1 Peter 4:3 Why is πεπορευμένους accusative?

The forum for those who still struggle with morphology, syntax, and idiom, or who wish to discuss basic questions about the meaning of Greek texts, syntax, or words.
Forum rules
This is not a place for students to ask for the answers to their homework assignments. Users who do that may be banned.
Post Reply
Brandon
Posts: 2
Joined: July 20th, 2016, 5:32 am

1 Peter 4:3 Why is πεπορευμένους accusative?

Post by Brandon » July 20th, 2016, 11:02 am

1 Peter 4:3 reads:

ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι, πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυμίαις, οἰνοφλυγίαις, κώμοις, πότοις, καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις.

Why is the participle πεπορευμένους in the accusative?

Brandon
0 x



Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1309
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: 1 Peter 4:3 Why is πεπορευμένους accusative?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » July 22nd, 2016, 2:36 pm

Brandon wrote:1 Peter 4:3 reads:

ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι, πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυμίαις, οἰνοφλυγίαις, κώμοις, πότοις, καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις.

Why is the participle πεπορευμένους in the accusative?

Brandon
Hey, Brandon, good question. It functions as the subject, or possibly modifying the understood subject, of the infinitive κατειργάσθαι, dependent on ἀρκετός. The subject of the infinitive usually goes into the accusative, unless it is the same as the subject of the main verb (then it goes into the nominative).
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: 1 Peter 4:3 Why is πεπορευμένους accusative?

Post by Stephen Hughes » July 22nd, 2016, 11:57 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:It functions as the subject, or possibly modifying the understood subject, of the infinitive κατειργάσθαι, ...
It is good to look at things closely in their details, and also to step back and see things in broad contexts. Barry talks about the immediate phrase, let me add a few comments about the broader passage...

The authour of First Peter uses the pronoun ὑμεῖς, ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν, ὑμᾶς more sparingly than other Greek authours (ie Paul) that you might be used to. Let's touch for a moment on what is happening with ὑμεῖς as a transitional marker ...

He is writing to a group of people, and they know that he is writing to them, and he knows that they know ... , so he doesn't need to add the pronoun. Since there is no change in the person that is being talked about, the pronoun is not needed to transition our thinking between persons (1st person, 2nd person ...). It is the type of writing that WE might use on short fridge notes - it is not good or bad Greek because of this, and wrting in this style may or may not infer something or nothing about the relationship between the authour and the audience. I think it is just his personal style.

Recognising the authour's style, we need to add the sense of the pronoun ὑμᾶς to what is physically written here in this phrase. In effect πεπορευμένους is 2nd person plural - participles do not explicitly indicate person - and the person is known from other elements in the text. In this case, even the other Greek words do not make it clear. It comes from understood ὑμᾶς that is "obvious" from the fact that the authour is addressing (the person we are adressing is in the 2nd person) an audience of many people, and that in this part of the letter he is talking to them (dialogue) not about somebody else (story), so there is no ambiguity that ὑμᾶς "you" (pl.) is the understood person.
0 x
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1309
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: 1 Peter 4:3 Why is πεπορευμένους accusative?

Post by Barry Hofstetter » July 23rd, 2016, 8:13 am

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:It functions as the subject, or possibly modifying the understood subject, of the infinitive κατειργάσθαι, ...
It is good to look at things closely in their details, and also to step back and see things in broad contexts. Barry talks about the immediate phrase, let me add a few comments about the broader passage...

The authour of First Peter uses the pronoun ὑμεῖς, ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν, ὑμᾶς more sparingly than other Greek authours (ie Paul) that you might be used to. Let's touch for a moment on what is happening with ὑμεῖς as a transitional marker ...

He is writing to a group of people, and they know that he is writing to them, and he knows that they know ... , so he doesn't need to add the pronoun. Since there is no change in the person that is being talked about, the pronoun is not needed to transition our thinking between persons (1st person, 2nd person ...). It is the type of writing that WE might use on short fridge notes - it is not good or bad Greek because of this, and wrting in this style may or may not infer something or nothing about the relationship between the authour and the audience. I think it is just his personal style.

Recognising the authour's style, we need to add the sense of the pronoun ὑμᾶς to what is physically written here in this phrase. In effect πεπορευμένους is 2nd person plural - participles do not explicitly indicate person - and the person is known from other elements in the text. In this case, even the other Greek words do not make it clear. It comes from understood ὑμᾶς that is "obvious" from the fact that the authour is addressing (the person we are adressing is in the 2nd person) an audience of many people, and that in this part of the letter he is talking to them (dialogue) not about somebody else (story), so there is no ambiguity that ὑμᾶς "you" (pl.) is the understood person.
Yes, that is a valid way to understand the text, and precisely how the NAS takes it. However, it's not the only way, cf. the ESV:
For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.
This is why I said "possibly modifyng the understood subject..." But precisely how we view that aspect of the syntax, the accusative case is explained.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Post Reply