From: Carl William Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 16 1998 - 09:48:51 EST
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 02:34:45 EST, Paul Dixon wrote:
PSD: "Thanks, Carl, for all the interesting research and analysis on the
hOTE construct in the NT. Your findings do favor taking hOTE with the
immediately preceding APEIQHSASIN POTE. This, of course, does not mean the
preaching does not take place at that time too, just that we are not
likely to prove that it does by a supposed KHRUXEN - hOTE connection."
CWC: What it actually means, of course, is that we're not likely to prove
it one way or the other.
PSD: "This leads to the next observation. It is interesting to note that
most translations treat APEIQHSASIN as an adjectival participle, "who once
were disobedient" (NASB), "who disobeyed long ago" (NIV), "who formerly
did not obey" (RSV), etc. Yet, the participle is anarthrous. BDF(sec 270)
says, TAn attributive adjective (participle) ... placed in the
postposition ... must have its own article.'"
CWC: Quite true; but, as I think you noted in your first post on this
passage several days ago, the aorist participle by no means necessarily
refers to past time.
PSD: "We could certainly render it adverbially as "when they formerly
[dis]obeyed." If so, then the time of the preaching is set in Noah's day.
Grudem cites the following fairly close examples: Mk 16:10, Jn 1:36, Acts
7:2, Acts 7:26, Acts 8:12; 11:17; 2 Cor 5;14, Heb 7:1."
CWC: I've looked at all these examples; the only thing I see in common
about them is that they all involve finite verbs with complements
accompanied by a predicative participle, some of those participles being
in the present tense, others in the aorist. I don't see any reason why
those participles should necessarily be understood to have temporal sense,
although that's certainly ONE possibility with a predicative participle.
PSD: "At any rate, read Grudem's discussion on this. He concludes, "Christ
preached to the spirits who are now in prison but he did so 'when they
formerly disobeyed.'"
CWC: Well, I can see that as a possibility; what I can't see is any
compelling argument for it on the basis of those examples you've cited. It
really seems to me that this passage remains very obscure, a NON LIQUET
involving several unsatisfying grammatical indicators which raise more
questions than they admit definitive answers to. And it is the grammar
that I have found the real challenge in this passage. Which makes me
wonder, whether in fact the first readers of this text DID understand
exactly what the author meant; well, very likely they understood it better
than we do.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:57 EDT