Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 06 1995 - 20:20:11 EST


Thank God and all the parties named in the cited posts below for bringing
discussion to focus on an issue that is at least more immediately
grammatical, even if it does have theological repercussions, namely, how we
are to understand hOTAN IN 1 Cor 13:10. I don't see any way to omit
previous correspondence if the context is to be understood.

At 11:57 AM 12/6/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, David Moore responded to my post:
>
>>Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>For me, a more crucial question than the meaning of TO TELEION is the
>>>significance of hOTAN in verse 10. Edward Irving argued that this implied
>>>that TO EK MEROUS "the thing in part" would not cease (except for times of
>>>corruption in the church) *until* TO TELEION should come. I no longer
>>>believe
>>>this follows. In verse 11, Paul says, hOTE GEGONA ANHR, KATHRGHKA TA TOU
>>>NHPIOU "When I became a man [NRSV adult], I put away the things of the
>>>child."
>>>Paul did not retain all his childish speech, thinking, and reasoning
>>>until the
>>>age of manhood. Those things gradually passed away as they were no longer
>>>needed or appropriate. I see no real difference between hOTE in verse 11 and
>>>hOTAN in verse 10 as regards this; he uses hOTAN in verse 10 because the time
>>>of the coming of TO TELEION was indefinite and hOTE in verse 11 because he
>>>knew when he had become a man. But neither means "At the time of and not a
>>>whit before" as oft imagined both by Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals alike.
>>
>> Caution is certainly advisable when we are dealing with a
>>passage the carries as much theological weight, practically speaking, as
>>this one. Bruce has mentioned hOTAN and hOTE. The first, used with the
>>aorist subjunctive, indicates that the action of the subordinate clause
>>precedes that of the main clause (BAGD s.v. hOTAN). I.e., TO TELEION will
>>come before "that which is in part" will be done away. hOTE, used in v.
>>11 with the imperfect, refers to some extended time that, with his use of
>>the perfect of 11b, Paul simply indicates came to an end with the
>>establishment of a new situation. It is important to understand that these
>>matters from Paul's personal life simply serve as an illustration of what
>>he is trying to convey. We must not put more weight on such an
>>illustration than it is able to carry.
>
>Thanks, David, for bringing the entry in BAGD to my attention. It basically
>says that hOTAN is used with the present subjunctive "when the action of the
>subordinate clause is contemporaneous w. that of the main clause" and with the
>aorist subjunctive "when the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of
>the main clause." I have looked at a number of passages using hOTAN in a
>Greek concordance and am prepared to say that as a rule of thumb this seems to
>be the case. The problem is that there are exceptions to it as well.

I have read and re-read this list of passages and the discussion, and after
pondering it, it has finally occurred to me that something very basic seems
left out of the accounting here. When I originally studied Greek there was
a straightforward instruction about basic conditional patterns that did
admit of some extraordinary modifications, but that nevertheless conformed
pretty regularly to a norm of behavior, especially when the condition is
temporal. And this governs the usage of hOTAN in two types of temporal
conditions:

(1) FUTURE "MORE VIVID" CONDITIONS: Protasis takes present or aorist
subjunctive + AN (either EAN, hOTAN, or a variant of hOSTIS AN); apodosis
is future indicative or imperative prescribing what one is to do in that
future situation. A simple example in classical Attic:
        hOTAN (EAN, hOSTIS AN) ERXHTAI, OCOMEQA AUTON ("Whenever he comes,
we shall see him." But the protasis may have an aorist, in which case
normally the condition must be fully satisfied before the result may occur:
        hOTAN ELQHi, OCOMEQA AUTON (This I would give a more precise
translation: "Once he has come, we shall see him.") I would add that the
latter form is really more precise. The Latin constructions are comparable,
and those who know their Latin will recognize that Latin much prefers the
future perfect indicative in the Protasis, corresponding precisely to the
Greek aorist subjunctive (and, as a matter of historical fact, it WAS
originally an aorist subjunctive in Latin: VEN-I-SI-T -> VENERIT):
        ILLUM CUM VENIT/VENERIT VIDEBIMUS.

(2) PRESENT GENERAL CONDITION: Protasis takes present, less commonly aorist
subjunctive + AN (EAN, hOSTIS AN), apodosis takes the present indicative. A
simple example in classical Attic:
        hOTAN ERXHTAI/ELQHi EKEINOS, hORWMEN AUTON.("Whenever he comes/as
soon as he has arrived, we see him.").

Are these conditional constructions (there are several others, of course,
including a past general and present and past counter-factual) ever taught
in courses in Koine? Or is this one of those matters on which Edward Hobbs
said the compilers of BDF and BAGD made the false assumption that their
readers would know classical Attic grammar?

Now I want to take up the examples that Bruce says are exceptions to the
rule about hOTAN cited by David Moore in BAGD:

>With the AORIST:
>
>Compare Matthew 9:15 (paralleled by Mark 2:20):
>
>ELEUSONTAI DE hHMERAI hOTAN APARQHi AP' AUTWN hO NUMFIOS
>"but days will come whenever the bridegroom is taken from them"
>
>The days do not come after the bridegroom is taken from them, but when.
>Granted that this one is stative in nature, and thus the days continue.

Personally I believe that Mark's text is the earliest form, but I don't
want to get into that argument now. At any rate, Mk and Mt read
identically, but the two clauses cited by Bruce are followed by a third.
The whole sequence:

        ELEUSONTAI DE hHMERAI hOTAN APARQHi AP' AUTWN hO NUMFIOS, KAI TOTE
        NHSTEUSOUSIN ... (Mk has also EN EKEINHi THi hHMERAi, Mt does not).

Now I would say that this is actually a FUTURE MORE VIVID CONSTRUCTION, but
the clauses are poorly constructed; the real apodosis to the hOTAN clause
is KAI TOTE NHSTEUSOUSIN. It is instructive to look at Luke's revision of
this text (5:35):

        ELEUSONTAI DE hHMERAI, KAI hOTAN APARQHi AP' AUTWN hO NUMFIOS, TOTE
NHSTEUSOUSIN EN EKEINAIS TAIS hHMERAIS.

(Logically the phrasing of Mk and Mt doesn't make any sense: we usually
translate it, "But the days will come when [not 'whenever'] the bridgroom
gets taken away from them." It ought to be: "Once the bridegroom gets taken
away from him, the days will come." I think that we probably translate it
the way Mark intended it, but I would put this writing down as another
instance rather careless writing of Greek.

>Compare I Cor. 15:27:
>
>hOTAN DE EIPHi hOTI PANTA hUPOTETAKTAI, DHLON hOTI . . .
>"but whenever it says that all things have been subjected, it is clear that"
>
>It is clear at the time that it says this.

I'd say this is another instance of a FUTURE MORE VIVID construction, and I
would translate it, " ... as soon as he/it has said, 'everything has been
subordinated,' it's obvious that ..." I can appreciate that Bruce may want
to argue that this is in no way a future construction; on the other hand,
it is certainly not a present general construction. I conceive the logic of
it as pointing to the moment in the reading of the text at which the
implication becomes crystal clear.

>Compare II Cor. 12:10:
>
>hOTAN GAR ASQENW, TOTE DUNATOS EIMI.
>"for whenever I am weak, then I am strong."
>
>This is at the time, not just afterwards.

I respectfully submit that ASQENW is present tense, not aorist. The
construction here, however, is a PRESENT GENERAL condition: "Every single
time that I am weak is a time when I am strong."

>With the PRESENT:
>
>Compare Matthew 10:23:
>
>hOTAN DE DIWKWSIN hUMAS EN THi POLEI TAUTHi, FEUGETE EIS THN hETERAN
>"but whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to a different one"
>
>Here the fleeing does take place after the persecution. The present tense is
>probably used in this case because the action may be repeated.

This is clearly a FUTURE MORE VIVID condition, wherein the present tense is
not unusual. I think Bruce is right about the use of the present
subjunctive: this is instruction for the long run of the future, one should
expect the persecutors to come after believers again and again. The
imperative in the apodosis, as noted above, is a regular alternative to a
future tense.

>Compare I Thess. 5:3:
>
>hOTAN LEGWSIN, EIRHNH KAI ASFALEIA, TOTE AIFNIDIOS AUTOUS EFISTATAI OLEQROS
>"whenever they say, "Peace and safety," then sudden destruction comes on them"
>
>Here the destruction comes after they say "Peace and safety."

This in itself is more ambiguous. In form it would appear to resemble more
closely a PRESENT GENERAL condition: "Just at the moment (whenever it may
be) that they say, 'Peace,' doom is upon them." In that case I don't think
it's necessary to pinpoint the time sequence of saying and sudden
destruction. On the other hand, one could understand EFISTATAI as present
tense for future, and see this as a FUTURE MORE VIVID construction: "As
soon as they say, 'Peace,' doom will crash down on them." It strikes me
that this is precisely one of those sayings of which the Q-Critics like to
speak of a "wisdom" saying that is readily transformed into an apocalyptic
warning. And of course this appears in an undisputably apocalyptic sequence
in 1 Thess.

>These are enough examples to show that the "rule" in BAGD does not always
>hold. Actually the sense of subsequent or contemporaneous action comes not
>from the grammar but from the conceptual picture drawn. It is not so much the
>aspect as the Aktionsart that is important. Even more than that, the context
>clarifies the action.

Personally I'm inclined to think that the rule in BAGD holds well enough,
but that one would do better to take note of the normal patterns of
conditional clauses, particularly those that use hOTAN, the present general
and the future more vivid.

>Ken Litwak has been asking about Porter's view on grammar. If I am not
>mistaken, this is a good illustration of Porter's point. The grammar does not
>make the meaning here. (This is probably a better way of saying it than to
>say that it does not mean anything). Rather, the grammar is often used to
>accompany a certain meaning. But there is a world of difference in saying
>that the grammar makes a passage mean something and in saying that it is often
>used with a certain meaning. To pick up on Ken's example, the negative
>present imperative is often used when the writer wants to command someone to
>stop doing an action that is on-going, but it does not "mean" to stop an
>action; the contruction can be used with other meanings as well.

I won't comment on the matter about Porter as I must yet read and reckon
with what he has to say, but in my view the grammar of conditionals and the
more-or-less standard pattern of tenses and moods used with them is quite
sufficient to deal with those examples.

>To return to I Cor. 13:10, I seriously doubt that "the thing in part" is done
>away with *after* "the perfect" comes. Rather, the process of doing away will
>be finally completed when the perfect arrives. The word hOTAN is not a
>mathematical term that means "when and only when." Edward Irving used it like
>that in the 1830's; I learned it that way as a child; but now I have learned
>enough about the nature of language to understand what one of my mathematics
>teachers meant when he once said, "The Bible is not logical." It is written
>in human language, and although there is a logic to language, it is not logic
>in the mathematical sense. Everything must be understood in context.

To return to 1 Cor 13:10, hOTAN DE ELQHi TO TELEION, TO EK MEROUS
KATARGHQHSETAI, this is another clear example of a FUTURE MORE VIVID, and I
think the aorist is equivalent to a Latin future perfect. I would
translate, "As soon as the complete has come, the partial will become null
and void."

I quite agree that context is fundamental to understanding, and I will
agree that there's a "je ne sais quoi" of truth in the dictum, "The Bible
is not logical." On the other hand, the Bible is a long way from being
illogical--it's far more logical than I am. So I am inclined to say of this
little dictum, "The Bible is not logical," what was said in a blooper I
will never forget from a student's essay on a philosophy exam many years
ago: "This statement is good as far as it goes, but it goes too far."

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 - 15:37:33 EDT