The Greek in John 1:9

[Sleeping in EQ]

I have my interlinear out and I'm over my head in the Greek. Are there reasonable grounds for translating John 1:9 as something like:

"He is the true light that illuminates everyone coming into the world?"

Thanks in advance...

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I have my interlinear out and I'm over my head in the Greek. Are there reasonable grounds for translating John 1:9 as something like:

"He is the true light that illuminates everyone coming into the world?"

Thanks in advance...

I think you're on to something. It all depends on the antecedent of the participle erchomenon. Its form is ambiguous; it could be neuter singular nominative and thus go with "fos" (light), but it could also be masculine singular accusative and thus go with "anthropon" (man). The comma is of course an editorial insertion. As far as the text goes, I see no reason why your rendering wouldn't work.

It does seem that the usual reading which links erchomenon with fos is the more widely accepted one.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by All-American

I think you're on to something. It all depends on the antecedent of the participle erchomenon. Its form is ambiguous; it could be neuter singular nominative and thus go with "fos" (light), but it could also be masculine singular accusative and thus go with "anthropon" (man). The comma is of course an editorial insertion. As far as the text goes, I see no reason why your rendering wouldn't work.

It does seem that the usual reading which links erchomenon with fos is the more widely accepted one.

AA's right, as usual, with his grammar.

Interestingly, I always read it the other way, as illuminating the people who are coming into th world. The KJV: That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Either way, both the humans and the light end up in the world, I guess.

[Archaea]

Okay, tell me why you believe it to be a neuter singular nominative.

ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον

Because my sources show it to be masculine middle participle accusative, binding it to anthropon.

Again, I'm probably behind SEIQ on this one, so I apologize profusely. In fact, in all things intellectual, I am behind you three. It feels like a masculine middle participle in the accusative, even I suppose it could look like a singular neuter, but it just doesn't feel right.

Wouldn't you place erchomenon closer to fos if you wanted to emphasize fos?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Okay, tell me why you believe it to be a neuter singular nominative.



Because my sources show it to be masculine middle participle accusative, binding it to anthropon.

Again, I'm probably behind SEIQ on this one, so I apologize profusely. In fact, in all things intellectual, I am behind you three. It feels like a masculine middle participle in the accusative, even I suppose it could look like a singular neuter, but it just doesn't feel right.

Wouldn't you place erchomenon closer to fos if you wanted to emphasize fos?

Frankly, I like it better as a masculine accusative with anthropon. But the neuter nominative and masculine accusative forms are identical, and thus grammatically, it could go with either, and the reader is left with the judgment call of which it is. Proximity is one factor, as you note (though I've seen much larger gaps between participles and their antecedents before), while context and sense are others. Basically, which makes more sense, that the light gives light to every man as it comes into the world, or that it gives light to every man who comes into the world? Either could be right, and neither are wrong.

[All-American]

Editors of Nestle-Aland's text, for example, punctuate the sentence to suggest that erchomenon goes with fos:

ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

Editors of Nestle-Aland's text, for example, punctuate the sentence to suggest that erchomenon goes with fos:

I saw that, but I don't like it that much. However, I am at such a low rung, my interpretation has no merit, so I bow to the interpretation of you, SEIQ, Solon and Pelagius, and of course Chapel Hill if he were here.