John 1:10

[Isaac Newton]

Somewhat obvious .... I think it's safe to say that the antecedent of αὐτόν in verse 10 is τὸ φῶς in verse 9 ...

10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

Agreed?.. I've actually heard some people say "Jesus in verse 17."

[Markos]

I think it's safe to say that the antecedent of αὐτόν in verse 10 is τὸ φῶς in verse 9 ...

I don't disagree, but the masculine pronoun indicates that the light is personalized in Jesus.

[Isaac Newton]

Hi Markos,

I think it's safe to say that the antecedent of αὐτόν in verse 10 is τὸ φῶς in verse 9 ...

I don't disagree, but the masculine pronoun indicates that the light is personalized in Jesus.

Indeed...

The writer is using constructio ad sensum -- by referring to the neuter noun τὸ φῶς (verse 9) with a masculine pronoun αὐτόν (verse 10) . But in verse 5 he uses a neuter pronoun to refer to the same noun,.. no constructio ad sensum. Why ? Because in verse 10 the impersonal had become a person.

[Markos]

The writer is using constructio ad sensum -- by referring to the neuter noun τὸ φῶς (verse 9) with a masculine pronoun αὐτόν (verse 10) . But in verse 5 he uses a neuter pronoun to refer to the same noun,.. no constructio ad sensum. Why ? Because in verse 10 the impersonal had become a person.

χαῖρε, φίλε!

Well put. This is a case where the Greek grammar illuminates the theology, though usually is it the other way around.

[uberdwayne]

I think here that John is so convinced that the light is Jesus, that it spills out with the masculine pronoun "αυτον". It almost makes no difference at all weather το φως or ο Ιησους is the antecedent. If o Ιησους is the antecedent, then it may be so from his own mind and not from the following verses, because after all, it is the evangelist who is convinced and is convincing us that ο Ιησους φως εστιν.

[jaihare]

I think here that John is so convinced that the light is Jesus, that it spills out with the masculine pronoun "αυτον". It almost makes no difference at all weather το φως or ο Ιησους is the antecedent. If o Ιησους is the antecedent, then it may be so from his own mind and not from the following verses, because after all, it is the evangelist who is convinced and is convincing us that ο Ιησους φως εστιν.

Indeed.

[mwh]

Yes I agree. At some point after v.9 there seems to be slippage from the neuter to the masculine, i.e. from τὸ φῶς retaining its neuter gender to its being personified as (unnamed) Jesus. But it's not quite that simple, because αὐτόν is sometimes used as an alternative form of αὐτό, i.e. as neuter, esp. in koine and esp. before a word beginning with a vowel (the nu breaks the hiatus, cf. the "movable" nu in e.g. ηλθε(ν)). So throughout this passage, after the unequivocal neuters of 9, all the αυτον’s etc. could be taken as either neuter or masculine. There's an equivocality that's impossible to capture in English, which has to choose between "it" and "him." A rare phenomenon: the English inflection of personal pronouns (he/she/it) here surpasses that of Greek! But in light (no pun intended ) of αυτο in 5 it does seem most natural to read αυτον etc. as masculine. The manuscripts are remarkably consistent.

[Isaac Newton]

Yes I agree. At some point after v.9 there seems to be slippage from the neuter to the masculine, i.e. from τὸ φῶς retaining its neuter gender to its being personified as (unnamed) Jesus. But it's not quite that simple, because αὐτόν is sometimes used as an alternative form of αὐτό, i.e. as neuter, esp. in koine and esp. before a word beginning with a vowel (the nu breaks the hiatus, cf. the "movable" nu in e.g. ηλθε(ν)). So throughout this passage, after the unequivocal neuters of 9, all the αυτον’s etc. could be taken as either neuter or masculine. There's an equivocality that's impossible to capture in English, which has to choose between "it" and "him." A rare phenomenon: the English inflection of personal pronouns (he/she/it) here surpasses that of Greek! But in light (no pun intended ) of αυτο in 5 it does seem most natural to read αυτον etc. as masculine. The manuscripts are remarkably consistent.

Actually in verse 10 τὸ φῶς has become a human being, that is why there is a shift to the masculine [natural] gender ( αὐτὸν) in subsequent references to τὸ φῶς , rather than just normal (grammatical) gender agreement ( αὐτὸ) , as was the case in verse 5...In other words when the apostle is thinking of τὸ φῶς in verse 5 he's not imagining a "person," but in verses 10, 11 and 12 he is..

[mwh]

Certainly that's a tenable and perfectly respectable view, and I'm inclined to agree with it, but it misses the point I was making - that auton can be neuter, and accordingly there's built-in ambiguity as to gender. That makes it difficult or impossible to fix the precise point at which the reconceptualization occurs.

(Your insistence on "a human being" incidentally begs the tormented theological question of the humanity/divinity of Jesus, but that's a side issue, and I'm certainly not going there.)

[Isaac Newton]

MWH,

Certainly that's a tenable and perfectly respectable view, and I'm inclined to agree with it, but it misses the point I was making - that auton can be neuter, and accordingly there's built-in ambiguity as to gender. That makes it difficult or impossible to fix the precise point at which the reconceptualization occurs.

(Your insistence on "a human being" incidentally begs the tormented theological question of the humanity/divinity of Jesus, but that's a side issue, and I'm certainly not going there.)

Thanks for your thoughts. ...Could you please elaborate (bold above) ? I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.

In the peace of Christ,

[uberdwayne]

Hello MWH,

that auton can be neuter, and accordingly there's built-in ambiguity as to gender.

Thanks for posting, I'm finding your posts insightful and interesting! So with that being said...Are you asserting that αυτον doesn't just act neuter but is sometimes actually neuter? I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but if the later is true, I think there would be some rather large implications here. Do you have any sources that think the same as you?

[mwh]

Thanks to each of you for your friendly responses.

I'm not sure I'm capable of elaborating beyond my original post, coupled with my last. I did my best to explain there, and if there's anything in particular you don't understand I'll be happy to elucidate. But when I said auton could be neuter yes I did mean that it's a well attested variant form of auto. The standard dictionaries are not very good on this, though LSJ does say at the outset of the autos entry:

αὐτός (Cret. ἀϝτός GDI4976, al.), αὐτή, αὐτό (also
αὐτόν Leg.Gort. 3.4, al.), reflexive Pron., self:—in
oblique cases used for the personal Pron., him, her, it:
—with Art., ὁ αὐτός, ἡ αὐτή, τὸ αὐτό (also ταὐτόν), etc.

(I've underlined the relevant bits. That "al." covers a multitude.)

The only NT lexicon I have to hand is the Shorter Gingrich-Danker, which simply gives the neuter as the regular auto. You'd have to look at the bigger NT or koine ones for documentation, or papyrological grammars (Mayser or Gignac). It may be that auton neuter is not recognized as occurring in the NT - hey, it may be that auton neuter actually does not occur in the NT, but I thought it worth raising the possibility, since it's firmly attested before vowels in koine, perhaps merely as an orthographical variant. It doesn't actually make much difference to the passage in John, to my mind, since it's pretty clear that there's a shift from the neuter (fws) to the masculine somewhere along the way.

[jaihare]

Thanks to each of you for your friendly responses.

I'm not sure I'm capable of elaborating beyond my original post, coupled with my last. I did my best to explain there, and if there's anything in particular you don't understand I'll be happy to elucidate. But when I said auton could be neuter yes I did mean that it's a well attested variant form of auto. The standard dictionaries are not very good on this, though LSJ does say at the outset of the autos entry:

αὐτός (Cret. ἀϝτός GDI4976, al.), αὐτή, αὐτό (also
αὐτόν Leg.Gort. 3.4, al.), reflexive Pron., self:—in
oblique cases used for the personal Pron., him, her, it:
—with Art., ὁ αὐτός, ἡ αὐτή, τὸ αὐτό (also ταὐτόν), etc.

(I've underlined the relevant bits. That "al." covers a multitude.)

The only NT lexicon I have to hand is the Shorter Gingrich-Danker, which simply gives the neuter as the regular auto. You'd have to look at the bigger NT or koine ones for documentation, or papyrological grammars (Mayser or Gignac). It may be that auton neuter is not recognized as occurring in the NT - hey, it may be that auton neuter actually does not occur in the NT, but I thought it worth raising the possibility, since it's firmly attested before vowels in koine, perhaps merely as an orthographical variant. It doesn't actually make much difference to the passage in John, to my mind, since it's pretty clear that there's a shift from the neuter (fws) to the masculine somewhere along the way.

Brilliant. Danke schoen.

[Isaac Newton]

Thanks to each of you for your friendly responses.

I'm not sure I'm capable of elaborating beyond my original post, coupled with my last. I did my best to explain there, and if there's anything in particular you don't understand I'll be happy to elucidate. But when I said auton could be neuter yes I did mean that it's a well attested variant form of auto. The standard dictionaries are not very good on this, though LSJ does say at the outset of the autos entry:

αὐτός (Cret. ἀϝτός GDI4976, al.), αὐτή, αὐτό (also
αὐτόν Leg.Gort. 3.4, al.), reflexive Pron., self:—in
oblique cases used for the personal Pron., him, her, it:
—with Art., ὁ αὐτός, ἡ αὐτή, τὸ αὐτό (also ταὐτόν), etc.

(I've underlined the relevant bits. That "al." covers a multitude.)

The only NT lexicon I have to hand is the Shorter Gingrich-Danker, which simply gives the neuter as the regular auto. You'd have to look at the bigger NT or koine ones for documentation, or papyrological grammars (Mayser or Gignac). It may be that auton neuter is not recognized as occurring in the NT - hey, it may be that auton neuter actually does not occur in the NT, but I thought it worth raising the possibility, since it's firmly attested before vowels in koine, perhaps merely as an orthographical variant. It doesn't actually make much difference to the passage in John, to my mind, since it's pretty clear that there's a shift from the neuter (fws) to the masculine somewhere along the way.

That (bold above) would render it a non-starter , at least biblically...

[jaihare]

Thanks to each of you for your friendly responses.

I'm not sure I'm capable of elaborating beyond my original post, coupled with my last. I did my best to explain there, and if there's anything in particular you don't understand I'll be happy to elucidate. But when I said auton could be neuter yes I did mean that it's a well attested variant form of auto. The standard dictionaries are not very good on this, though LSJ does say at the outset of the autos entry:

αὐτός (Cret. ἀϝτός GDI4976, al.), αὐτή, αὐτό (also
αὐτόν Leg.Gort. 3.4, al.), reflexive Pron., self:—in
oblique cases used for the personal Pron., him, her, it:
—with Art., ὁ αὐτός, ἡ αὐτή, τὸ αὐτό (also ταὐτόν), etc.

(I've underlined the relevant bits. That "al." covers a multitude.)

The only NT lexicon I have to hand is the Shorter Gingrich-Danker, which simply gives the neuter as the regular auto. You'd have to look at the bigger NT or koine ones for documentation, or papyrological grammars (Mayser or Gignac). It may be that auton neuter is not recognized as occurring in the NT - hey, it may be that auton neuter actually does not occur in the NT, but I thought it worth raising the possibility, since it's firmly attested before vowels in koine, perhaps merely as an orthographical variant. It doesn't actually make much difference to the passage in John, to my mind, since it's pretty clear that there's a shift from the neuter (fws) to the masculine somewhere along the way.

That (bold above) would render it a non-starter , at least biblically...

What exactly do you mean by "non-starter"? Do you mean that this line of thinking shouldn't even have been suggested because it might not be the case?