I started to respond to this yesterday, and didn't. I see that there's
still nobody tackling it thus far, so I'll offer an opinion.
>On Pages 258-9 of Murray J. Harris' *Jesus as God*, Baker 1992, Harris
>evaluates the interpretation of Augustine and more recently W.
>Bousset of John 17:3. The issue under discussion is the scope of the
>phrase TON MONON ALHQINON QEON. Augustine held that this phrase
>applied equally to SE and to IHSOUN CRISTON.
>
>Murray Harris does not think Augustine has much of a case. Harris sees
>the two objects of the verb GINWSKWSIN as SE and hON APESTEILAS in
>a parallel construction. He places TON MONON ALHQINON QEON in
>apposition to SE and IHSOUN CRISTON in apposition to hON APESTEILAS.
>
>Harris' analysis has a nice symmetry to it. Could it be wrong? Is it
>impossible to construe the syntax of the passage the way Augustine
>did? Is there any way that the phrase TON MONON ALHQINON QEON
>could apply to IHSOUN CRISTON?
I haven't read the Harris book, but I think the analysis of the verse as
you've given it offers the only the only reasonable understanding of the
intended sense. While there are many NT texts that lend themselves readily
to support of a trinitarian doctrine and that can be plausibly if not
certainly said to imply or state the divine status of Christ, one needs to
be careful not to read this assumption into a text where it is not
supported by the grammar.
I think this is not the place to argue for or against one or another
Johannine Christology or to return yet once again to the implications of
the EGW EIMI passages. I will, however, say something about the immediate
context of 17:3 and that 17:5 refers to the glory held by Jesus hHi EICON
PRO TOU TON KOSMON EINAI PARA SOI: "which I had in your presence before the
world's existence" (very precise and interesting formulation, isn't it? Not
PRO TOU TON KOSMON GENESQAI, as would refer precisely to the world's
CREATION, but prior to the world's EXISTENCE). The evangelist's Greek style
is not especially difficult, but it is certainly very careful: one might
suppose that PARA SOI could follow directly upon EICON, but the word order
we have _encloses_ PRO TOU TON KOSMON EINAI between hHi EICON and PARA SOI;
moreover, not only is the choice of EINAI over GENESQAI significant here,
but the choice of the "tense" EICON also quite deliberate. So, although in
the Prologue John has stated that the LOGOS is the instrument of creation
(1:3, 1:10), the point here is delimited precisely: not a role in creation
but the sharing of glory by Christ in the presence of God before the
existence of the world. So the glory of Christ in the presence of God is
asserted here very precisely, but it is NOT said (not here, at least) that
Christ and God are IDENTICAL. And that is true also, I think, of 17:3.
Let's cite the whole verse:
hAUTH DE ESTIN hH AIWNIOS ZWH hINA GINWSKWSIN SE TON MONON ALHQINON QEON
KAI hON APESTEILAS IHSOUN CRISTON.
Interesting hINA noun clause with its very modern Greek usage of the
particle plus subjunctive as the equivalent of a classical Greek infinitive
(GI{G}NWSKEIN). But surely the distinction between the SU addressed and
identified by the appositional phrase (SE TON MONON ALHQINON QEON) and the
One whom the SU has sent--Jesus Christ--is very clear. Noteworthy also is
the precision of the word order: the enclosure of the 2nd person aorist
verb between the constituent elements of the relative clause (hON ...
IHSOUN CRISTON). "Jesus Christ" functions HOW grammatically? We translate
into English making it the object of APESTEILAS and the antecedent of hON:
"... and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent"--but in the Greek the relative
pronoun implicitly contains its antecedent (something like EKEINON) while
IHSOUN CRISTON serves as an appositive to the relative clause (hON
APESTEILAS) exactly paralleling (as Harris noted) TON MONON ALHQINON QEON
as appositive of SE in the preceding phrase. So: Yes, the two phrases are
distinct--the sender and the one sent are distinguished as ones to be
"known" in what the evangelist terms ZWH AIWNIOS. The two are not
identified, but rather is it said that BOTH are known in "eternal life."
One could point back to the Prologue again to 1:18 QEON OUDEIS hEWRAKEN
PWPOTE; MONOGENHS QEOS hO WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS EKEINOS EXHGHSATO
for commentary on 17:3 and 17:5, and one could argue (as we have in times
previous) about the implications of MONOGENHS QEOS there, but the important
point of relationship beween 1:18 and 17:3-5 is that Christ is the one who
has ENABLED humanity to have a VISION of the unseen God, hINA GINWSKWSIN SE
TON MONON ALHQINON QEON.
I think then that Harris is right, that Augustine _eisegeted_ his view of
John's equation of Christ with God the father into his reading of 17:3,
where the real focal points communicated are the sending of Jesus Christ by
the only true God and the equation of eternal life with KNOWING both God
and Christ.
>postscript:
>Keep in mind that Augustine was probably reading the text in Latin.
>
>John 17:3
> . . . UT COGNOSCANT TE SOLUM VERUM DEUM ET QUEM MISISTI IESUM CHRISTUM
>Stuttgart Vulgate
The Latin actually reproduces the EXACT word-order and sense of the
Greek--to the point of making IESUM CHRISTUM appositional to the relative
clause QUEM MISISTI. The Latin text no more supports identification of the
two objects of COGNOSCANT than does the Greek support identification of the
two object of GINWSKWSIN. The conjunction ET here clearly links two
distinct objects (as opposed to ATQUE which might more loosely link to the
first item a second item that could be identical with the first.
I've tried to show that the evangelist was very careful in the Greek
formulations here. One might want to ask whether a linkage between the two
objects of GINWSKWSIN could have been made in such a way as to SUPPORT
Augustine's interpret. I can think of a couple ways this might have been
done in classical Greek and I suspect that these were still available to
the evangelist:
e.g. SE AUTON TE TON MONON ALHQINON QEON KAI hON APESTEILAS IHSOUN CRISTON
(where the intensive pronoun AUTON points the linking TE and KAI as showing
the two persons tightly linked. This would yield the sense (in English):
"you, the very one (who are) both the only true God and the one whom you
sent, Jesus Christ."
Another: SE hAMA TON MONON ALHQINON QEON TE KAI hON APESTEILAS IHSOUN
CRISTON.This would yield the sense (in English): "you, simultaneously both
the only true God and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."
Both of these seem very awkward to me, but I do think they are plausible
formulations that might plausible support Augustine's interpretation, which
I do NOT think is supported by the Johannine text as we have it.
Sorry to take so long in exposition, but it is easier to argue for an
interpretation of one's own than to attempt a demonstration of the error of
an alternative interpretation.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/