Thanks for your responses. I appreciate them. Let me follow up a bit.
2 John 1-2 wrote:1 Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 2 διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἔσται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
cwconrad wrote:It might do well here to review all the instances of ἀλήθεια in the Johannine literature (i.e. the gospel and the three letters), and especially where it's used with the article. My thinking is that διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν is to be understood with the ἀγαπῶμεν implicitly understood with οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν and with the implicit γράφω: this ἀλήθεια is the reason for the composition and transmission of this letter.. For my part, I don't think there should be a comma between the two verses.
I was hoping that a good response would not involve reviewing all the instances of ἀλήθεια in the Johannine literature. I think this is tantamount to saying that the narrow context isn't going to be too helpful (which is always a problem with this author). I am a little confused about the statement "that διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν is to be understood with the ἀγαπῶμεν . . . and with the implicit γράφω"--do you see it construed with
both verbs. I'm not sure what you mean by the "comma between the two verses": is that the comma between verses 1 and 2 or the one I pointed between ἐν ἡμῖν and καὶ μεθ’ ἡμῶν?
David Lim wrote:Like Carl, I take "δια την αληθειαν" to modify "αγαπω". If I were to give a reason it would be that it is an adverbial prepositional phrase and must modify a verb form, and the nearest one that fits would be "αγαπω" (not "εγνωκοτες").
Well, there are three possible verbal forms to pick from in order of proximity, ἐγνωκότες, ἀγαπῶ, and the implied γράφει/γράφω. I don't quite see how it fits better with ἀγαπῶ than with γράφω, however. I can see how giving a reason fits better with writing than with loving, but how would it work with your option:
I love you in truth on account of the truth abiding in us? Please explain this further.
David Lim wrote:I would take it to be a separate statement, with the focus on the whole "μεθ ημων εις τον αιωνα". But I'm curious as to the suggested possibility that "εσται" represents the future participle; are there any examples you know that indicate the existence of such a phenomenon of finite verbs that seem to take the place of participles?
The statement about "focus" is confusing, because it is a technical term (where only μεθ' ἡμῶν is in focus, based on fronting: the whole statement is not focus). As for the other issues, there is a certain parallelism between stating that the truth abides within us and then asserting that it will be with us forever. The parallelism of thought, however, is broken by the switch from participle to finite verb form. As you know, participles often do the work of finite verbs.
David Lim wrote:I understand "εν αληθεια" similarly as "in truth" ("according to what is true"), while "η αληθεια" here refers to "the truth" ("the commandments/teachings/revelations from God"). The former is indefinite, which is why it is the latter that is described as "remaining in us". Of course, in this context the former implicitly refers to the latter; "it is because of the instruction from God that we keep in our hearts, which is truth, that we love the chosen lady, and not just I but also all the ones who have received this instruction, and this instruction will remain with us for ever."
This explanation is a little confusing if not contradictory, because it is asserted that the former is indefinite but also that it refers to something identifiable. How can it be both? At any rate, I was thinking about the NET Bible's note on the former:
The prepositional phrase ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (en alhqeia) in 2 John 1 is similar to 3 John 1, although it is not qualified there as it is here (see 3 John 1). This is not merely the equivalent of an adverb (“truly”), but is a theological statement affirming the orthodoxy of Gaius, to whom the letter is addressed. “Truth” is the author’s way of alluding to theological orthodoxy in the face of the challenge by the opponents (see 1 John 3:19).
Aside from the confusion over which of the little Johns is addressed to Gaius, they take the phrase ἐν ἀληθείᾳ not be merely adverbial but a reference to orthodoxy. I think you're doing similar but also trying to have the adverbial usage too?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia