - There seem only two possibilities based on the grammar: The Word and God. There are some pros and cons to each conclusion, but neither fits very well.
The Word has not been personified yet and so "in the world" and especially "into [his] own" seem unlikely states for it. Although vs. 14 might clarify this (the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us), it seems a new portion of text and not strictly related to these vss. Conversely, vs. 10 seems to naturally flow and be related to vs. 9, which speaks only of the light. Another strike against "him" in vs. 10 referring to the word.
God works well until vss. 12 & 13 which become confusing to say the least if the masculine pronouns refer to God and yet God is mentioned also by name. (BTW this is a perspective taken by many Unitarians).
Is it possible that the masculine pronouns refer to the light which was possibly personified as a male in vs. 7? The light is mentioned in the previous verse to this section and this could be seen as an extension of that verse. But "light" is neuter and therefore would require neuter pronouns...unless it was personified as masculine in vs. 7.
Vs. 10 makes assignment of the masculine pronoun especially tricky. The "light" (the Messiah) makes the most sense for the masculine pronoun except that it is hard to accept the human "light" creating the world. Some possibilities.
1. Are we looking at "the world" (Greek kosmos) incorrectly? Could it be referring to simply mankind or the new order that Christ is made the head of? John is the most prolific user of the term "the world" and almost always uses it to refer to the community of sinful man. It certainly does not refer to "all" creation and does not probably even refer to the physical earth as referenced in the Genesis creation account. But it also does not refer to any new order. It seems the typical Johanine reference is the most likely - mankind or sinful mankind. This still doesn't lend support to "him" being the light.
2. Could "dia" be translated here to mean "for" instead of "by", making the reading "and the world was created for him" (BTW another Unitarian approach). My reading and research indicate the grammar does not support this. It is also not supported for the common Johanine meaning of "the world" ("and the sinful community of mankind was created for the light"??? I don't think so).
3. "egeneto" (rendered "made" or "created") is not correctly translated? That is not likely, especially in light of the fact that the grammar is identical to vs. 3 and in that verse the word clearly means "made" or "created" or "brought into being". This word can mean "was done" or "was completed" or "was finished" which would make more sense (e.g. "the world was completed by him"), but I can't find a grammatical justification for that. Looking at occurrences of this word to support this translation does not provide much hope. Still, it is a possibility that would make more sense. It can also be translated "was fulfilled" which would really make sense but John never uses it this way anywhere else. At any rate, the common translation "was made" is the best supported, especially by several other occurrences with the same grammar in the same section (vss. 3, 14).
So, that leaves us in a quandary. There are significant problems with assignment of the masculine pronouns in vss. 10-13 to any of the possible masculine or pseudo masculine entities they could possibly go with. My inclination is to believe it refers to the light and I continue to search for a better understanding of vs. 10.
Here are my thoughts. I'd welcome others.
vs. 7 - Translations seem consistent that "him" is John the Baptist. But is everyone brought to belief by John? Vs. 8 also would seem to support a conclusion that "him" is John as the very next masculine pronoun in vs. 8 is most definitely John. But could vs. 8 be clarifying the issue for us. It seems a redundant verse unless it is helping the reader understand that the "him" in vs. 7 is not the "he" in vs. 8 but is indeed the "light" that is being spoken of. Could the "him" in vs. 7 be personifying the "light"? If so, are the references to "him" in vss. 10 - 13 then referring to the light? It would seem to me that makes the most sense.
vss. 10-13 - There seem only two possibilities based on the grammar: The Word and God. There are some pros and cons to each conclusion, but neither fits very well.
The Word has not been personified yet and so "in the world" and especially "into [his] own" seem unlikely states for it. Although vs. 14 might clarify this (the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us), it seems a new portion of text and not strictly related to these vss. Conversely, vs. 10 seems to naturally flow and be related to vs. 9, which speaks only of the light. Another strike against "him" in vs. 10 referring to the word.
God works well until vss. 12 & 13 which become confusing to say the least if the masculine pronouns refer to God and yet God is mentioned also by name. (BTW this is a perspective taken by many Unitarians).
Is it possible that the masculine pronouns refer to the light which was possibly personified as a male in vs. 7? The light is mentioned in the previous verse to this section and this could be seen as an extension of that verse. But "light" is neuter and therefore would require neuter pronouns...unless it was personified as masculine in vs. 7.
Vs. 10 makes assignment of the masculine pronoun especially tricky. The "light" (the Messiah) makes the most sense for the masculine pronoun except that it is hard to accept the human "light" creating the world. Some possibilities.
1. Are we looking at "the world" (Greek kosmos) incorrectly? Could it be referring to simply mankind or the new order that Christ is made the head of? John is the most prolific user of the term "the world" and almost always uses it to refer to the community of sinful man. It certainly does not refer to "all" creation and does not probably even refer to the physical earth as referenced in the Genesis creation account. But it also does not refer to any new order. It seems the typical Johanine reference is the most likely - mankind or sinful mankind. This still doesn't lend support to "him" being the light.
2. Could "dia" be translated here to mean "for" instead of "by", making the reading "and the world was created for him" (BTW another Unitarian approach). My reading and research indicate the grammar does not support this. It is also not supported for the common Johanine meaning of "the world" ("and the sinful community of mankind was created for the light"??? I don't think so).
3. "egeneto" (rendered "made" or "created") is not correctly translated? That is not likely, especially in light of the fact that the grammar is identical to vs. 3 and in that verse the word clearly means "made" or "created" or "brought into being". This word can mean "was done" or "was completed" or "was finished" which would make more sense (e.g. "the world was completed by him"), but I can't find a grammatical justification for that. Looking at occurrences of this word to support this translation does not provide much hope. Still, it is a possibility that would make more sense. It can also be translated "was fulfilled" which would really make sense but John never uses it this way anywhere else. At any rate, the common translation "was made" is the best supported, especially by several other occurrences with the same grammar in the same section (vss. 3, 14).
So, that leaves us in a quandary. There are significant problems with assignment of the masculine pronouns in vss. 10-13 to any of the possible masculine or pseudo masculine entities they could possibly go with. My inclination is to believe it refers to the light and I continue to search for a better understanding of vs. 10.