John 3:21

John 3:21 Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 19 22:09:26 EDT 2002

Rom 8:26 -- article John 3:13 Perfect Finite and Aorist Participle hO DE POIWN THN ALHQEIAN ERCETAI PROS TO FWS, hINA FANERWQHi AUTOUTA ERGA hOTI EN QEWi ESTIN EIRGASMENAThe idea seems to me to be that one comes to the light in orderto show forth that his/her deeds were done "in God." This light shinesupon the deeds so that those who care to look upon them can see thatthey were done "in God."What in the world does this phrase "in God" mean? Has John developedthis idea of "in God" upto this point? Is this the first use of thisnew concept of "in God?" (Prior to this, people could believe in God, but that use of "in him" does not seem to fit here.)Mark Wilson_________________________________________________________________Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Rom 8:26 -- articleJohn 3:13 Perfect Finite and Aorist Participle

John 3:21 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Tue Aug 20 00:55:03 EDT 2002

John 3:13 Perfect Finite and Aorist Participle Teaching with Mounce In a message dated 8/19/2002 10:09:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, emory2oo2 at hotmail.com writes:hO DE POIWN THN ALHQEIAN ERCETAI PROS TO FWS, hINA FANERWQHi AUTOUTA ERGA hOTI EN QEWi ESTIN EIRGASMENAThe idea seems to me to be that one comes to the light in orderto show forth that his/her deeds were done "in God." This light shinesupon the deeds so that those who care to look upon them can see thatthey were done "in God."What in the world does this phrase "in God" mean? Has John developedthis idea of "in God" upto this point? Is this the first use of thisnew concept of "in God?" (Prior to this, people could believe in God, but that use of "in him" does not seem to fit here.)__________________________________________This very question arose on the b-translation list. Unlike some of the failure to understand phrases in translation I think this failure to understand was quite legitimate. Speaking of doing something "in God" does seem rather strange. The term EN QEWi is used five times in the NT. 1. Our passage2. Rom 2.17 where Paul speaks of the Jew boasting of his relationship to God.3. 1 Thess. 1.1 where Paul greets the Thessalonians as being in relationship to God4. 2 Thess. 1.1 similarly5. Jude 1 a similar usageOur passage, however, appears to be somewhat different. Indeed, Wallace cautions (p. 145) against the confusion of the dative of reference with the dative of sphere. This appears to me to be more likely to be a dative of sphere than a dative of reference. It would appear that what he has in mind is a sphere of influence governed by God in which the deeds would be considered to be carried out.gfsomsel

John 3:13 Perfect Finite and Aorist ParticipleTeaching with Mounce

John 3:21 Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Tue Aug 20 11:13:30 EDT 2002

ADOKIMOS = disqualified for the prize? Smyth's grammar On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 22:09, Mark Wilson wrote:> > > hO DE POIWN THN ALHQEIAN ERCETAI PROS TO FWS, hINA FANERWQHi AUTOU> TA ERGA hOTI EN QEWi ESTIN EIRGASMENA> > The idea seems to me to be that one comes to the light in order> to show forth that his/her deeds were done "in God." This light shines> upon the deeds so that those who care to look upon them can see that> they were done "in God."> > What in the world does this phrase "in God" mean?<snip>For a little while now, I've thought that sometimes (maybe evenfrequently) EN + <some personal referent> has the sense of anintensified proper dative.I start with A.T. Robertson's statement of the dative being "the case ofpersonal interest" and simply intensify it and arrive at "close,personal association and/or relationship." But how do I get there? Robertson cites (under EN in the "Big BrownBook") 1 Cor. 14:11 and hesitantly says "we have EN used merely as thedative". The text is: EAN OUN MH EIDW THN DUNAMIN THS FWNHS, ESOMAI TWi LALOUNTI BARBAROS KAI hO LALWN EN EMOI BARBAROSI take Paul to be saying (essentially) "if I'm deaf and mute, I will bea non-Greek to the one who can speak, and the one who can speak, as faras I'm concerned, will also be a non-Greek." So, I take EN EMOI to mean"in reference to what concerns me" and thus translate into English with"as far as I'm concerned." It's essentially a dative, but I think itemphasizes the association and relationship between the two people atthat point; and, given the context, emphasizes the communicationbreakdown that occurs in such a situation. A simple dative would nothave added this emphasis; EN + <personal referent> does. Well, IMO, itdoes.Secondly, Robertson mentions, in regards to the dative, "The dative isnot a local case. There was originally no idea of place in it. It isthus a purely grammatical case." And "the dative has a distinctivepersonal touch not true of the others."Also, when I see a preposition I note the case of the object in thephrase, assess how that case fits into the sentence, and then allow thepreposition to "have its way" with the case. Again, to cite Robertson,"`The preposition is, therefore, only an adverb specialized to define acase-usage' (citing Giles, Man., etc)" He cites Blass when he says,"the use of a preposition with nouns was `a practice which in the courseof the history of the language became more and more adopted inopposition to the employment of the simple case.'" He goes on tomention the Emperor Augustus was noted for his excessive use ofprepositions in his effort to speak more clearly." So, what we havethen in the development of the language is prepositions coming on boardto better define the core idea of the case. I didn't learn this verywell when it was taught.Let me add a parenthesis here and hopefully balance this a little: As aperson becomes more fluent, the <preposition> + <case> construct becomesan idiomatic unit; and that is what the grammars list. The point I'mmaking here is that the natural training of the mind toward fluencytends to not happen with the category approach to learningprepositions. Therefore the person (the mind, actually) doesn't benefitfrom the more foundational case idea first before it adds theprepositional (adverbial) ideas of the prepositions. Perhaps thisfeedback to those who teach Greek may be helpful. IMO, I think thereneeds to be some kind of layering of the prepositions onto semantics ofthe cases.Anyway, what I'm saying is: * The dative case is the case of personal interest, and * EN, when used with a personal object intensifies this concept, and * therefore, the elements of personal relationship are made more salient.Here's how I see this playing out in John 3:21:Jesus' argument in John 3:19ff proceeds as follows: Light has come intothe world, but people are attracted to the shadows because what they doare evil things. They don't want to be exposed, so they hate thelight. But, whoever lives their lives according to the truth [orperhaps, with integrity] comes into the light so that it becomes clearthat what they have done has been done in a relationship with God.The implication, as I see it, is that the exposure validates therelationship with God. This mirrors, or reflects John's recording ofNicodemus' statement at the beginning of this section--cf 3:2 EAN MH HihO QEOS MET' AUTOU, so there's a little bit of inclusio going on here,too.I know a number of people, when I've thanked them for their ministry,have an almost knee-jerk reaction and say, "May God have the glory." It's the same sort of thing here. The exposure of who they arevalidates their relationship with God and they in turn recognize thatthe value of their ministry ultimately is determined by Him alone.-- Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. "The first one last wins." "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."

ADOKIMOS = disqualified for the prize?Smyth's grammar

John 3:21 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Aug 21 08:26:53 EDT 2002

Smyth's grammar identifying sentences I would like to thank Mike Sangrey for a thoughtful and thought-provokingdiscussion of this usage of EN + dative of proper name or personal pronoun.It has sent me scurrying back to ATR and prompted me to ask several timesas I have read and reread Mike's post: "Did Robertson really say that?"I've found myself responding to my own question: "No and Yes indeed."Through recent years I have become increasingly uncomfortable with mytraditional understanding of the Hellenistic and particularly the GNT usageof EN + dative. Inasmuch as the historical Greek dative case forms servenot only the functions of the original Indo-European dative but also thoseof the original Indo-European instrumental-comitative and locative cases,I'd always found it comfortable to think of classical Greek dative usagesin three functional categories correlated to English prepositional-phraseformats: (1) "to/for whom" (true dative); (2) "in/on/at" (locative); and(3) "with/by-means-of what/whom" (instrumental/comitative). What becomesclear to a reader of NT Greek pretty quickly is that prepositional phrasescomprising EN + dative are NOT uniformly indicative of a locative functionbut are quite frequently instrumental (e.g., AUTOS DE BAPTISEI hUMAS ENPNEUMATI hAGIWi)It is really worth reading carefully through BDAG's listing of usages of EN+ dative and studying the examples which he offers in each of hissubcategories.I cite only the chief categories and subcategories in his accounting, whichencompasses the better part of four pages. I think that his heading note isvery nicely expressed: "The earliest auditors/readers, not beinginconvenienced by grammatical and lexical debates, would readily absorb thecontext and experience little difficulty." Indeed, where we encounterdifficulty is in converting these EN + dative phrases into intelligiblelanguage in our target languages (e.g., "we use 'in Christ' all so freely,but I wonder how well we understand the intent of the Pauline EN CRISTWi):EN prep. w. dat. (Hom.+). ... The uses of this prep. are so many andvarious, and oft. so easily confused, that a strictly systematic treatmentis impossible. It must suffice to list the main categories, which will helpestablish the usage in individual cases. The earliest auditors/readers, notbeing inconvenienced by grammatical and lexical debates, would readilyabsorb the context and experience little difficulty.1. marker of a position defined as being in a location, in, among(the basic idea, Rob. 586f)a. of the space or place within which someth. is found, inb. onc. within the range of, at, neard. among, ine. before, in the presence of, etc.2. marker of a state or condition, ina. of being clothed and metaphors assoc. with such condition in, withb. of other states and conditions3. marker of extension toward a goal that is understood to bewithin an area or condition, into4. marker of close association within a limit, ina. fig., of pers., to indicate the state of being filled w. orgripped by someth.: in someone=in one's innermost beingb. of the whole, w. which the parts are closely joinedc. esp. in Paul. or Joh. usage, to designate a close personalrelation in which the referent of the e™n-term is viewed as the controllinginfluence: under the control of, under the influence of, in closeassociation with5. marker introducing means or instrument, with, a constructionthat begins w. Homer (many examples of instrumental e™na. it can serve to introduce persons or things that accompanysomeone to secure an objective: 'along with'a. pers., esp. of a military force, w. blending of associative (s.4) and instrumental ideab. impers.b. it can serve to express means or instrumentality in terms oflocation for a specific action6. marker of agency7. marker of circumstance or condition under which someth. takes place8. marker denoting the object to which someth. happens or in whichsometh. shows itself, or by which someth. is recognized, to, by, inconnection with9. marker of cause or reason, because of, on account ofa. gener.b. w. verbs that express feeling or emotion, to denote that towardwhich the feeling is directed=10marker of a period of time, in, while, whena. indicating an occurrence or action within which, at a certainpoint, someth. occurs=b. point of time when someth. occurs=c. to introduce an activity whose time is given when, while, during11 marker denoting kind and manner, esp. functioning as anauxiliary in periphrasis for adverbs12 marker of specification or substanceAt 11:13 AM -0400 8/20/02, Mike Sangrey wrote:>On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 22:09, Mark Wilson wrote:>> >> >> hO DE POIWN THN ALHQEIAN ERCETAI PROS TO FWS, hINA FANERWQHi AUTOU>> TA ERGA hOTI EN QEWi ESTIN EIRGASMENA>> >> The idea seems to me to be that one comes to the light in order>> to show forth that his/her deeds were done "in God." This light shines>> upon the deeds so that those who care to look upon them can see that>> they were done "in God.">> >> What in the world does this phrase "in God" mean?><snip>> >For a little while now, I've thought that sometimes (maybe even>frequently) EN + <some personal referent> has the sense of an>intensified proper dative.> >I start with A.T. Robertson's statement of the dative being "the case of>personal interest" and simply intensify it and arrive at "close,>personal association and/or relationship."> >But how do I get there? Robertson cites (under EN in the "Big Brown>Book") 1 Cor. 14:11 and hesitantly says "we have EN used merely as the>dative". The text is:> EAN OUN MH EIDW THN DUNAMIN THS FWNHS, ESOMAI TWi LALOUNTI BARBAROS> KAI hO LALWN EN EMOI BARBAROS> >I take Paul to be saying (essentially) "if I'm deaf and mute, I will be>a non-Greek to the one who can speak, and the one who can speak, as far>as I'm concerned, will also be a non-Greek." So, I take EN EMOI to mean>"in reference to what concerns me" and thus translate into English with>"as far as I'm concerned." It's essentially a dative, but I think it>emphasizes the association and relationship between the two people at>that point; and, given the context, emphasizes the communication>breakdown that occurs in such a situation. A simple dative would not>have added this emphasis; EN + <personal referent> does. Well, IMO, it>does.> >Secondly, Robertson mentions, in regards to the dative, "The dative is>not a local case. There was originally no idea of place in it. It is>thus a purely grammatical case." And "the dative has a distinctive>personal touch not true of the others."> >Also, when I see a preposition I note the case of the object in the>phrase, assess how that case fits into the sentence, and then allow the>preposition to "have its way" with the case. Again, to cite Robertson,>"`The preposition is, therefore, only an adverb specialized to define a>case-usage' (citing Giles, Man., etc)" He cites Blass when he says,>"the use of a preposition with nouns was `a practice which in the course>of the history of the language became more and more adopted in>opposition to the employment of the simple case.'" He goes on to>mention the Emperor Augustus was noted for his excessive use of>prepositions in his effort to speak more clearly." So, what we have>then in the development of the language is prepositions coming on board>to better define the core idea of the case. I didn't learn this very>well when it was taught.> >Let me add a parenthesis here and hopefully balance this a little: As a>person becomes more fluent, the <preposition> + <case> construct becomes>an idiomatic unit; and that is what the grammars list. The point I'm>making here is that the natural training of the mind toward fluency>tends to not happen with the category approach to learning>prepositions. Therefore the person (the mind, actually) doesn't benefit>from the more foundational case idea first before it adds the>prepositional (adverbial) ideas of the prepositions. Perhaps this>feedback to those who teach Greek may be helpful. IMO, I think there>needs to be some kind of layering of the prepositions onto semantics of>the cases.> >Anyway, what I'm saying is:> * The dative case is the case of personal interest, and> * EN, when used with a personal object intensifies this concept,> and> * therefore, the elements of personal relationship are made more> salient.> >Here's how I see this playing out in John 3:21:> >Jesus' argument in John 3:19ff proceeds as follows: Light has come into>the world, but people are attracted to the shadows because what they do>are evil things. They don't want to be exposed, so they hate the>light. But, whoever lives their lives according to the truth [or>perhaps, with integrity] comes into the light so that it becomes clear>that what they have done has been done in a relationship with God.> >The implication, as I see it, is that the exposure validates the>relationship with God. This mirrors, or reflects John's recording of>Nicodemus' statement at the beginning of this section--cf 3:2 EAN MH Hi>hO QEOS MET' AUTOU, so there's a little bit of inclusio going on here,>too.> >I know a number of people, when I've thanked them for their ministry,>have an almost knee-jerk reaction and say, "May God have the glory.">It's the same sort of thing here. The exposure of who they are>validates their relationship with God and they in turn recognize that>the value of their ministry ultimately is determined by Him alone.> >-->Mike Sangrey>msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org>Landisburg, Pa.> "The first one last wins."> "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."> > >---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: [cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]>To unsubscribe, forward this message to>$subst('Email.Unsub')>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu-- Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Smyth's grammaridentifying sentences

John 3:21 Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Wed Aug 21 13:53:37 EDT 2002

Smyth's grammar Smyth's grammar On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 08:26, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> I would like to thank Mike Sangrey for a thoughtful and thought-provoking> discussion of this usage of EN + dative of proper name or personal pronoun.> It has sent me scurrying back to ATR and prompted me to ask several times> as I have read and reread Mike's post: "Did Robertson really say that?"> I've found myself responding to my own question: "No and Yes indeed."Thank you, Carl!One quick note of clarification: I hope I didn't imply that ATR cameright out and said what I said; though I was building on what he said. It's cases like John 3:21 which seem exceptional, which cause people togo "huh?". If one can provide a model which explains these withoutsimultaneously creating new exceptions, then one may possibly haveexpanded the science.> Through recent years I have become increasingly uncomfortable with my> traditional understanding of the Hellenistic and particularly the GNT usage> of EN + dative. <snip> What becomes> clear to a reader of NT Greek pretty quickly is that prepositional phrases> comprising EN + dative are NOT uniformly indicative of a locative function> but are quite frequently instrumental (e.g., AUTOS DE BAPTISEI hUMAS EN> PNEUMATI hAGIWi)There's been a number of times when I see EN that I say to myself,"Gosh, that looks all the world like something instrumental." I'vegiven up fighting it. <smile> It happens; I got over it. <chuckle>The struggle I have is in some places where the "instrument" is a personand therefore lends itself to an agency interpretation. I can seemyself (attempting to think Greek, here) saying, "I got that done ENJohn, my employee." It's rude (in English culture), but it works. But,I can't get my mind around how a superior, especially God, can be anagent which I have perform the task for me. Now, I'm completelycomfortable, and, in fact, enormously thankful, that God has done somerather important things for me, but I don't think the Greek wouldexpress that with EN, and therefore, if you will, put me in the driver'sseat. That sounds backward, both theologically, and semantically. ISTM, when those type of roles and functions come into play, other"agency" words come into play and sentences are constructed differently.I CAN, however, think of myself doing various activities with respectto, or, in reference to, a relationship with God. A more intimate`with' if you will.<snip>> .... Indeed, where we encounter> difficulty is in converting these EN + dative phrases into intelligible> language in our target languages (e.g., "we use 'in Christ' all so freely,> but I wonder how well we understand the intent of the Pauline EN CRISTWi):> "Indeed", indeed! The "all too freely" use of "in Christ" withoutreally knowing what it means, even my hearing people speak of us beinglocated IN Christ (and wondering what that really meant), that made mequestion what EN + CRISTWi meant. In my view (currently) I take CRISTOSas titular and lean toward EN in the sense I've mentioned in thisthread. So, the sense is something like a profound relationship withthe Messiah. Now, I don't say that in order to take this thread in anew direction, but to simply say that this tentatively held idea ofmine--the one of an intensified proper dative as it relates to ENCRISTWi--is consistent (or fits) with the texts I've looked at. Thanks again Carl. This email list, and your management of it, is veryhelpful.-- Mike Sangreymsangrey at BlueFeltHat.orgLandisburg, Pa. "The first one last wins." "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."

Smyth's grammarSmyth's grammar

Dear friends, what is the effect of putting αὐτοῦ before its Referent "τὰ ἔργα": John 3:21 Ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα. Is it possible to translate this Feature? Maybe "his own deeds" or something similar? Then, additionally, how can the "truth" be done? Is it rather: to act according to truth? Thanks for all help ! Yours Peter, Germany Statistics: Posted by Peter Streitenberger — November 27th, 2013, 7:44 am

---