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](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=3844):> 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 דהוHere 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).