Wouldn't it have been far more honest to have informed these readers that those "bits" (in your post Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:32 pm) were pertinent to your own reading of the construction, and not that "they are in fact pertinent to the construction" ?mwh wrote:I didn't post for your benefit, Isaac, since I know that would be futile, but for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with this perennial thread
Support this charge, whatever you mean by it.and your behavior.
And here we are on CARM all over again.Isaac Newton wrote:Support this charge, whatever you mean by it.mwh wrote:and your behavior.
Do you have an example from the GNT of what you're proposing at 1 John 1:1- 4 ? -- of a verb which governs it's own relative clause , and also governs multiple other relative clauses detached from it .jaihare wrote:And here we are on CARM all over again.Isaac Newton wrote:Support this charge, whatever you mean by it.mwh wrote:and your behavior.
I notice that you restrict the question to the Greek New Testament. Why not open it up to the rest of the corpus of extant Greek materials? Do you imagine that the NT is its own language as a complete whole? If so, why do you quote Smyth in the first place?Isaac Newton wrote:Do you have an example from the GNT of what you're proposing at 1 John 1:1- 4 ? -- of a verb which governs it's own relative clause , and also governs multiple other relative clauses detached from it .
Because 1 John 1:1-4 is from the Greek New Testament.jaihare wrote: I notice that you restrict the question to the Greek New Testament.
And also because we have close to 1700 examples of relative clauses in the GNT. If you can't find one similar example from 1700 , I fear that there is indeed something very wrong with what you're proposing . Very well.. But your example must be from the Koine -- you have the Septuagint, most of the early "church fathers", Plutarch and Polybius...Why not open it up to the rest of the corpus of extant Greek materials?
Because I had chanced upon it. Remember, I had already provided examples for the same from the GNT.Do you imagine that the NT is its own language as a complete whole? If so, why do you quote Smyth in the first place?
(a) Why is it "really odd" ?calvinist wrote:First, I apologize for resurrecting this thread from the depths of Hell, I've been away from Textkit the last couple years and after spending an hour walking through the pages of this discussion I want to add my two cents worth. I add to the general consensus of everyone else who commented on this thread that the reading proposed by Isaac Newton is forced and unnatural. The idea of constructio ad sensum here with λογος is just really odd. I won't say it's impossible, but the idea that John is trying to make some big theological point with the neuter relative is beyond absurd to me. Of course I'm a trinitarian, but this verse has zero theological import as far as I'm concerned; it's a simple introduction to a letter. Do I have a vested interest in the reading? minime, ουδαμως.
So you think the testimony of six or seven novices (mostly trinitarians, and ex-trinitarian sympathizers) is "broad consensus" ?Isaac, you've said that "numbers" don't matter, but I think in a situation like this the broad consensus does have weight.
Do you have an exact number in mind ? Could you tell us their "theological backgrounds" please ?Consider that of all the people on this forum who have weighed in on the topic everyone has read this text in more or less the same way although coming from different theological backgrounds.
What exactly do you mean ?Also, unless I'm mistaken, you are the only person on this forum who sees any theological value in this verse.
I'm not sure I'm following you...So, to conclude that thought, the one person who sees theological value and support for his own view from the verse in question interprets it in a way very different from the rest who see absolutely no theological value in the verse. That strongly suggests something to me, and it should to you also.
I don't know what that's supposed to mean but Pilate is clearly affirming in John 19:22 that he wrote the words Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων.. not literally perhaps , but he's certainly taking responsibility for writing these words.Lastly, you've said that ο γεγραφα, γεγραφα in John 19:22 has an antecedent. This is incorrect. The antecedent is not and cannot be "the King of the Jews" because Pilate didn't say that.
So you don' think Pilate was responding to their question ?John is narrating events, the Pharisees come up and say "Don't write 'the King of the Jews'..." and Pilate says nothing but "What I've written, I've written". In both English and Greek the 'what/ο' has NO antecedent.
It has a referent, yes, just as I would argue that the ο in the text in question has a referent, but not an antecedent.Your analysis is dead wrong.
John W. wrote:I admire and/or deplore your courage in resurrecting this thread!
Despite the risk of being stigmatised as a Trinitarian running-dog etc. (when I'm not even a Christian), I have to agree with all that you say.
One further point. I suppose few would dispute that John's most important statement about the λόγος is at the start of his Gospel. Having mentioned the λόγος in 1.1, in the next verse we have:[ b]Οὗτος[/b] ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Now surely, if John had wished to make the theological point which Isaac attributes to him, and if he was even half as keen on the (so-called) constructio ad sensum as Isaac claims, he would have done so here, of all places; yet, instead, we have Οὗτος in agreement with λόγος.
To my mind this - along with the other points which you have so ably summarised - tends to undermine Isaac's interpretation.
John
I’m not sure I’m following you. Could you say exactly what you mean by this question please?Isaac Newton wrote: (a) Why is it "really odd" ?
Explain exactly what you mean please. In exactly what preceding pages have you explained this?(b) Would you say the same about ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 governing the relative clauses in verse one ? To me this is far more "odd" than what I'm proposing (I've explained why in the preceding pages.)
I’m not sure I’m following you. Could you say exactly what you mean by this question please?
The consensus here (including yours) is that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 is governing the relative clauses in verse one.What exactly do you mean ?.
Start off with page one, my post to you... where I said the following, among other things:In exactly what preceding pages have you explained this?
Because if John wanted to make some major theological point he wouldn't do it in such a way that everyone has missed it for 2000 years. I've read this verse numerous times in Greek and never, ever, ever considered your understanding of it. But I get the feeling that you're going to say that it's because of the "trinitarian" Greek grammar I've learned. I've read quite a bit of Greek outside of the NT and my sense for how Greek works would never lead me to read this verse that way. That's why it's really odd, because it just is.(a) Why is it "really odd" ?
No. This has been covered. First, John didn't write verses, they were added centuries later. We use them for reference points, not as a measurement of language as you are doing. You seem to be saying that a verb must govern a relative clause in it's own "verse" or something absurd like that. Find a source that states how many "verses" can separate a verb from it's object and then maybe I'll agree with you, otherwise you're just making up "rules". Others have given examples in both Greek and English of a verb separated from it's object by just as much text; so absolutely not, it's not odd at all, it's how I naturally read the verse.(b) Would you say the same about ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 governing the relative clauses in verse one ? To me this is far more "odd" than what I'm proposing (I've explained why in the preceding pages.)
Very poor form, the people commenting on this page are obviously at an intermediate or advanced level in Greek. Are you a novice? What level are you at? Grandmaster?So you think the testimony of six or seven novices (mostly trinitarians, and ex-trinitarian sympathizers) is "broad consensus" ?
You just did, see above. But on a more serious note, I know at least three of them have openly stated that they don't identify as Christians. That means the term trinitarian does not apply to them. The term "ex-trinitarian sympathizer" is so loaded that it's about to explode from it's own pressure. If they say that they aren't trinitarians, then you need to accept that in good faith. Calling them "ex-trinitarian sympathizers" is akin to calling them liars; it's rude, disrespectful, and you now lose 10 points.Do you have an exact number in mind ? Could you tell us their "theological backgrounds" please ?
Very simple. According to you, we all have a theological ax to grind, and this would include YOU. Ok, I'll accept the general truth of that (less so with self-identified non-christians). But that doesn't mean that every single word or sentence in the Bible is contentious and distorted by our views, that's just absurd, and it's what you're implying. At the same time, you are implying that you have some God-like ability to rise above it all. With that in mind, it is very relevant to point out the simple fact that no one (except you) sees any theological value in this verse. Put another way, none of us (except you) really cares whether the neuter relative is pointing to logos or if it's constructio ad sensum. Speaking for myself, even if it's to be read with Newtonian grammatics as you've proposed then it still poses no threat to my personal theological views as a trinitarian. You, however, think it does challenge the trinitarian view. That means that the only person who has any vested interest in the reading of this text is YOU, and pairing that with the fact that you are the only person to read it in a different way suggests eisegesis very strongly.Also, unless I'm mistaken, you are the only person on this forum who sees any theological value in this verse.
What exactly do you mean ?
I'm not sure I'm following you...
First, "antecedent" and "referent" are not the same thing. An antecedent is a type of referent, like a dog is a type of animal. But saying that an antecedent and referent are the same thing is like saying that a dog and an animal are the same thing. They're both wrong and confused:It has no antecedent but a referent ? Aren't you aware that "antecedent" and "referent" are the same thing ? I think you mean to say that it has an implicit rather than an explicit antecedent ?
No, no, no. Garbage. John W made an excellent point. John 1 is the perfect place to make a theological point with constructio ad sensum. It would cause no confusion, that is an ad hoc attempt to explain it away. And if it's so dangerous to do it in the opening of John then why is it better to do it as the very first word of 1 John in such a contorted way that it's still unclear 2000 years later and one must be a Grandmaster of Newtonian Grammatics to understand it?Οὗτος is forced in John 1:2 because this is the first time that John has introduced ὁ Λόγος to his readers , so clarity of thought overrides the need for constructio ad sensum here . Had John used τοῦτο in verse 2 , readers might possibly become confused and look to τὸ φῶς as it's postcedent , for example .
Not everyone. Herbert W. Bateman for instance, a Trinitarian scholar, didn't miss it... to his great credit.calvinist wrote:Because if John wanted to make some major theological point he wouldn't do it in such a way that everyone has missed it for 2000 years.(a) Why is it "really odd" ?
Perhaps it's time to consider it ?!I've read this verse numerous times in Greek and never, ever, ever considered your understanding of it. But I get the feeling that you're going to say that it's because of the "trinitarian" Greek grammar I've learned. I've read quite a bit of Greek outside of the NT and my sense for how Greek works would never lead me to read this verse that way. That's why it's really odd, because it just is.
Actually, no example has yet been given on this score.No. This has been covered. First, John didn't write verses, they were added centuries later. We use them for reference points, not as a measurement of language as you are doing. You seem to be saying that a verb must govern a relative clause in it's own "verse" or something absurd like that. Find a source that states how many "verses" can separate a verb from it's object and then maybe I'll agree with you, otherwise you're just making up "rules". Others have given examples in both Greek and English of a verb separated from it's object by just as much text; so absolutely not, it's not odd at all, it's how I naturally read the verse.(b) Would you say the same about ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse 3 governing the relative clauses in verse one ? To me this is far more "odd" than what I'm proposing (I've explained why in the preceding pages.)
Typical novices.Very poor form, the people commenting on this page are obviously at an intermediate or advanced level in Greek. Are you a novice? What level are you at? Grandmaster?
Good.Ok, I'll use your terminology to prevent confusion. An "implied antecedent" is what I mean when I say "no antecedent", id est, there is no word/phrase/clause found in the text/speech that is functioning as the antecedent.
So you keep insisting.So when you say that the Ο Βασιλευς των Ιουδαιων in John 19:21 is the antecedent of ο γεγραφα γεγραφα you are dead wrong.
What exactly is this supposed to mean though? The Jews said to Pilate Μὴ γράφε Ὁ Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων... ("do not write the King of the Jews..."). Pilate replied with Ὃ γέγραφα, γέγραφα ("What I have written, I have written"). In other words he's replying somewhat to this effect -- "the words which I have written (i.e. Ὁ Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων), I have done so,... so stop complaining."The phrase is the object of the prohibition μη γραφε which wasn't even said by Pilate!
So then tell us what this implied antecedent is ?Now, in 1 John 1:1, the consensus of us poor, dumb, trinitarian-brainwashed novices is that the neuter relative has no explicit antecedent, say it has an implied antecedent if you will, but that seems to be confusing you. When you demand that we point out the words from the text that act as the antecedent you are suggesting that it must have an explicit antecedent, but it doesn't, and John 19:22 is a perfect example.
This is an example not of a statement with an implied antecedent but of one with no antecedent. Person B has no intention of telling person A what he did, i.e. what "what" is. Is this really what you think John is doing at 1 John 1:1 ?As far as the referent goes in 1 John 1:1, it's simply "that which was from the beginning, that which they heard, that which they saw with their own eyes...." That is the referent. Look at this example in English:
Person A: "What did you do last night while you were gone?"
Person B: "I did, what I did." (Feci, quod feci/ εποιησα, ο εποιησα)
What is the referent of "what"? Tell me, I demand you! That's the way we feel when you keep demanding we give up some word or phrase. To reiterate, there is no reason to demand that we produce a word or phrase that is functioning as the antecedent of o because in our view the antecedent is implied, that is to say, there is no antecedent in the text.
Sadly, this sort of [over the top] rhetoric seems to be the extent of your "arguments" so far. Why not challenge my arguments with some substance instead ?No, no, no. Garbage. John W made an excellent point. John 1 is the perfect place to make a theological point with constructio ad sensum. It would cause no confusion, that is an ad hoc attempt to explain it away. And if it's so dangerous to do it in the opening of John then why is it better to do it as the very first word of 1 John in such a contorted way that it's still unclear 2000 years later and one must be a Grandmaster of Newtonian Grammatics to understand it?
Lastly, I must thank John W and mwh for their service to the Sith Lord Darth Wallace and his apprentice Darth Mounce. The Rebel Alliance will soon be defeated and the trinitarian dark side will rule the galaxy.
I'm afraid that I cannot see how anyone reading the Greek text sequentially could possibly think that the referent of τοῦτο could be τὸ φῶς, which is not only not in an adjacent clause, but (in the text as normally punctuated) is first mentioned two sentences later:Isaac Newton wrote:Had John used τοῦτο in verse 2 , readers might possibly become confused and look to τὸ φῶς as it's postcedent , for example .
Yet you have no problem with going along with the idea that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse three governs the relative clauses in verse one .John W. wrote:I'm afraid that I cannot see how anyone reading the Greek text sequentially could possibly think that the referent of τοῦτο could be τὸ φῶς, which is not only not in an adjacent clause, but (in the text as normally punctuated) is first mentioned two sentences later:Isaac Newton wrote:Had John used τοῦτο in verse 2 , readers might possibly become confused and look to τὸ φῶς as it's postcedent , for example .
You seem to be arguing backwards. The idea that λόγος is an "Eternally Existing Person of the Godhead" was read into (eisegeted) John's prologue by the Gnostic "Christians" (or "proto-Orthodox" as Dr. Bart Ehram is apt to call them). So obviously the apostle could not have spoken out against what had not yet happened. This is not to say however that the author does not unwittingly betray his hand concerning whether or not pre-flesh τὸ φῶς (aka λόγος ) was a person in his prologue.Apart from the specific question of τοῦτο, I don't think you've really addressed my wider concern: if John had an important theological point to make of the kind you attribute to 1 John 1.1, would he not have found some way or other to make it here, in what is surely by far his most important pronouncement regarding the λόγος, rather than just in a later letter?
John
I'm afraid I fail to see the parallelism - the two cases are completely different in nature and construction. Greek can certainly have its constructional complexities; all I am saying is that it seems implausible to me that anyone coming across τοῦτο in the suggested place would have any reason to think it related to τὸ φῶς. Clearly we will have to differ on this.Isaac Newton wrote:
Yet you have no problem with going along with the idea that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse three governs the relative clauses in verse one .
I think you just shot yourself in the foot here, albeit unwittingly. You now agree that depending on "the nature and construction" of a sentence , a pronoun could be separated from an antecedent which is not only not in an adjacent clause, but is first mentioned two sentences later. You might not think this likely in a sentence like John 1:2 (assuming τοῦτο instead of Οὗτος) but others might disagree. Here's a simple test in this regard with a real life example. What is the antecedent of the masculine pronoun αὐτόν in verse 12 ?John W. wrote:I'm afraid I fail to see the parallelism - the two cases are completely different in nature and construction. Greek can certainly have its constructional complexities; all I am saying is that it seems implausible to me that anyone coming across τοῦτο in the suggested place would have any reason to think it related to τὸ φῶς. Clearly we will have to differ on this.Isaac Newton wrote:
Yet you have no problem with going along with the idea that ἀπαγγέλλομεν in verse three governs the relative clauses in verse one .
Joh
Brilliant!Paul Derouda wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2eUopy9sd8
So true, this discussion has brought to my mind this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7cPaul Derouda wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2eUopy9sd8
What I can see is that as soon as I asked John W the following question (relative to his οὗτος / τοῦτο argument at 1:2) , he conveniently disappeared , and the three of you started [re-]/trolling :calvinist wrote:So true, this discussion has brought to my mind this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7cPaul Derouda wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2eUopy9sd8
Some of us do actually have a life and commitments beyond posting on here, Isaac, but in your eagerness to see conspiracies and plots everywhere that explanation seems not to have occurred to you. I was going to let you have a considered response as soon as I had time to do so, but frankly, in view of your graceless comments, I really have no more time to waste on pandering to your paranoia.Isaac Newton wrote:What I can see is that as soon as I asked John W the following question (relative to his οὗτος / τοῦτο argument at 1:2) , he conveniently disappeared , and the three of you started [re-]/trolling :
What is the antecedent of the masculine pronoun αὐτόν in verse 12 ?
I've already shown that the relative pronoun here has an antecedent.Paul Derouda wrote:ὃ γέγραπται, γέγραπται
I've discussed this here, in the PDF that I created to directly answer your question. You have failed to engage what I wrote there time and again. I indeed responded twice to your position by writing entire articles for you to read. The other one is posted online here and deals specifically with the issue of anaphors and cataphors and how they relate to the designations of "antecedent" and "postcedent" in literature similar to this.Isaac Newton wrote:O.K., "intermediate Greek student", what is the antecedent (or else the postcedent) of αὐτόν in John 1:12 ?
Jameson believes that αὐτόν in John 1:12 does not have an antecedent but rather has a postcedent ( John 1:17 ,Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Who here agrees with him ? I want to hear from you.jaihare wrote:I've discussed this here, in the PDF that I created to directly answer your question. You have failed to engage what I wrote there time and again.Isaac Newton wrote:O.K., "intermediate Greek student", what is the antecedent (or else the postcedent) of αὐτόν in John 1:12 ?
I don't need you to speak for me. My articles can do that well enough. Thanks.Isaac Newton wrote:Jameson believes that αὐτόν in John 1:12 does not have an antecedent but rather has a postcedent ( John 1:17 ,Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Who here agrees with him ? I want to hear from you.
I'm not "speaking for you" though, but repeating your declared position in your "articles" and posts. I asked you the following question at Carm. on 03-06-15, 04:09 PM: "Is the postcedent of αὐτόν in John 1:12 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in John 1:17 ?"jaihare wrote:I don't need you to speak for me. My articles can do that well enough. Thanks.Isaac Newton wrote:Jameson believes that αὐτόν in John 1:12 does not have an antecedent but rather has a postcedent ( John 1:17 ,Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Who here agrees with him ? I want to hear from you.
Why do you put the word "articles" in quote marks?Isaac Newton wrote:I'm not "speaking for you" though, but repeating your declared position in your "articles" and posts. I asked you the following question at Carm. on 03-06-15, 04:09 PM: "Is the postcedent of αὐτόν in John 1:12 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in John 1:17 ?"jaihare wrote:I don't need you to speak for me. My articles can do that well enough. Thanks.Isaac Newton wrote:Jameson believes that αὐτόν in John 1:12 does not have an antecedent but rather has a postcedent ( John 1:17 ,Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Who here agrees with him ? I want to hear from you.
You replied with: "Oh, if that's the question, then I would say yes. It's nice that you finally asked an intelligible question without odd diatribes." (03-06-15, 04:10 PM)
It does not come as a surprise to me that you should keep replaying your error at John 1:12 ( just as you also , unfortunately, do so at 1 John 1:1). I'll repeat the correct answer once more , though I doubt that you will listen: αὐτόν in John 1:12 has an antecedent (τὸ φῶς in John 1:9), not a postcedent in verse 17.jaihare wrote:
And I would indeed say "yes" to that question again - though I don't need you to act as you speak for me. My words are public for all to see.)
Thanks for sharing that, jaihare, great article. I gather that you have a "history" with Mr. Newton.jaihare wrote:I've discussed this here, in the PDF that I created to directly answer your question. You have failed to engage what I wrote there time and again. I indeed responded twice to your position by writing entire articles for you to read. The other one is posted online here and deals specifically with the issue of anaphors and cataphors and how they relate to the designations of "antecedent" and "postcedent" in literature similar to this.Isaac Newton wrote:O.K., "intermediate Greek student", what is the antecedent (or else the postcedent) of αὐτόν in John 1:12 ?
You have never responded reasonably to either article.
I don't think any responsible person should be saying that about that article.. Calvinist, is it safe to conclude then that you agree with Jaihare -- that αὐτόν in John 1:12 has a postcedent in verse 17 (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) ?calvinist wrote:Thanks for sharing that, jaihare, great article. I gather that you have a "history" with Mr. Newton.jaihare wrote:I've discussed this here, in the PDF that I created to directly answer your question. You have failed to engage what I wrote there time and again. I indeed responded twice to your position by writing entire articles for you to read. The other one is posted online here and deals specifically with the issue of anaphors and cataphors and how they relate to the designations of "antecedent" and "postcedent" in literature similar to this.Isaac Newton wrote:O.K., "intermediate Greek student", what is the antecedent (or else the postcedent) of αὐτόν in John 1:12 ?
You have never responded reasonably to either article.
(a) I don't understand why you think "citing sources" at points 1 and 2 has power to prove anything .I gave you reasons for my assertions .calvinist wrote:Isaac, you ignored every single point I made and answered none of my questions. I will ask again:
1. Cite a source that says John couldn't use constructio ad sensum in John 1:2 (τουτο) because it would introduce confusion, or else I call that assertion pure fantasy.
2. Cite a source that says a native Greek speaker would read 1 John 1 the way you propose (λογος as the antecedent of o/ the ghost verb λεγω), or else I call that assertion pure fantasy.
3. What is the earliest reference of anyone seeing theological value in this verse via constructio ad sensum? It's the "natural" reading for a native Greek speaker, so we should find lots of discussion of it and early right? If not, I reaffirm that your assertion of it being the "natural" reading is pure fantasy.
4. Hypothetical: 10 Greek students unfamiliar with the text... How do they translate it? How many interpret λογος as the antecedent of o? How many insert the ghost verb "I say" in their translation? How many?
5. Are you uncertain about the reading/grammar/syntax of this passage? If so, where? If not, and you just want us to explain to you why we read it the way we do then you are merely looking to debate and this thread should be moved to the debate forum.
Very telling. You gave reasons. I reject them, so cite an authority besides yourself (someone with real credentials like a university position as a professor of Greek or a Ph.D.) or I call the assertion fantasy. So again, I will ask and I'll wait to see if you can answer my questions:Isaac Newton wrote: (a) I don't understand why you think "citing sources" at points 1 and 2 has power to prove anything .I gave you reasons for my assertions .
(b) The rest of your points (3,4 and 5) have nothing to do with grammar.
Unitarians do not believe bold above . This whole paragraph is in fact quite incoherent. Jaihare also writes the following:Since the αὐτόν is unambiguously masculine in gender and the nearest relevant noun that precedes
it is τὸ φῶς, it is argued that τὸ φῶς is the antecedent of αὐτόν. In order for this to take place, the “natural gender” of τὸ φῶς is assumed to be masculine and αὐτόν refers to this natural gender through constructio ad sensum (see below). The natural gender of τὸ φῶς (which is grammatically neuter) is derived from the fact that it is really referring to ὁ λόγος of verse 1, which is (grammatically) masculine. Thus, the natural gender of τὸ φῶς is really the grammatical gender of ὁ λόγος. Thus, when the text says that ὁ κόσμος δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω, it means that the world came into being through the light (it) and the world did not recognize the light (it). It should not be translated, according to this argument, in the way that the majority of translations render it, to say that the world came into existence through him (Jesus) and the world did not recognize him (Jesus). The purpose of this argument is to state that the αὐτόν here is talking about the light, an abstract existent, and not about the pre-incarnate Jesus, a personal being.
In fact Unitarians suggest the opposite of what Jaihare wrote in bold above. αὐτόν in verses 10, 11 and 12 is a masculine pronoun yet it refers to a neuter noun (τὸ φῶς, verse 9). We believe this proves (through the route of costructio ad sensum) that apostle John views τὸ φῶς in these verses as a "person" / "a personality", as a "him," -- a human person to be exact . Contrast this with verse 5 where the author refers to τὸ φῶς with a neuter pronoun αὐτὸ. The neuter pronoun (αὐτὸ) shows that in verse 5 (before τὸ φῶς became a human being) no thought as yet existed in the author's mind that τὸ φῶς was a personality of any sort, or else he would have used a masculine pronoun here as well.The motivation for taking ὁ λόγος to be another way of saying ὁ νόμος (= ה ָורֹתּ) then becomes clear, and in order to maintain the position that ὁ νόμος at this point was abstract (not referring to a person but to an unwritten text) one must not read αὐτόν in John 1.10 as referring to a person (to a “him”) but to a thing (“it”). Thus, we understand the motivation of those who would read the text this way. But, is it the right reading? Let’s keep going.