From: Andrew Kulikovsky (anku@celsiustech.se)
Date: Wed Oct 01 1997 - 11:01:30 EDT
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, James H. Vellenga wrote:
>
> > From: "Paul S. Dixon" <dixonps@juno.com>
> > Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 00:13:15 EDT
> >
> > Where should the punctuation period go in Jn 1:3, after hO GEGONEN, or
> > after OUDE hEN?
> >
> > Wescott says, " It would be difficult to find a more complete consent of
> > ancient authorites in favor of any reading, than that which supports the
> > second punctuation; Without Him was not anything made. That which hath
> > been made in Him was life" (Wescott commentary).
> >
> > Most modern translations (8 of 10, so far) favor, rather, the former
> > punctuation.
> >
> > Westcott adds, "The difficulty in either case centres in the use of the
> > imperfect ("was life ..." "was the light ...") ... It is indeed by no
> > means clear in what sense it can be said: Life was in the Word, and the
> > Life [thus spoken of as in the Word] was the Light of men; or again: That
> > which hath been made was Life in the Word, and the Life [thus enjoyed by
> > creation in the Word] was the Light of men."
> >
> > It seems to me the problem Westcott addresses is solved if we take EN
> > AUTWi as a dative of means or agency, paralleling the preceding DI' AUTOU
> > of v. 3. This would then make excellent sense, "What has come into being
> > through him was life, and the life was the light of men." Life, then, is
> > life that came into existence at the time of creation, life resulting
> > from creation. This life (hH ZWH; anaphoric article), in all its
> > glorious form, was the light of men, that is, this life was (and still
> > is, FAINEI, v. 5) the natural revelation testifying to all men of God's
> > glory (cf Rom 1:19ff).
> >
> > I would appreciate feedback on this. Am leaving in the morning and will
> > be gone for five days. Will certainly look forward to the responses when
> > I return.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Paul Dixon
> >
> >
> Two things strike me as a little suspicious about the otherwise
> "excellent sense":
>
> 1) The idea of an instrumental dative (EN AUTWi) with a person
> rather than a thing -- although it's conceivable that things
> are, as you say, coming into being _through_ him more as
> an instrument than as an agent.
>
Looking at Colossian 1:15-16, we see that Christ is indeed the agent of
creation.
Does this exclude him being the instrument as well?
Are agency and instrumentality mutually exclusive?
cheers,
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:35 EDT