The Great Commentary (vol. 5): S. John's Gospel: Chaps. I-XI

Description

The double-negative of Jn 1:3. ("… sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est ") has always bothered me.

Fr. Cornelius explained it very well in the preface to his commentary on St. John's Gospel:

14. John, after the Hebrew idiom, asserts and confirms over again what he had already asserted, by a denial of the contrary. This is especially the case when the subject matter is of importance, and is doubted about by many, so that it requires strong confirmation. Thus in 1:20, when John the Baptist is asked by the Jews if he were the Christ, he confessed, and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ. And in 1:3, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.

I really like this Hebrew idiom / mnemonic!

Why not simply say He made everything?

He does: "Omnia per ipsum facta sunt "!

Dominus sit illuminatio nostra.

Dominus tecum.

It does indeed mean “He has made everything.”

But again, one needs to appreciate the considerable gap between our cultural situation and Saint John’s Prologue, which is a very technically woven oral text , the Aramaic fabric of which is thoroughly designed for memorization (as I had previously pointed out). The wording (the choice of domino-like Semitic prefixes and suffixes “stapled” with such keen mastery of the language), the built-in rhythmic schemes (the harmonic configuration of the text), the multiple mnemonic devices, the syntax, everything is intended as an exactly memorizable catechesis of the highest order (to be learned on a three-year cycle), one replete with hidden treasures to disclose themselves to the assiduous talmida.

Here is the clause from the original verse in square Aramaic:

(1) אפלא חדא הות מדם דהו

Here is how it would go if we wanted to more closely render (1) into Latin:

“… et sine ipso factum est [nihil], ne quidem nihil.” (2)

instead of:

“… et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est.”

And here is what (1) and (2) more literally sound like, rendering them into English:

“… and without Him was made not even a nothing.” (3)

Tecum מלתא דאלהא.

Today I realized that "sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est " (Jn. 1:3) is not a needless double-negative. If He only said "Omnia per ipsum facta sunt " and didn't also say "et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. ", "Omnia " could be misinterpreted to include God Himself, but He is uncreated (not even self-created).