Annotation CLXXIII

”And without him was made nothing.” — John 1:3

On the true punctuation of the clause, "Without him was made nothing."

Chrysostom, in the fourth homily on John, weighing this passage, seems to condemn as heretical the reading of those who read, “Without him was made nothing”; and then, a final period being placed, undertake another clause, saying, “What was made, in him was life.” For he says: “When we shall have said, ‘Without him was made nothing,’ let us not mark it with a full period, as the heretics think. For these, since they wish the Spirit to be a creature, thus read: ‘[that] which was made, in him was life.’ But by no reasoning at all can this sentence be understood.”

Theophylact, in the commentaries, agreeing with Chrysostom, explains the names of the heretics who use this reading, with these words: “The Pneumatomachi [Spirit-fighters], who deny the Holy Spirit to be God, so read this clause: ‘And without him was made nothing.’ Then, a point being made in this place, they read, as [beginning] from another beginning, ‘[That] which was made, in him.’ And they interpret that passage according to their own mind, saying that in this place the Evangelist speaks of the Holy Spirit, saying, ‘[That] which was made in him — that is, the Holy Spirit — was life.’ Now this the Macedonians say, trying to show that the Holy Spirit is a creature, and to number him among those [things] which were made. But we [read] not thus: but, a point being made, after he said ‘[that] which was made,’ we read a new beginning, ‘In him was life.’”

Euthymius, subscribing to both, renders the reason why that reading is not to be received; he uses these words: “Those who resist the Holy Spirit, and diminish his nature, place a distinction [stop] after that which is said, ‘Without him was made nothing’; then read together what follows, ‘[That] which was made in him was life’ — that they may show the Holy Spirit to have been made. For they say [the Evangelist] speaks of him by such a word. But they are easily refuted: first, because that part, ‘[That] which was made,’ being set indistinctly, indicates everything that was made; then, because ‘life’ too is said to be ‘light’ — for he adds that ‘the Life was the light of men.’ And a little after, speaking of John, ‘He came for a testimony, that he might bear witness of the light.’ But it is manifest that John bore witness not of the Holy Spirit, but of the Son — as we find in what follows.”

These [things] Euthymius, Theophylact, and Chrysostom [say]; from whose words it is not to be inferred that those are heretics who place a period after the word “Nothing,” but [only] those who do it to this end — that they may deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit. For among the Greeks Cyril, and among the Latins Augustine, a point being placed after the word “Nothing,” undertake a new sentence, saying: “[That] which was made, in him was life.” And this reading all the Latin Church follows, which to me too seems true and genuine. For it agrees with the peculiar style of this Evangelist to begin, as it were, each [following] member from the end of the preceding member: “was made nothing” is the end of the upper clause; “[That] which was made” is the beginning of the other. Of which form are also those [phrases]: “In the beginning was the Word”; and “the Word was with God”; and “God was the Word.” The phrase, ending

[the phrase] ending the prior clause begins the following. In the fourth [member] he repeats the beginning of the first: “This was in the beginning”; and thus he completes the period. Again, in this which follows — “[That] which was made, in him was life; and the life was the light of men; and the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not” — always the step of the following [member] is taken from the nearest [preceding] member.