[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