Fwd: Re: EN + reference to a person

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 28 12:47:40 EDT 2001

I really think that "geo" intended to send this to the list instead of
sending two copies of it directly to me; of course, he should have followed
B-Greek protocol and used a full-name signature. I suppose it's possible he
DID mean to send me two copies because that would do me twice as much good.
If that were your intentions, George, I respect it!

>X-Originating-IP: []
>From: "George Blaisdell" <maqhth at hotmail.com>
>To: cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
>Subject: Re: [b-greek] Re: EN + reference to a person
>Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:29:30
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2001 16:29:30.0787 (UTC)
>George Blaisdell
>Roslyn, WA
>"Be not troubling of you the heart..."
>>From: "Carl W. Conrad"
>>Perhaps there's some trepidation ... that it is an interesting but bold and
>>unprecedented notion and probably involves some theological assumptions
>>even if it is formulated as a "simple" grammatical/semantic proposition.
>>Mike Sangrey wrote:
>> >I've been wondering about phrases of the `EN <possible article> <some
>>reference to a person>'.
>> >For example,
>> >  EN CRISTWi
>> >  EN AUTWi
>> >I've wondered if I should think of these as `intensified datives'.
>IF the generic dative is locative, then EN + Dative = Intensification.
>> >In other words, taking Robertson's characterization of the dative
>> >as "case of personal interest" we would then have EN + the dative
>> >(when the nominal refers to a person) as conveying "up close and
>> >personal."
>Well, if EN = within, then with respect to living things, being within them
>is pretty close!  And if you are still alive within them, and not just being
>eaten by a bear, it is doubtless a very personal matter, involving as it
>would the whole person.  I remember Paul saying something like "Whether in
>the body or out of it, I know not.  God knows."
>>EN was most commonly used with the Locative to express stationary location
>>in space or time, far less frequently (although there are instances) with
>>the Instrumental/Comitative to express means/instrumentality.
>And perhaps in these examples, the two coalesce, location and means, for we
>are usually speaking of spiritual events - EN TW PNEUMATI is of itself the
>self-definition of that, unless we are going to understand it as in THE NAME
>OF the Spirit, and this clearly fails in at least some of the usages - So
>that the Spirit is the agent causing and the means by which and the "place"
>within Whom the spiritual event takes place.
>Does this constitute a "personal relationship"?  Well, looking at other
>publically observable personal relationships, I would have to say no, for it
>is not publically observable.  Looking at one's own personal relationships,
>it is still no, because of their equality of power - I am not able to do for
>those in close personal relationship with me what is done for me EN TW
>PNEUMATI, nor vice versa!
>Yet it is not impersonal, for it involves the person who is EN TW PNEUMATI,
>or EN CRISTW, or EN AUTW, and that person being EN...
>>If we say EN TWi PNEUMATi (and I think that EN PNEUMATI is more common in
>>the GNT) I don't think "personal relationship" is what's meant here but
>>rather means: "by means of the Spirit"--and I also think a theological bias
>>may be entering into the equation if one thinks of Spirit in terms of "a
>>person" in any ordinary sense of "a person."
>And who is going to assert that the Spirit is in any ORDINARY sense a
>"person"?  Yet Christ calls the Father Abba, which in our culture would
>translate right there along with dada and mama as baby's first words.
>And if relationship involves give and take in ordinary terms, the give and
>take EN PNEUMATI is not ordinary, at least not in any worldly sense. So
>perhaps "up close and personal" would be better formulated as "within 'the
>body of' Christ", and "within and by means of the Spirit", which is I
>believe how Christians normally understand "In the Spirit".
>And the presence of an article may be germane, where the Spirit is
>understood by it as the Person Who is the Holy Spirit, whereas without the
>article, the context might or might not so indicate...
>>Finally, I think that the usage of EN CRISTWi, like that of EIS CRISTON,
>>about which we've recently had discussion on the list, there's probably
>>something more or something different involved: a sort of "incorporation"
>>into the (corporate) body of Christ. I don't mean to say that the believer
>>is not deeply, personally, involved when EN CRISTWi, but rather that (it
>>seems to me) the believer is involved in a relationship with the "body of
>>Christ" which includes not simply himself/herself and Christ but the whole
>>body of believers as a corporate whole.
>I think that this distinction is relevant, for there is a difference between
>being EN CRISTW and being EN TW PNEUMATI, for the first indicates membership
>in the corporate Body of Christ, and the second indicates the agency
>[perhaps] and spiritual location of that membership...
>> >Now, simply grabbing the examples Iver used under a different,
>> >though related thread:
>> >  "In a close, personal relationship with the Spirit, he was lead
>> >  into the wilderness."
>The interesting thing about this one is the parallel EN + datives
>construction.  One would expect from most translations to find EIS THN
>ERHMHN, but no, it is EN TH ERHMH, with the qualifier EN TW PNEUMATI between
>HGETO and it.  So the idea would seem to be that He was led THROUGH, more
>than INTO, the desert, in the Spirit.  He was led WITHIN the desert, while
>He was within the Spirit.
>Well, that is enough rambling from the likes of me on this one - Hope it's
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

More information about the B-Greek mailing list