2. The Intensive οὕτως in BDAG

Those who reject the intensive meaning (‘so much’) in favour of one expressing manner (‘thus’) often do so on the grounds that the adverb οὕτως more frequently depicts manner than intensity, a fact which is certainly true. Starting with the article of Gundry and Howell twenty years ago, which is often appealed to by those who reject an intensive use for οὕτως, it is even said that an intensive interpretation is impossible because, as they state, οὕτως simply is not used that way with verbs.Footnote ³ And that is certainly the impression one might get if all one does is examine the evidence presented as supporting the intensive meaning in BDAG. BDAG does allow for the intensive meaning even with verbs, but does so with little evidence. The third definition which BDAG lists for οὕτως is ‘marker of a relatively high degree, so’.Footnote ⁴ After chronicling such a use for οὕτως when it precedes adjectives and adverbs, it notes specifically its use preceding verbs: ‘Before a verb so intensely (X., Cyr. 1, 3, 11; TestAbr B 4 p. 108, 11 [Stone p. 64]; Tat. 19, 1) 1J 4:11’.Footnote ⁵ An examination of these four citations by BDAG, however, provides less reason to be confident about the possibility of an intensive οὕτως with verbs:

Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.3.11: καὶ ἡ μήτηρ εἶπεν· ἀλλὰ τί ποτε σύ, ὦ παῖ, τῷ Σάκᾳ οὕτω πολεμεῖς; ‘“But why in the world, my son”, said his mother, “are you so set against Sacas?”’Footnote ⁶ While οὕτω could perhaps be understood as intensive here, it can also be understood as referring to the manner of opposition which Cyrus has already displayed towards Sacas in the preceding dialogue, meaning that this citation is by itself inconclusive as to the intensive meaning.

Testament of Abraham B4: ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν ἡ Σάρρα τοῦ κλαυθμοῦ αὐτῶν ἔσω οὖσα ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτῆς, ἐξελθοῦσα εἶπεν τῷ Ἁβραάμ· Κύριε, τί ἐστιν ὅτι οὕτως κλαίετε; ‘When Sarah heard their crying (for she was inside her house), she came out and said to Abraham, “My lord, why is it that you cry thus?”Footnote ⁷ Again, while an intensive interpretation is perhaps possible, it is hardly necessary. The adverb here is probably best understood as being exophoric (pointing to something outside the text), referring to Abraham's manner of weeping which Sarah observed.

1 John 4.11: Ἀγαπητοί, εἰ οὕτως ὁ θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν. ‘Beloved, if God so loved us, we too should love each other.’ Here οὕτως could be anaphoric,Footnote ⁸ referring back to the manner in which God's love was demonstrated, which was articulated in the previous verse (καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἱλασμὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν). It does not necessarily have to indicate an intensive degree.

Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos 19.1: θανάτου δὲ ὁ καταφρονῶν οὕτως αὐτὸς ἐδεδίει τὸν θάνατον ὡς καὶ Ἰουστῖνον καθάπερ καὶ ἐμὲ ὡς κακῷ τῷ θανάτῳ περιβαλεῖν πραγματεύσασθαι. ‘He who advised contempt of death was himself so afraid of death that he set about involving Justin – as he did me too – in the death penalty as if it were an evil.’Footnote ⁹ Here, used correlativelyFootnote ¹⁰ with ὡς, οὕτως does seem to function intensively. It would be hard to give οὕτως an antecedent to which it could anaphorically refer back in order to describe the manner of Crescens’ fear here. Likewise, the content of the ὡς-clause would struggle to serve as a sensible postcedent for οὕτως to point ahead to cataphoricallyFootnote ¹¹ if the adverb communicated manner and not degree.

So of BDAG's four examples of an intensive οὕτως with verbs, we see that three make for rather poor evidence of the meaning, and the fourth, from Tatian, is found not absolutely but as part of a correlative phrase with ὡς. Judging purely from this presentation, one could come to the conclusion that the support for an intensive meaning for the οὕτως is rather scant when the adverb is used in isolation. However, this also suggests to us that a stronger direction would be to consider the adverb as it functions correlatively, specifically when paired with ὥστε, as it is found in John 3.16.

3. The Grammar of the Correlative οὕτως … ὥστε

BDAG actually lists John 3.16 not under its third heading of ‘marker of a relatively high degree’ but under its second heading of ‘pert. to what follows in discourse material’. If one does not read through the entry closely, though, one might mistakenly draw from this that the lexicon is interpreting the use of οὕτως in John 3.16 to be merely cataphoric, as in, pointing ahead to an object clause which will serve as its postcedent. A closer reading, however, reveals that this is not what it intends when the word is used with ὥστε. John 3.16, with Acts 14.1, is included as an example of οὕτως being used correlatively with ὥστε. It is important to recognise that BDAG does not mean by this that the ὥστε-clause is the postcedent of οὕτως. The way BDAG renders its example from Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum (‘he was suffering to such an extent from a suppurating wound, that … he was filled with matter’) demonstrates that the οὕτως … ὥστε functions not as cataphor–postcedent but as a correlative intensifier–result pair.

If this distinction between cataphor–postcedent and correlative intensifier–result pair seems overly subtle, perhaps examples will better illustrate the distinction. First, an example of οὕτως being used with ὡςFootnote ¹² as a cataphor–postcedent combination, Mark 4.26: καὶ ἔλεγεν, Οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς ἄνθρωπος βάλῃ τὸν σπόρον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ‘And he said, “Like this is the kingdom of God: like a man throwing seed on the ground.”’ Here οὕτως serves as a cataphor, pointing ahead to the clause introduced by ὡς, which is the postcedent. The ὡς-clause fills in the content of the cataphoric οὕτως, and the cataphoric οὕτως serves to highlight the yet-unnamed content it points ahead to.Footnote ¹³ Interpreters and translators who understand John 3.16 along the lines of ‘This is how God loved the world: …’ are taking οὕτως … ὥστε as a cataphor–postcedent combination.

Now second, an example of οὕτως being used with ὥστε as a correlative intensifier–result pair, Xenophon, Anabasis 7.4.3: καὶ ψῦχος οὕτως ὥστε τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ ἐφέροντο ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἐπήγνυτο καὶ ὁ οἶνος ὁ ἐν τοῖς ἀγγείοις, ‘And it was so cold that the water which they carried in for dinner and the wine in the jars would freeze.’Footnote ¹⁴ As with the previous example, one could here label the usage of οὕτως as being broadly cataphoric, because it does orient the sentence towards the following clause. However, such a label, if applied indiscriminately, might obscure the fact that here οὕτως is pointing the sentence forward in a significantly different way than in the previous case where it pointed to a postcedent. That is because the ὥστε-clause is not a postcedent – an exclusively adverbial conjunction like ὥστε cannot even introduce a substantival clause such as would be needed to serve as a postcedent.Footnote ¹⁵ Instead of serving as a postcedent, the ὥστε-clause indicates the result or consequence of what proceeds, as it usually does. Unlike the ὡς-clause in the previous example, the ὥστε-clause here does not directly fill in the content of οὕτως but instead shows its result. In the example given, the result-clause does not directly describe how cold it was. It only indirectly describes how cold it was by saying what happened as a result of it being so cold.Footnote ¹⁶

This specialised correlative intensifier–result usage would probably have developed by analogy with the cataphor–postcedent use, because if we take this concise correlative construction and expand it, we do end up with something of a cataphor–postcedent combination: And it was cold in this way: [in such a way] that the water and the wine would freeze. But note still that even in expanded form the ὥστε-clause describes the result of this kind of cold and fills in the content of the kind of cold not directly but only indirectly. Note also that cold in this way is clearly going to be a reference to the degree or intensity of the cold, not the manner in which the cold came to be or happened. This is because cold is a gradable adjective,Footnote ¹⁷ and so it is naturally modified with respect to degree or intensity. It is not only adjectives and adverbs that can be gradable, however. Many verbs are gradable as well, including verbs of emotion.Footnote ¹⁸ So when οὕτως … ὥστε is found in combination with a gradable adjective, adverb or verb, such as ἀγαπάω is, we should expect οὕτως to indicate the degree or intensity of that word.Footnote ¹⁹ ὥστε, as the second part of the correlative pair, will indicate the result of that gradable adjective, adverb or verb being that intense.

4. The Correlative οὕτως … ὥστε in the Corpus

Gundry and Howell argue against the existence of such a correlative usage of οὕτως … ὥστε primarily on two grounds. The first is the words’ respective etymologies, but since etymologies are not determinative of lexical meaning such evidence does not itself prove anything, as Gundry and Howell seem to admit,Footnote ²⁰ and we have also above proposed a plausible scenario for how such a correlative usage of οὕτως … ὥστε could have developed. The second argument comes from their going one by one through instances in Demosthenes, Josephus, Philo and Epictetus where the Loeb Classical Library takes οὕτως and ὥστε as a correlative pair in a systematic attempt to eradicate possible examples of such a correlative usage.Footnote ²¹ In every case their strategy requires locating an acceptable antecedent for οὕτως. As thorough as their efforts may be, many of their proposed antecedents strain credibility,Footnote ²² and a number of the others would seem to make the sentence rather inane, as their own renderings pieced together would demonstrate.Footnote ²³ Even on the few occasions when their interpretation could potentially make decent sense, the LCL reading which they reject makes at least as much sense,Footnote ²⁴ especially since in every case the word modified by οὕτως is a gradable word,Footnote ²⁵ easily admitting an intensive modifier. In the end, the frequency with which οὕτως and ὥστε co-occur, all of which instances make very good sense with a correlative intensifier–result understanding, suggests that far simpler than Gundry and Howell's proposal, and more in line with the data, is to retain the correlative usage, a usage which the lexica do advocate and document.Footnote ²⁶

Moreover, not only is this correlative usage of οὕτως … ὥστε clearly outlined in the lexica; Spicq documented it even further and applied it to the question of John 3.16 already back in 1958.Footnote ²⁷ Unfortunately, however, the French scholar's work on this question seems to have gone largely unnoticed by English commentators.Footnote ²⁸ Spicq provides examples where οὕτως … ὥστε is used as a correlative intensifier–result pair with a number of different verbs, including several occurrences where the verb is ἀγαπάω.Footnote ²⁹

And no stronger proof can really be given for οὕτως … ὥστε in John 3.16 being a correlative intensifier–result pair than examples where these words clearly function this way when used with ἀγαπάω. In addition to those observed already sixty years ago by Spicq, a significant number of other such examples can be found throughout the ancient Greek corpus.Footnote ³⁰ In each of the parallel constructions I give below, we will see that the two proposed alternatives to understanding οὕτως … ὥστε as a correlative intensifier–result pair (either by taking οὕτως anaphorically or by taking οὕτως … ὥστε as a cataphoric–postcedent construction) are not realistically viable. On the other hand, interpreting οὕτως … ὥστε as a correlative intensifier–result pair consistently gives the most coherent understanding of the passage.Footnote ³¹

Isocrates, De pace 8.45: ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὕτως αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶμεν ὥσθ᾽ ὑπὲρ μὲν τῶν παίδων τῶν ἡμετέρων, εἰ περί τινας ἐξαμάρτοιεν, οὐκ ἂν ἐθελήσαιμεν δίκας ὑποσχεῖν, ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς ἐκείνων ἁρπαγῆς καὶ βίας καὶ παρανομίας μελλόντων τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἥξειν οὐχ ὅπως ἀγανακτοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαίρομεν ὅταν ἀκούσωμεν αὐτοὺς τοιοῦτόν τι διαπεπραγμένους. ‘But, for all that, we are so enamored of these mercenaries that while we would not willingly assume the responsibility for the acts of our own children if they offended against anyone, yet for the brigandage, the violence, and the lawlessness of these men, the blame for which is bound to be laid at our door, not only do we feel no regret, but we actually rejoice whenever we hear that they have perpetrated any such atrocity.’Footnote ³²

Isocrates, Antidosis 15.88: ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τελευτῆς, ὅτ᾽ ἤδη μέλλοιεν ἀποπλεῖν ὡς τοὺς γονέας καὶ τοὺς φίλους τοὺς ἑαυτῶν, οὕτως ἠγάπων τὴν διατριβὴν ὥστε μετὰ πόθου καὶ δακρύων ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀπαλλαγήν. ‘On the contrary, when at the last the time would come for them to sail away to their parents or their friends at home, so happy did they feel in their life with me, that they would always take their leave with regret and tears.’Footnote ³³

Significantly, these two quotations from Isocrates which employ the combination οὕτως ἀγαπάω … ὥστε begin with the adversative conjunction ἀλλά. The contrast that ἀλλά marks between these sentences and those that precede them in context makes it highly unlikely that οὕτως is meant to refer back anaphorically to the material being contrasted. οὕτως in some way looks forward to the ὥστε-clause. And in both of these statements from Isocrates it would not make much sense if the ὥστε-clause described how the love happened. (‘We loved these mercenaries in this way: we do not regret their violence but rejoice when they commit atrocities.’ ‘They love their life with me in this way: they take their leave with regret and tears.’) It makes good sense, however, that excusing atrocities and being sad to leave would be results of love.

Plato, Phaedrus 257e: καὶ πρὸς τῷ ἀγκῶνι λανθάνει σε ὅτι οἱ μέγιστον φρονοῦντες τῶν πολιτικῶν μάλιστα ἐρῶσι λογογραφίας τε καὶ καταλείψεως συγγραμμάτων, οἵ γε καὶ ἐπειδάν τινα γράφωσι λόγον, οὕτως ἀγαπῶσι τοὺς ἐπαινέτας, ὥστε προσπαραγράφουσι πρώτους οἳ ἂν ἑκασταχοῦ ἐπαινῶσιν αὐτούς. ‘You seem not to know that the proudest of the statesmen are most fond of writing and of leaving writings behind them, since they care so much for praise that when they write a speech they add at the beginning the names of those who praise them in each instance.’Footnote ³⁴ No realistic antecedent can be found for οὕτως here were it to be anaphoric, and the listing of the people who have praised them shows not how the proud politicians have a love for praise but the result of the proud politicians loving praise. Here too οὕτως … ὥστε is used with ἀγαπάω as a correlative intensifier–result pair.

Theopompus fr. 124: πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὕτως ἠγάπησε τὴν παρὰ τοῦ βαρβάρου τιμὴν ὥστε βουλόμενος ἀρέσκειν καὶ πιστεύεσθαι μᾶλλον ἀνεκόμισε πρὸς βασιλέα τὸν υἱόν, ὃ τῶν ἄλλων οὐδεὶς πώποτε φανήσεται ποιήσας. ‘He was, first of all, so enamoured of being honoured by the barbarian that, in his eagerness to please the King and gain more of his confidence, he took his son to him, something no one else will ever be found to have done.’Footnote ³⁵ πρῶτον here corresponds to ἔπειτα, which immediately follows this quotation, and which lays out a second over-the-top action by Nicostratus in his efforts to win the king's favour. This makes clear that the whole first clause is intended to set up the ὥστε-clause, which presents the first over-the-top action by Nicostratus, meaning that οὕτως cannot be anaphoric. Nor will the ὥστε-clause be a postcedent, since bringing his son to the king to get more honour is not how Nicostratus loved honour but what he did as a result of his loving honour.

Plutarch, Publicola 9.7: καὶ λόγον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ διεξῆλθεν ἐπιτάφιον, ὃς οὕτως ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων ἠγαπήθη καὶ τοσαύτην ἔσχε χάριν ὥστε πᾶσι τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ μεγάλοις ὑπάρχειν ἐξ ἐκείνου τελευτήσασιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρίστων ἐγκωμιάζεσθαι. ‘He even delivered a funeral oration in his honour, which was so admired by the Romans and won such favour that from that time on, when their great and good men died, encomiums were pronounced upon them by the most distinguished citizens.’Footnote ³⁶ Note that in this case Plutarch coordinates οὕτως with the correlative intensive adjective τοσαύτην. In modifying the noun χάριν he uses a correlative intensive adjective, but in modifying the verb ἠγαπήθη he uses οὕτως, evidently as a correlative intensive adverb. The ὥστε-clause, describing the encomiums that were made from then on because of Valerius’ speech, indicates not the way in which the Romans loved and favoured his oration but the result of their loving and favouring it.

Plutarch, Sulla 22.2: καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα Σύλλας οὕτως ἠγάπησεν ὥστε αὐτὸς εἰς λόγους σπεῦσαι τῷ Ἀρχελάῳ συνελθεῖν. ‘The matter was so welcome to Sulla that he was eager to have a personal conference with Archelaus.’Footnote ³⁷

Plutarch, Sertorius 22.2: ἔτι δὲ νικήσας ποτὲ μάχῃ τὸν Σερτώριον οὕτως ἐπήρθη καὶ τὴν εὐτυχίαν ἠγάπησεν ὥστε αὐτοκράτωρ ἀναγορευθῆναι, θυσίαις δ᾽ αὐτὸν αἱ πόλεις ἐπιφοιτῶντα καὶ βωμοῖς ἐδέχοντο. ‘Moreover, after a victory which he once won over Sertorius he was so elated and delighted with his success that his soldiers saluted him as Imperator and the cities celebrated his visits to them with altars and sacrifices.’Footnote ³⁸

Plutarch, Artaxerxes 23.4: τὴν δ᾽ Ἄτοσσαν οὕτως ἠγάπησεν ὁ πατὴρ συνοικοῦσαν ὥστε ἀλφοῦ κατανεμηθέντος αὐτῆς τὸ σῶμα δυσχερᾶναι μὲν ἐπὶ τούτῳ μηδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν. ‘Atossa, however, was so beloved by her father as his consort, that when her body was covered with leprosy he was not offended at this in the least.’Footnote ³⁹

Again in the last three examples from Plutarch above, the ὥστε-clause shows the results of the love (wanting to meet with someone, celebrating success, being comfortable with a woman's leprosy) and is not a postcedent explicating the manner of the love. Likewise, in none of these cases is there a viable antecedent in the previous context were οὕτως to be taken as anaphoric.

Themistius, Ὑπὲρ τοῦ λέγειν ἢ πῶς τῷ φιλοσόφῳ λεκτέον 311b: οὐ δήπου με τὰ θέατρα οὕτως ἀγαπᾶν ἡγεῖσθε ὥστε ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι ὀλίγοι ἔμφρονες πολλῶν ἀφρόνων τῷ λέγοντι φοβερώτεροι. ‘Surely you do not think that I love theaters so much that I am unaware that a few discriminating men are more formidable to a speaker than the uninformed masses.’Footnote ⁴⁰ As this is the opening line of the oration, οὕτως could not possibly be anaphoric here. And given the content of the ὥστε-clause, as would be expected, it makes much better sense to take it as a result-clause rather than as a postcedent.

Themistius, In Aristoteles physica paraphrasis 3.8: καίτοι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ἠγάπησεν οὕτως Ἐπίκουρος, ὥστε παλαιότερον ὄντα εἰσποιήσασθαι καὶ ὑποβάλλεσθαι μικραῖς τισι καὶ φαύλαις προσθήκαις, καθάπερ οἱ τὰ φώρια μετασχηματίζοντες ὑπὲρ τοῦ λανθάνειν. ‘Yet Epicurus so cherished this argument that he adopted it despite its being rather old-hat and supported it with some minor and trivial additions in the manner of thieves who to escape notice change the look of stolen goods.’Footnote ⁴¹ This sentence, beginning with an adversative, is unlikely to feature an anaphoric use of οὕτως. And the ὥστε-clause shows what Epicurus did as a result of his love of the argument, not the manner in which he loved the argument.

Julian the Apostate, Misopogon 32: Κελτοὶ μὲν γὰρ οὕτω με δι’ ὁμοιότητα τρόπων ἠγάπησαν, ὥστε ἐτόλμησαν οὐχ ὅπλα μόνον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ λαβεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ χρήματα ἔδωκαν πολλά, καὶ παραιτούμενον ὀλίγου καὶ ἐβιάσαντο λαβεῖν, καὶ πρὸς πάντα ἑτοίμως ὑπήκουσαν. ‘For they loved me so much, on account of the similarity of our dispositions, that not only did they venture to take up arms on my behalf, but they gave me large sums of money besides; and when I would have declined it, they almost forced me to take it, and in all things readily obeyed me.’Footnote ⁴²

Damascius, Vita Isidori 23: ὁ δὲ πρὸς τῇ ἀφελείᾳ οὕτω καὶ τὴν ἀψεύδειαν ἠγάπα, ὥστε καὶ εὐθύγλωττος εἶναι πέρα τοῦ δέοντος ἐδοξάζετο, καὶ οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ προσποιούμενον. ‘In addition to simplicity, he loved also truthfulness so much that he was thought to be more straight-tongued than necessary and to have nothing whatsoever in him that was pretended.’Footnote ⁴³

While Julian the Apostate and the Neoplatonist philosopher Damascius are certainly not known for their contributions to Christianity, here they still do show us, as the other non-Christian writers do, examples very similar in form to John 3.16 of this correlative pairing of οὕτως as intensifier and ὥστε as result.

In addition to these twelve examples from non-Christian writers, we observe the same correlative use with ἀγαπάω also in Christian writers as well:

Gregory of Nyssa, In Canticum canticorum 2: πῶς γάρ σε μὴ ἀγαπήσω τὸν οὕτω με ἀγαπήσαντα καὶ ταῦτα μέλαιναν οὖσαν, ὥστε τὴν ψυχήν σου ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων θεῖναι, ἃ σὺ ποιμαίνεις; ‘For how shall I not love you, who so loved me – even when I was dark – as to lay down your life for the sheep that you shepherd?’Footnote ⁴⁴

Ps.-Macarius, Sermones 64 (collectio B) 28.2.4: οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν κατ’ εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ κτισθεῖσαν, ὥστε ἑαυτὸν χαρίσασθαι αὐτῇ ποικίλως ἐν αὐτῇ κοσμούμενον καὶ τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως κοινωνὸν αὐτὴν καθιστῶντα. ‘For God so loved the soul created in his image as to give himself to it, intricately clothed in it and making it share in his own nature.’Footnote ⁴⁵

Chrysostom, In Joannem 80.2: ὡς ὅταν λέγῃ Παῦλος, ὅτι Οὕτως ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, ὥστε παραδοῦναι ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. ‘For example, when Paul said: “He loved us so much that he delivered Himself up for us.”’Footnote ⁴⁶

Chrysostom, In epistulam ad Ephesios 7.1: ὅτι οὕτως αὐτοὺς ἠγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς, ὥστε καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν δοῦναι, καὶ τοὺς δούλους κακοῦν. ‘It is because God so loved them, as to give even the Son for them, and to afflict His servants for them.’Footnote ⁴⁷

Chrysostom, In epistulam ad Philippenses 3.1: εἰρηνεύετε, εἶπεν, οὐ τοῦτο δηλῶν, ὅτι Οὐχ οὕτως ἀγαπᾶτε, ὥστε ὑπὸ τῆς φιλίας βλάπτεσθαι. ‘“Live in peace,” he said. “Don't love in such a way that you are harmed by love.”’Footnote ⁴⁸ This occurrence seems to be the only instance where manner of love and not degree of love is indicated, as the translation reflects. This rarer reading of οὕτως easily arises from the preceding context, which has included a number of adverbials to depict the way in which love can be well or poorly exercised.Footnote ⁴⁹ Yet while this example is something of an exception, it still can be seen here that the ὥστε-clause is again clearly a result-clause, and the οὕτως, neither anaphoric nor cataphoric, points ahead to it correlatively.

Chrysostom, In epistulam ad Hebraeos 7.3: εἶτα ἐλπίδας αὐτοῖς ἐντίθησι, λέγων, Μέτοχοι γεγόναμεν τοῦ Χριστοῦ· μονονουχὶ λέγων, ὁ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἀγαπήσας, ὁ τοσούτων ἡμᾶς καταξιώσας, ὥστε ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα ποιῆσαι, οὐ περιόψεται ἀπολλυμένους. ‘Then he suggests hopes to them, saying (v. 14), “We are made partakers of Christ”; All but saying, He that so loved us, He that counted us worthy of so great things, as to make us His Body, will not suffer us to perish.’Footnote ⁵⁰ Here again we find οὕτως as a correlative intensive adverb paired with a correlative intensive adjective (τοσούτων).

Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam 4.1: ἠγάπησα δὲ οὕτως, ὥστε καὶ εἰ γένοιτο καιρός ἢ χρεία τοῦ πολλοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἄρχοντας ὑπὲρ τῆς σῆς δοθῆναι κεφαλῆς, δοίην ἄν. ‘I so loved you that even if time or need required many people and rulers be given for your head, I would give them.’Footnote ⁵¹

Marcus Eremita, Consultatio intellectus cum sua ipsius anima 2: ἡμεῖς δὲ οὕτως αὐτὰς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὥστε οὐ μόνον τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀντ’ αὐτῶν προδιδόαμεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὰς ἐκείνας ἑτέραν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ ἐν καιρῷ καταλλάσσομεν. ‘But we so love them that we would not only forsake virtue for them but also, when there is the opportunity, replace one of them with another.’Footnote ⁵²

Justinian I, Novella 22.48: εἰ μὲν γάρ τινα ἐκ τῶν δευτέρων ἔχοιεν γάμων, ἢ καὶ τῶν πρώτων τυχόν, οὕτω περισπούδαστον, οὕτως ἀγαπώμενον, ὥστε βούλεσθαι ὑπερφέρειν αὐτὸν τοὺς ἄλλους ἐν τῇ κτήσει, δίδομεν ἄδειαν τοῦτο πράττειν. ‘If he should have any child from the second marriage, or even perhaps from the first marriage, who is so desired, so loved that he plans for him to surpass the others in possessions, we give him license to do this.’Footnote ⁵³

Adding these nine examples from early Christian writers, as well as four more that can be found from Christian writers later in the first millennium,Footnote ⁵⁴ to those from non-Christian writers, we have twenty-five parallel examples of οὕτως … ὥστε with ἀγαπάω in total.Footnote ⁵⁵ With only one exception among these parallels, we consistently find οὕτως … ὥστε being used as a correlative intensifier–result pair with ἀγαπάω, demonstrating that the same construction not only can but also probably does function in the same way in John 3.16.

In light of such strong evidence for this correlative pairing, we need to be very careful in our application of arguments concerning οὕτως on the basis of the overall frequency of a given meaning. For example, the fact that the adverb typically indicates manner (‘thus’) and not degree (‘so much’) is far less significant when it comes to this specific usage than is its typical intensifying meaning when found with ὥστε and a gradable verb such as ἀγαπάω. Furthermore, the argument that οὕτως is typically anaphoric is a good one to make against a cataphor–postcedent interpretation. In fact, the argument can be made even more pointedly than that, as John 3.16a clearly lacks the requisite qualifications to establish the cohesion necessary for οὕτως even potentially to function cataphorically here.Footnote ⁵⁶ But as a correlative intensifier–result pair the οὕτως … ὥστε construction does not employ a cataphoric οὕτως in a strict sense, and so arguing against a cataphoric usage on the basis of frequency really does nothing to undermine this well-documented specialised correlative usage of οὕτως … ὥστε. The frequency with which οὕτως elsewhere indicates manner or is anaphoric is in the end irrelevant when it comes to its use in John 3.16. Sound exegesis does not force the most common meaning of a word into a given sentence when there are clear indications in that sentence that a different (but still rather common) meaning is being used.

5. Greek Reception History of οὕτως … ὥστε in John 3.16

Not only do we find parallel passages for the grammar of John 3.16 in the ancient Greek corpus handed down to us, we also have evidence of how the grammar of John 3.16 was received by the Greek-speaking church. Gundry and Howell's own proposal for John 3.16 takes 16a (οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον) as more properly part of the sentence found in 3.14–15, with 16b (ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον) providing an additional independent statement parallel to it.Footnote ⁵⁷ This seems unlikely, however, not just because of how convoluted it is, but also because of the fact that when the Greek Church Fathers cite 16a they consistently do so in conjunction with 16b and not with 14–15.Footnote ⁵⁸ Additionally, we have statements from Church Fathers which make explicit that they understand οὕτως as an intensifier. First, Origen says: ‘In saying, “so loved (οὕτως ἠγάπησεν)”, he shows the great intensity (πολλὴν δείκνυσι τὴν ἐπίτασιν), and in saying, “God the world”, he shows the great difference between the Creator and the Creation.’Footnote ⁵⁹ Second, Chrysostom says:

So the way in which John 3.16 was received by the Greek-speaking church too is in line with the traditional way in which it has been received by the English-speaking church, as featuring a correlative intensifier–result pair.