The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 152

" Defore Abm.h11,m WM [hBd come into being) ha, IIDllle into being in 1aim taa, life ; or, Uud I Btn." The conwxt here dooe not allow us tohich ha, come into being w11, (or ia) ZiJe in to e.fll.rm thRt St. John repudie.ted the prior him-for one manuscript, K, hns rendered cxietenoo of the 0;,,.71, stuff', of which ,rdv.-a the text more gramm11,tioal by reading lcr.-, were mBde. He does not 11,ffirm nor deny instead of ~11. 1 This, adoptin~ the supposed ,mch e. prior exist.ency or condition, but by early punctuation, Tregelles and Wostoott referring the univerae in all its p11,rts and items to the Logoa, ho absolutely ignores the 1 The authorities for this punctuation are Plntonio notion of eternal me.tter. He could thus given by Westcott and Tregelles: A, s~arooly be ignorant of the speculation as it c•, D, L, one manuscript of the Vulgate, ent.cred into the Philonic interpretation and though not Cod. Am. Some of the old formed the basis of the Gnostic speculations Latin manuscripts leave it without doubt. which were beginning to infest the early The Curetonio.u Syriac and some Egyptian Church. By gi ting, however, a Di tine origin Versions coincide. The FRthers seem to and instrument to the " becoming" of trdVTa, quote both modes of punctuation. Thus and strengthening his statement by the Origen gives it nine times o.s 11,bove and six negative co-assurance, he absolutely excludes times ns in T.R. Ambrose and Jerome, the dne.lism of Philo and of Gnostic ten- Hippolytus and Eusebius, recognize both denrJ·. In asserting that the Logos is he punctuations. On the other hand, the great or the.t through whom all things were m11,de, bulk of the later uncial mo.nnscripta and the writer does not lower the dignity of cursives give the "point" after '"· K, B, the Logos by rPgarding him merely e.s the cannot be appealed to for punctuation, op-yavov of the :Father, because the same pre- e.s they have none; but Tatian, • Ad. Gr.,' position is nsed of the relation of the Father Irenmus very frequently (Tregelles cites six to the world or to his sermnts (Rom. xi. 36; passages), Tertullian, Eusebius, and others Ge.I. i. I; Heb. ii. JO). Else'll'here SL Paul place the point after obo~ ,v. The "modem powerfuTiy affirms the same application of stopping," to use Canon Westcott's phrase, li«i. (I Cor. ,iii. 6) to Christ's part in the WBI! adopted by the school of Antioch, who Creation, rescning for the One God, the wished to make it clear that the Holy Spirit Father, the preposition be. Fram God and we.snot included among the .,,d,,.,.a. Chrysos- by or thro11gh God a.re all things, still " ell tom says that he will not put the stop at oJB~ things" deri'l'e their existence "through" the ;;,,, e.s the heretics do, who so.y, "' That which activity, the TI!l, the thought, of the Logos. bath become in him was life,' wishing to " The sphere contracts e.s the blessing speak of the Holy Spirit as a IC'T(uµa." This cnla.rges [query, 'intensines ']: existence passage seems to show that Chrysostom for everything ; life for ,eget.a.ble and attributed the punctuation in question to auima.l world; light for men" (Plummer). the heretics. He does not admit that the The same idea is mBde more explicit by the heretics could prove the reference to the negative form in which it is restated: and Holy Spirit, even if the punctuation was the without him-that is, independently of his true one. The quotation ma.de from Epipha- co-operation and ,olition (cf. eh. xv. 5)-not uius, 'Ancoratu:,' c. l.xxiv. and 1.xxv., shows even 1 one thing came into being. The i!J\.71 quite as much for the common punctuation. could hardly be spoken of e.s "one thing," Lachmann and Tregelles led the way in this seeing, according to the theory, it WR.B not a inlerpret.a.tion, and Dr. l.'tk,ulton agrees with unit 8.B opposed to a multiplicity, but the Dr. Westcott in adopting it. Liicke re- condition of all things. The J-y,v,-ro would oognized the antiquity of the punctuation, drive harder against II.DY recognition of the but found great difficulty in the construction. i!>..71 than would the ,v. There is not the He did not think that o~6, ,,, is weakened faintest approach to any supposition on by the 6 -y..-yov,11, e.nd says, justly, that the John's pa.rt of the existence of such a author could not have intended to say, "that primeval entity or eternal reality. The o that which had come into existence was the -y..-yov•" gives the student of the text and of Life or Light of the world." He thought the meaning grave difficulty. From very that the reassertion of the creative force of early times the Alexandrine Fathers and the Logos, as subject of the following sen- numerous uncial me.uuscripte, and an im- tence, would have been expressed by o. repe- mense group of quotations and versions, un- tition of the 6&' a.ti.-ou. Moreover, he urgeR questionably close the sentence we ha1·e just that, thouph John UBCB the fonn -ywlu8m, J,c considered with ;-y,.,,.-o ovo, ,.,, and consider and .r.,.., .,,, he never uses -y•11lu8a, lv in this the ii -yi-yov,11 e.s the subject of tlie following sense, and he decides age.inst the punctua- cle.uae, translating it either, Tliat which tion which makes 3 -y..-yov•v the subject of the next sentence. lu thi.8 he .he.s been 1 The reading oii3, z.,, of T.R. and R.T. confirmed by Godel., Luthardt, Meyer, La.age, Bt&nda on the authority of K, A, B, C, though M'Lellan, Alford, Tischendorf (8th edit.), D and some Fathere read oli3u. e.nd R.T. CH, I, 1-51.] 1'llE GOSPEL ACOORDING TO ST. JOHN. 9