I think I am saying almost what you don't want to hear! I would not want
to say that John is suggesting the whole semantic domain whenever he uses a
word. However, he often uses words with more than one meaning. For the
implied reader such usage will mean different things on different readings
of the text - the classic is his use of UPSOW. The problem with Stibbe and
Wead suggesting only double rather than multiple meaning is that sometimes
there are more than two English equivalences to a word.
Now the other problem is in your understanding of what I am saying about
how real readers read texts - and specifically how Greek readers read Greek
texts. John does not suggest the whole semantic domain - the word does.
John doesn't go around using a word and then add a qualifying phrase - "Oh
sorry this is ARXH only in this sense of its semantic domain." He just
uses the words. The context qualifies the semantic domain. The thing with
the Fourth Gospel is that the immediate context may well qualify the
semantic domain towards one way of interpretation while the broader context
of the gospel may well push the semantic field into another area of
interpretation. You see what I mean?
.....(message truncated)