From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 06 1995 - 22:34:47 EST
I'm sorry if people get two copies of this intolerably long post, but I
don't think it got out of my sender the first time I tried to send it.
>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 19:47:02 -0600
>To: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
>From: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu (Carl W. Conrad)
>Subject: Re: The use of hOTAN (intolerably long)
>Cc: B-Greek@virginia.edu, terry@bible.acu.edu
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>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 - 15:37:34 EDT