I likewise viewed the switch from PARALAMBANO in 1:11 to LAMBANW in 1:12 as
another example of a simple stylistic word switch. But my study of lexicons
seems to indicate that the semantic overlap of the two words isn't that
great, and hence I wonder if there really is a change in meaning here, or if
instead the author is using LAMBANW to segue, so to speak, from rejecting
Jesus to believing in Jesus. I.e.:
1:11 unto his own [things / nation] he came, and those [people] who were his
own did not give him a welcome / take him as their own [PARALAMBANW]
1:12 but to whoever received him / took him as their authority [LAMBANW] =
to those who believe in his name, he gave to them authority to become
children of God [switching the second and third part of the verse more
clearly shows the possible epexegetical relation of 1:12c to 1:12a]
1:13 who not from blood(s) and not from the will of the flesh and not from
the will of man (or: a husband) but from God were born.
I guess what I'm saying or asking is that it seems that in making his
transition/comparison/contrast from or between those who "rejected" Jesus
(1:11) -- and "reject" seems to be a legitimate translation of OU PARELABON --
with those who "believed" in him, the author deliberately chose to use
LAMBANW (1:12) because it is lexically linked to the preceding PARALAMBANW,
and then he epexegetically relates it to the following PISTEUW.
Any comments/thoughts? (I'd also welcome any comments on the issue of
whether the author in his switching of closely-related words really does
indicate a change of meaning or emphasis, or whether it is mostly stylistic.)
Thanks.