[B-Greek] 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


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 ESTIN

1JOHN 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







More information about the B-Greek mailing list