From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Wed Jan 14 1998 - 18:39:55 EST
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:10:15 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad"
>
> I've been discussing with Paul Dixon the question whether the hOTE
clause of >3:20 should be construed with the immediately preceding
participle >APEIQHSASIN (as I think) or rather with POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN,
(as Paul >and perhaps some others also think). Paul wrote me yesterday,
(and I think >this is a B-Greek issue, since it is a question of what the
Greek text may >legitimately mean, wherefore I am citing him, I hope not
to his discomfort:
No, I had thought it probably should be B-Greeked. When I didn't get an
immediate response I wondered if you had dived off the deep end. Yes,
there he is, searching for the goodies. Well done.
>"The temporal indicator hOTE may be determinative. I wondered how it
>was used elsewhere in scripture, particularly with regard to whether its
>antecedent was normally a main verb (like EKHRUXEN) or if it was ever
>a modifying participle (like APEIQHSASIN). hOTE occurs 103 times in the
>NT. I randomly selected 25 or so. In every case hOTE was related to a
main
>verb. This certainly favors relating hOTE in 3:20 back to EKHRUXEN.
Plus, it
>does seem TOIS EN FULAKQHi PNEUMASIN POREUQEIS EKRUXEN >APEIQHSASIN POTE
has to be taken as a unit, since TOIS, PNEUMASIN, >and APEIQHSASIN are
all related. The separation of APEIQHSASIN from >PNEUMASIN could then be
simply for emphasis on the former."
>
>I've done my own Accordance check and then an analysis of the hOTE
>clauses. Of 103 hOTE clauses in NT: in 80 verses the hOTE clause
>immediately PRECEDES the main clause it governs (4 are Matthaean
>end-of-discourse formulae: KAI EGENETO hOTE ETELESEN hO IHSOUS >TOUS
LOGOUS TOUTOUS, ... ); there are 20 verses in which the hOTE >clause
FOLLOWS upon its antecedent; of these 3 are in the clause in the
>synoptic pericope immediately following "what David did when"; 5 MORE
have >immediately preceding clause with existential EINAI (e.g. Jn 20:24
OUK HN >MET' AUTWN hOTE HLQEN IHSOUS)v; 11 of them have hOTE clause
>immediately following upon some indication of time (e.g. Jn 9:4 ERCETAI
NUX >hOTE OUDEIS DUNATAI ERGAZESQAI ; Lk 13:35 is probably bogus, if
>hHXEI hOTE is omitted: Lk 13:35 OU MH IDHTE ME hEWS
>[hHXEI hOTE] EIPHTE: ...
>
>Nearest parallel to 1 Peter 3:20 construction is Col 3:7
>1Pet. 3:20 APEIQHSASIN POTE hOTE APEDECETO hH TOU QEOUS >MAKROQUMIA EN
hHMERAIS NWE KATASKEUAZOMENHS KIBWTOU ...
>Col. 3:7 EN hOIS KAI hUMEIS PERIEPATHSATE POTE, hOTE EZHTE EN >TOUTOIS:
...
>
>I would argue that the hOTE clause in both 1 Pet 3:20 and Col 3:7
>should link directly to the preceding POTE rather than to the verb on
which
>the POTE hangs, the participle APEIQHSASIN in 1 Peter, the finite verb
>PERIEPATHSATE in Col--so that the sequence is "at one time when ..." I
>don't think the data I've gathered are necessarily conclusive, but it
>seems to me that the question to be asked about the hOTE clauses is not
>whether they can or cannot link with a participle (as it clearly does in
Jn
>12:17 EMARTUREI OUN hO OCLOS hO WN MET'AUTOU hOTE TON >LAZARON EFWNHSEN
... ) but rather what sorts of antecedents they CAN >link to. The data
seem to indicate that most frequently they set the time frame >for the
main clause that immediately follows (80x) while they follow upon a >main
clause in 20 instances, and 11 of these are expressions of time ('the
>day/night/hour is coming ...") and then there are these two instances
where the >hOTE clause really seems to link to an immediately preceding
POTE.
>
>In view of this I think it more likely that the hOTE clause in 1 Peter
3:20
>should be read with APEIQHSASIN hOTE than with the more distant
>(although not all that distant) POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN.
>
>This tiny little passage may not be one of the more important in the NT,
>but it has provided one of the most interesting problems of decipherment
in
>terms of the grammar.
Thanks for your research, Carl. If I can make just a few observations.
First, you cite only one other case parallel to 1 Pet 3:20 where hOTE is
the temporal indicator of a preceding participle (Jn 12:17). I hate to
be the bearer of bad news, but we do have a textual problem here. At
least P66, D, and K have hOTI rather than hOTE. One can readily see why
a scribe would change it to hOTE.
Are there any other non-questionable examples in the NT, LXX, or even
extra-biblical literature?
The Col 3:7 parallel (?) is not a true parallel, because PERIEPATHSATE is
not a participle.
I like your suggestion, however, that: "The data seem to indicate that
most frequently they (the hOTE clauses) set the time frame for the main
clause that immediately follows (80x) while they follow upon a main
clause in 20 instances..."
Now if we take the main clause in 1 Pet 3:19 as beginning with the
articular TOIS and ending with the participial APEIQNSASIN POTE to which
it stands grammatically related, then there would be no problem with
viewing the hOTE clause as giving the temporal indication for the entire
preceding main clause, including the main verb EKHRUXEN.
I am still struck by the preponderance of cases where the hOTE clause is
the temporal indicator of the main verb, and would love to find an
example(s) more parallel to 1 Pet 3:20, where the hOTE clause is the
temporal indicator of a preceding participle.
Thanks again for the great stuff.
Paul Dixon
Had to respond on the fly here, so
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:56 EDT