John 14:30
Posted: June 3rd, 2011, 8:28 pm
καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν
What might that mean?
Thanks.
What might that mean?
Thanks.
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=156
Literally, "and in me he does not have nothing". Which naturally makes you ask, "what might that mean"?Ruminator wrote:καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν
What might that mean?
Ancient Greek, like some other languages, tends to use the negating word (οὐ or μὴ) with a second negative adverb or pronoun. This is one of the structural features of ancient Greek usage that one learns when one works systematically through a beginning Greek textbook. One does not learn things like this from interlinears or piecing parts of the text together from individual word meanings.Ruminator wrote:Is the double negative οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν functionally equivalent to ἔχει οὐδέν?
AS I understand it, a "double negative" like this serves to strengthen the force of the negative idea. In other words, something like "he has NOTHING in me." But as Carl said, as you read in the NT, this kind of thing is fairly common.Ruminator wrote:Is the double negative οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν functionally euqivalent to ἔχει οὐδέν?
Carl,cwconrad wrote:Ancient Greek, like some other languages, tends to use the negating word (οὐ or μὴ) with a second negative adverb or pronoun. This is one of the structural features of ancient Greek usage that one learns when one works systematically through a beginning Greek textbook. One does not learn things like this from interlinears or piecing parts of the text together from individual word meanings.
No, the double negative isn't any more emphatic than a regular singular negative. (At least in my opinion.)brethicks wrote:AS I understand it, a "double negative" like this serves to strengthen the force of the negative idea. In other words, something like "he has NOTHING in me." But as Carl said, as you read in the NT, this kind of thing is fairly common.Ruminator wrote:Is the double negative οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν functionally euqivalent to ἔχει οὐδέν?
I'm assuming you're using a translation. What translation that is I don't know, but "no claim" is from οὐδέν: nothing, as in "he has nothing on me." [EDIT: I see now that Jonathan had check some translations. I had been confused where "no claim" had come from. My mistake]Bill Ross wrote:The other problem/opportunity to understand this phrase is that it is providing a rationale for the first half of the sentence:
οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω μεθ’ ὑμῶν, ἔρχεται **γὰρ** ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων· καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν,
How does "no claim" give reason for not speaking much with the disciples anymore? It seems to me that it would make much more sense if he *did* have some claim on him, so he can't stay with them. Grammatically, couldn't it just as likely be "no interest in men" or "no grip"? (I'm not suggesting these, just saying that "claim" doesn't seem to be in the words, unless that is seen as a part of ἔχει.
No. That's not possible. ἔχει cannot mean "he has no interest" so "he has no interest in me" is impossible And ἐν cannot mean "from" so "he gets nothing from me" is impossible.Bill Ross wrote:I'm wondering if ἐν ἐμοὶ isn't receiving a bit of emphasis that serves to contrast himself with his disciples? "I won't be speaking much with you any more... (in the future, you'll be doing the speak without me)." If so, then this might fit with the arrival of the paraclete, who, in the future will be assisting them by preparing what they should say at their trials. In which case, the idea might be "the ruler of this world has nothing desire for me, or anything I have to say." Or, "he gets nothing from me." "He has no interest in me."