1 John 4:17

[] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? Webb Mealy webb at selftest.net
Tue Jul 8 12:13:43 εδτ 2008

[] Help Translating John 1:18 [] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? 1 Jn 4:17 has εν TOUTWi τετελειωται hH αγαφ μεθ‘ hHMWN. Is there a nuance here that makes this means something different from ENTOUTWi τετελειωται hH αγαφ εν hHMIN? Webb Mealy _____ ι 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 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN?

[] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Jul 8 12:52:49 εδτ 2008

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

[] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN?[] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN?

[] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? George φ Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 8 20:00:46 εδτ 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? [] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν 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 δια θν αληθειαν θν μενουσαν εν hHMIN και μεθ‘ hHMWN εσται εισ τον αιωνα.  This has both in succession.  It seems to me that εν with the dat generally means “in” in the sense of among signifying presence within a person or group while μετα (or μεθ‘) 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 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN?1 Jn 4:17 has εν TOUTWi τετελειωται hH αγαφ μεθ‘ hHMWN.Is there a nuance here that makes this means something different from ENTOUTWi τετελειωται hH αγαφ εν hHMIN?Webb Mealy  _____  ι 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 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Jul 9 15:38:05 εδτ 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? [] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? On Jul 8, 2008, at 5:00 πμ, George φ 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 δια θν αληθειαν θν μενουσαν εν hHMIN και μεθ‘ hHMWN εσται εισ > τον αιωνα.> > > This has both in succession. It seems to me that εν with the dat > generally means “in” in the sense of among signifying presence > within a person or group while μετα (or μεθ‘) generally signifies > accompaniment.Westcott (Epist. John) and Culy read it as an ‘associative’, however Westcott doesn’t use the term. He understands τετελειωται hH αγαφ μεθ hHMWN as a cooperative process, not a unilateral act, hO θεοσ εν hHMIN. ι am not sure about this.ι looked at every occurrence of μετα + 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 τετελειωται in 1John.J1OHN 2:5 hOS δ‘ αν THRHi αυτου τον λογον, αληθωσ εν TOUTWi hH αγαφ του θεου τετελειωται, εν TOUTWi γινωσκομεν hOTI εν AUTWi εσμεν.Note the dative: εν TOUTWi hH αγαφ του θεου τετελειωται.1JOHN 4:12 θεον ουδεισ πωποτε τεθεαται. εαν αγαπωμεν αλληλουσ, hO θεοσ εν hHMIN μενει και hH αγαφ αυτου εν hHMIN τετελειωμενη εστιν.Again the dative: hH αγαφ αυτου εν hHMIN τετελειωμενη ESTIN1JOHN 4:17 εν TOUTWi τετελειωται hH αγαφ μεθ hHMWN, hINA παρῥσιαν εξωμεν εν THi hHMERAi θσ κρισεωσ, hOTI καθωσ εκεινοσ εστιν και hHMEIS εσμεν εν TWi KOSMWi TOUTWi. 18 φοβοσ ουκ εστιν εν THi AGAPHi αλλ hH τελεια αγαφ εχω βαλλει τον φοβον, hOTI hO φοβοσ κολασιν εξει, hO δε φοβουμενοσ ου τετελειωται εν THi AGAPHi.It seems to me that John has a firm grasp on the distinction between εν + Dative and μετα + 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 μεθ‘ hHMWN. Westcott’s reading my be pushing the distinction a bit too far. On the other hand, reading εν hHMIN και μεθ‘ hHMWN 2Jn2 as saying the same thing twice doesn’t seem to do justice to the evidence.Elizabeth Kline

Wed Jul 9 17:10:02 εδτ 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? [] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? On Jul 9, 2008, at 12:38 πμ, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> It seems to me that John has a firm grasp on the distinction between> εν + Dative and μετα + 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 μεθ‘ hHMWN. Westcott’s reading my be> pushing the distinction a bit too far. On the other hand, reading εν> hHMIN και μεθ‘ 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 εν + Dative can also be found with an ‘associative’ semantic value. However’ ι would expect we could with a little work detect a semantic difference between an ‘associative’ εν + Dative and an ‘associative’ μετα + Genitive.It might be helpful to take a look at John’s use of παρα, εν, and μετα is ψοην 14:16-17:ψοην 14:16 καγω ερωθσω τον πατερα και αλλον παρακλητον δωσει hUMIN, hINA μεθ hUMWN εισ τον αιωνα Hi, 17 το πνευμα θσ αληθειασ, hO hO κοσμοσ ου δυναται λαβειν, hOTI ου θεωρει αυτο ουδε γινωσκει: hUMEIS γινωσκετε αυτο, hOTI παρ‘ hUMIN μενει και εν hUMIN εσται.Here we seen μεθ hUMWN, παρ‘ hUMIN and εν hUMIN. λ.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

Wed Jul 9 19:06:42 εδτ 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? [] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? Dear Elizabeth,You wrote:One could expect a counter argument to this along the lines that εν + Dative can also be found with an ‘associative’ semantic value.That’s the nuance that ι was thinking about. ι think of Jn 1:14, forexample:και hO λογοσ…εσκηνωσεν εν hHMIN. ι don’t doubt that εσκηνωσεν μεθ‘ hHMWN would mean something slightlydifferent in the ear of a Koine Greek speaker, but ι can’t put my finger onthe difference with any confidence.Webb Mealy– ι 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

Thu Jul 10 15:39:59 εδτ 2008

[] 1 Jn 4:17 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN? [] Help Translating John 1:18 On Jul 9, 2008, at 4:06 πμ, Webb Mealy wrote:> You wrote:> > One could expect a counter argument to this along the lines that εν +> Dative can also be found with an ‘associative’ semantic value.> > That’s the nuance that ι was thinking about. ι think of Jn 1:14, for> example:> > και hO λογοσ…εσκηνωσεν εν hHMIN.> > ι don’t doubt that εσκηνωσεν μεθ‘ hHMWN would mean something slightly> different in the ear of a Koine Greek speaker, but ι can’t put my > finger on> the difference with any confidence.> > Webb MealyWell, that is a different text. φ.Danker (βδαγ page 929) under σκηνοω cites Jn 1:14 under dative of place. ι think that is a clue to the distinction between εν + dative and μετα + Genitive. While acknowledging that it is extremely risky to try and say anything dogmatic about εν + dative, at the same time ι don’t think it is impossible to find a difference between the μετα + genitive of association and the εν + dative of association. The μετα + genitive when used of persons, appears to focus on the relational aspect, being together. The εν + dative of association seems to have at least a faint trace of a local semantic value, being in the same place with others. ι am not going to undertake the project of proving this, but take a look at Danker under εν association.α 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 μεθ‘ hHMWN–Different from εν hHMIN?[] Help Translating John 1:18