John 3:21
Mike Sangrey
msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Wed Aug 21 13:53:37 EDT 2002
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 came
right 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 to
go "huh?". If one can provide a model which explains these without
simultaneously creating new exceptions, then one may possibly have
expanded 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've
given up fighting it. <smile> It happens; I got over it. <chuckle>
The struggle I have is in some places where the "instrument" is a person
and therefore lends itself to an agency interpretation. I can see
myself (attempting to think Greek, here) saying, "I got that done EN
John, 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 an
agent which I have perform the task for me. Now, I'm completely
comfortable, and, in fact, enormously thankful, that God has done some
rather important things for me, but I don't think the Greek would
express that with EN, and therefore, if you will, put me in the driver's
seat. 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 respect
to, 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" without
really knowing what it means, even my hearing people speak of us being
located IN Christ (and wondering what that really meant), that made me
question what EN + CRISTWi meant. In my view (currently) I take CRISTOS
as titular and lean toward EN in the sense I've mentioned in this
thread. So, the sense is something like a profound relationship with
the Messiah. Now, I don't say that in order to take this thread in a
new direction, but to simply say that this tentatively held idea of
mine--the one of an intensified proper dative as it relates to EN
CRISTWi--is consistent (or fits) with the texts I've looked at.
Thanks again Carl. This email list, and your management of it, is very
helpful.
--
Mike Sangrey
msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Landisburg, Pa.
"The first one last wins."
"A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list