1 John 4:17

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? Webb Mealy webb at selftest.net
Tue Jul 8 12:13:43 EDT 2008

[] Help Translating John 1:18 [] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? 1 Jn 4:17 has EN TOUTWi TETELEIWTAI hH AGAPH MEQ’ hHMWN. Is there a nuance here that makes this means something different from ENTOUTWi TETELEIWTAI hH AGAPH EN hHMIN? Webb Mealy _____ I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.It has removed 11946 spam emails to date.Paying users do not have this message in their emails.Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> for free now!

[] Help Translating John 1:18[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Jul 8 12:52:49 EDT 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? [] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? On Jul 8, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Webb Mealy wrote:> 1 Jn 4:17 has EN TOUTWi TETELEIWTAI hH AGAPH MEQ’ hHMWN.> > Is there a nuance here that makes this means something different > from EN> TOUTWi TETELEIWTAI hH AGAPH EN hHMIN?I doubt it very much, the more so because it’s in 1 John.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 8 20:00:46 EDT 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? [] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? You might want to take a look at 2 Jn 2 2διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν ἐνἡμῖνκαὶ μεθʼ ἡμῶν ἔσται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 2 DIA THN ALHQEIAN THN MENOUSAN EN hHMIN KAI MEQ’ hHMWN ESTAI EIS TON AIWNA.  This has both in succession.  It seems to me that EN with the dat generally means “in” in the sense of among signifying presence within a person or group while META (or MEQ’) generally signifies accompaniment. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ —– Original Message —-From: Webb Mealy <webb at selftest.net>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Tuesday, July 8, 2008 12:13:43 PMSubject: [] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?1 Jn 4:17 has EN TOUTWi TETELEIWTAI hH AGAPH MEQ’ hHMWN.Is there a nuance here that makes this means something different from ENTOUTWi TETELEIWTAI hH AGAPH EN hHMIN?Webb Mealy  _____  I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.It has removed 11946 spam emails to date.Paying users do not have this message in their emails.Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len>  for free now!— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Jul 9 15:38:05 EDT 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? [] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? On Jul 8, 2008, at 5:00 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> You might want to take a look at 2 Jn 2> > 2διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν > ἐνἡμῖνκαὶ μεθʼ ἡμῶν ἔσται εἰς > τὸν αἰῶνα.> > 2 DIA THN ALHQEIAN THN MENOUSAN EN hHMIN KAI MEQ’ hHMWN ESTAI EIS > TON AIWNA.> > > This has both in succession. It seems to me that EN with the dat > generally means “in” in the sense of among signifying presence > within a person or group while META (or MEQ’) generally signifies > accompaniment.Westcott (Epist. John) and Culy read it as an ‘associative’, however Westcott doesn’t use the term. He understands TETELEIWTAI hH AGAPH MEQ hHMWN as a cooperative process, not a unilateral act, hO QEOS EN hHMIN. I am not sure about this.I looked at every occurrence of META + Gen in John’s Gospel and Epistles. The vast majority of them were associative but there were five or six exceptions, several with verbs of speech which might also be construed as associative, of the remainder none were very helpful in regard to our question.It is perhaps more helpful to look at the arguments with TETELEIWTAI in 1John.J1OHN 2:5 hOS D’ AN THRHi AUTOU TON LOGON, ALHQWS EN TOUTWi hH AGAPH TOU QEOU TETELEIWTAI, EN TOUTWi GINWSKOMEN hOTI EN AUTWi ESMEN.Note the dative: EN TOUTWi hH AGAPH TOU QEOU TETELEIWTAI.1JOHN 4:12 QEON OUDEIS PWPOTE TEQEATAI. EAN AGAPWMEN ALLHLOUS, hO QEOS EN hHMIN MENEI KAI hH AGAPH AUTOU EN hHMIN TETELEIWMENH ESTIN.Again the dative: hH AGAPH AUTOU EN hHMIN TETELEIWMENH ESTIN1JOHN 4:17 EN TOUTWi TETELEIWTAI hH AGAPH MEQ hHMWN, hINA PARRHSIAN ECWMEN EN THi hHMERAi THS KRISEWS, hOTI KAQWS EKEINOS ESTIN KAI hHMEIS ESMEN EN TWi KOSMWi TOUTWi. 18 FOBOS OUK ESTIN EN THi AGAPHi ALL hH TELEIA AGAPH EXW BALLEI TON FOBON, hOTI hO FOBOS KOLASIN ECEI, hO DE FOBOUMENOS OU TETELEIWTAI EN THi AGAPHi.It seems to me that John has a firm grasp on the distinction between EN + Dative and META + Genitive. The later is almost exclusively used in the Gospel and Epistles with an ‘associative’ semantic value. This is a broad semantic category, so it doesn’t tell us what nuance we should detect in 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN. Westcott’s reading my be pushing the distinction a bit too far. On the other hand, reading EN hHMIN KAI MEQ’ hHMWN 2Jn2 as saying the same thing twice doesn’t seem to do justice to the evidence.Elizabeth Kline

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Jul 9 17:10:02 EDT 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? [] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? On Jul 9, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> It seems to me that John has a firm grasp on the distinction between> EN + Dative and META + Genitive. The later is almost exclusively used> in the Gospel and Epistles with an ‘associative’ semantic value. This> is a broad semantic category, so it doesn’t tell us what nuance we> should detect in 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN. Westcott’s reading my be> pushing the distinction a bit too far. On the other hand, reading EN> hHMIN KAI MEQ’ hHMWN 2Jn2 as saying the same thing twice doesn’t seem> to do justice to the evidence.One could expect a counter argument to this along the lines that EN + Dative can also be found with an ‘associative’ semantic value. However’ I would expect we could with a little work detect a semantic difference between an ‘associative’ EN + Dative and an ‘associative’ META + Genitive.It might be helpful to take a look at John’s use of PARA, EN, and META is JOHN 14:16-17:JOHN 14:16 KAGW ERWTHSW TON PATERA KAI ALLON PARAKLHTON DWSEI hUMIN, hINA MEQ hUMWN EIS TON AIWNA Hi, 17 TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS, hO hO KOSMOS OU DUNATAI LABEIN, hOTI OU QEWREI AUTO OUDE GINWSKEI: hUMEIS GINWSKETE AUTO, hOTI PAR’ hUMIN MENEI KAI EN hUMIN ESTAI.Here we seen MEQ hUMWN, PAR’ hUMIN and EN hUMIN. L.Morris (Gosp.Jn 1st ed.) suggests, tentatively, that this might be nothing more than John’s preference for variety of expression. This approach, if it is carried too far has a leveling affect. Just because thousands of years later we cannot determine any certainty what the author wanted to accomplish with these three different expressions, doesn’t make it safe to assume he was saying the same thing three times.Elizabeth Kline

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? Webb Mealy webb at selftest.net
Wed Jul 9 19:06:42 EDT 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? [] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? Dear Elizabeth,You wrote:One could expect a counter argument to this along the lines that EN + Dative can also be found with an ‘associative’ semantic value.That’s the nuance that I was thinking about. I think of Jn 1:14, forexample:KAI hO LOGOS…ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN. I don’t doubt that ESKHNWSEN MEQ’ hHMWN would mean something slightlydifferent in the ear of a Koine Greek speaker, but I can’t put my finger onthe difference with any confidence.Webb Mealy– I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.It has removed 11975 spam emails to date.Paying users do not have this message in their emails.Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 10 15:39:59 EDT 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN? [] Help Translating John 1:18 On Jul 9, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Webb Mealy wrote:> You wrote:> > One could expect a counter argument to this along the lines that EN +> Dative can also be found with an ‘associative’ semantic value.> > That’s the nuance that I was thinking about. I think of Jn 1:14, for> example:> > KAI hO LOGOS…ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN.> > I don’t doubt that ESKHNWSEN MEQ’ hHMWN would mean something slightly> different in the ear of a Koine Greek speaker, but I can’t put my > finger on> the difference with any confidence.> > Webb MealyWell, that is a different text. F.Danker (BDAG page 929) under SKHNOW cites Jn 1:14 under dative of place. I think that is a clue to the distinction between EN + dative and META + Genitive. While acknowledging that it is extremely risky to try and say anything dogmatic about EN + dative, at the same time I don’t think it is impossible to find a difference between the META + genitive of association and the EN + dative of association. The META + genitive when used of persons, appears to focus on the relational aspect, being together. The EN + dative of association seems to have at least a faint trace of a local semantic value, being in the same place with others. I am not going to undertake the project of proving this, but take a look at Danker under EN association.A general comment about John’s style, the variety of expression, use of “synonyms”, and constituents with similar meaning/functions, is evidence that the author was concerned that his message be well understood. Saying more or less the same thing, employing three slightly different expressions with slightly different meanings, is not a bad policy if you want your message to be comprehend fully. It is a risk avoidance approach to written communication.To understand this well, take any play by Sophocles and read it at the same time you are working in John’s Gospel/Epistles. Sophocles never passes up an opportunity to leave something out that he assumes his audience can fill in from their shared cognitive framework/cultural context. You need to know the story in advance to make any sense out of it. The contrast between John and Sophocles is striking.Elizabeth Kline

[] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ’ hHMWN–Different from EN hHMIN?[] Help Translating John 1:18