[B-Greek] 1 Jn 4:17 MEQ' hHMWN--Different from EN hHMIN?
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 10 15:39:59 EDT 2008
On Jul 9, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Webb Mealy wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> One could expect a counter argument to this along the lines that EN +
> Dative can also be found with an 'associative' semantic value.
>
> That's the nuance that I was thinking about. I think of Jn 1:14, for
> example:
>
> KAI hO LOGOS...ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN.
>
> I don't doubt that ESKHNWSEN MEQ' hHMWN would mean something slightly
> different in the ear of a Koine Greek speaker, but I can't put my
> finger on
> the difference with any confidence.
>
> Webb Mealy
Well, that is a different text. F.Danker (BDAG page 929) under SKHNOW
cites Jn 1:14 under dative of place. I think that is a clue to the
distinction between EN + dative and META + Genitive. While
acknowledging that it is extremely risky to try and say anything
dogmatic about EN + dative, at the same time I don't think it is
impossible to find a difference between the META + genitive of
association and the EN + dative of association. The META + genitive
when used of persons, appears to focus on the relational aspect, being
together. The EN + dative of association seems to have at least a
faint trace of a local semantic value, being in the same place with
others. I am not going to undertake the project of proving this, but
take a look at Danker under EN association.
A general comment about John's style, the variety of expression, use
of "synonyms", and constituents with similar meaning/functions, is
evidence that the author was concerned that his message be well
understood. Saying more or less the same thing, employing three
slightly different expressions with slightly different meanings, is
not a bad policy if you want your message to be comprehend fully. It
is a risk avoidance approach to written communication.
To understand this well, take any play by Sophocles and read it at the
same time you are working in John's Gospel/Epistles. Sophocles never
passes up an opportunity to leave something out that he assumes his
audience can fill in from their shared cognitive framework/cultural
context. You need to know the story in advance to make any sense out
of it. The contrast between John and Sophocles is striking.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list