POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN noch einmal

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 14 1998 - 17:10:15 EST


The text that has been under discussion off and on for a few days now is this:
1 Peter 3:(18)hOTI KAI CRISTOS hAPAX PERI hAMARTIWN EPAQEN, DIKAIOS hUPER
ADIKWN, hINA hUMAS PROSAGAGHi TWi QEWi QANATWQEIS MEN SARKI ZWiOPOIHQEIS DE
PNEUMATI: (19) EN hWi KAI TOIS EN FULAKHi PNEUMASIN POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN (20)
APEIQHSASIN POTE hOTE APEDECETO hH TOU QEOUS MAKROQUMIA EN hHMERAIS NWE
KATASKEUAZOMENHS KIBWTOU ...

There are several issues here, one of them being whether EN hWi at the
beginning of 3:19 has PNEUMATI immediately preceding it as its antecedent.
I think it does, but Cindy Westfall has argued otherwise, and this is not
the issue on which I want to focus. Rather, 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:

"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.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:56 EDT