Relative or dependent clause?

[FirstPeter]

Moderator note: please contact a moderator about changing your screen name to match your real name, per B-Greek policy. -- BH

**********

Friends,
I can't decide whether 1 Peter 2:4a is a dependent relative clause or a dependent participial clause. In favor of the former is the fact that the relative refers back to ὁ κύριος, but the latter is compelling in that the participle depends on the coming verb, οἰκοδομεῖσθε. Is it possible that the clause can serve double duty, or does one take preference over the other?

Thanks!

Screen Shot 2018-12-13 at 12.08.34 PM.png (75.9 KiB) Viewed 7175 times

[Stephen Carlson]

I suppose the issue is whether a relative pronoun, or more precisely a prepositional phrase with a relative pronoun object, can be governed by a participle rather than a finite verb. I can't find any discussion in the grammars on this.

[Barry Hofstetter]

I suppose the issue is whether a relative pronoun, or more precisely a prepositional phrase with a relative pronoun object, can be governed by a participle rather than a finite verb. I can't find any discussion in the grammars on this.

Of course it can, and there are plenty of examples throughout Greek literature. Here's a good one also from 1st Peter:

1:8 ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε, εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες...

[Stephen Carlson]

I suppose the issue is whether a relative pronoun, or more precisely a prepositional phrase with a relative pronoun object, can be governed by a participle rather than a finite verb. I can't find any discussion in the grammars on this.

Of course it can, and there are plenty of examples throughout Greek literature. Here's a good one also from 1st Peter:

1:8 ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε, εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες...

I'm aware of that example. It is controversial and commentators struggle over the meaning (e.g. Hort construes it with the finite ἀγαλλιᾶσθε). Do you have anything less controversial? (Grammars don't discuss this example either.)

[MAubrey]

1 Peter is weird...

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Not sure why this is a problem. Here is a discussion ripped from a PhD thesis.

... the main verb οἰκοδομεῖσθε (2:5) is interpreted as indicative rather than imperative (see above), which means that the force of the dependent participle προσερχόμενοι (2:4) is most naturally also read as indicative (Grudem, 1988:97-98; Michaels, 1988:97; Elliott, 2000:409). In that case, the pericope 1 Peter 2:4-10 is descriptive and doctrinal (Elliott, 2000:409; Kistemaker, 1987:86; Selwyn, 1947:159) rather than exhortative.

Secondly, the asyndetic opening relative participial clause πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμενοι (“to him coming”) (2:4) leaves open the interpretation of the relation between the previous sections (1:3-12; 1:13 – 2:3) and 2:4-10 (Wallace, 1996:658; Blass, Bebrunner & Funk, 1961:240-242; cf. Van Rensburg, 1992:29-30, 35). The asyndeton in 1 Peter 2:4 may be interpreted as “marking additive equivalent coordination” ...

2014-04-24 Greg Phillips 12403911 PhD Thesis

Probably doesn't directly address the original question.

[Stephen Carlson]

Acts 28:8 looks like a better example of the phenomenon:

..., πρὸς ὃν ὁ Παῦλος ἐισελθὼν καὶ και προσευξάμενος ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ ἰάσατο αὐτόν.

Clearly the πρός must construe with ἐισελθών rather than ἰάσατο.

[Stephen Carlson]

Probably doesn't directly address the original question.

Don't think so.

[Barry Hofstetter]

I'm aware of that example. It is controversial and commentators struggle over the meaning (e.g. Hort construes it with the finite ἀγαλλιᾶσθε). Do you have anything less controversial? (Grammars don't discuss this example either.)

This is why I like to avoid commentaries... Just kidding. I can say that this passage has never seemed particularly difficult or unusual to me.

Acts 28:8 looks like a better example of the phenomenon:

I got as far as thinking "Now which NT author would be likely to do this? How about Luke in Acts? He likes participles and relative clauses..."

[Stirling Bartholomew]

I can say that this passage has never seemed particularly difficult or unusual to me.."

Right.

As a general rule, what isn't discussed in the reference grammars or technical commentaries is probably not perceived as difficult.

for example, H. Alford on 1Peter 2:4

To whom (i. e. τὸν κύριον) approaching (pres., representing the daily habit of the Christian life, not something to be done once for all. προσέρχεσθαι is elsewhere in the N. T. always with a dat. Its signification here is, the approach made by faith, when the Christian closely realizes the presence and seeks the communion of his Lord), a (or, “the:” the omission of the art. seems to be very frequent in this Epistle, where yet a definite reference is undeniable) stone (“Petrus a petra Christo sic denominatus metaphora petræ delectatur, ac suo exemplo docet omnes debere esse petros, h. e., vivos lapides supra Christum fide ædificatos.” Gerhard, in Wies. The allusion is to Psalms 118:22 and Isaiah 28:16. Obs. that no ὡς must be supplied before λίθον, as is done in E. V. al.: Christ is the stone: we do not come to Him as we come to a stone) living ( ζῶντα points not only to the figure being realized in a higher department of being than its natural one, but also to the fact of the Lord being alive from the dead. It would be unnecessary, were not the idea broached by Steiger, to protest against any allusion being intended to “saxum vivum” (Æn. i. 171: Ov. Met. xiv. 714) as distinguished from broken stones), by men indeed rejected (in Ps. l. c. ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες), but in the sight of God (with God. “Deo judice, coram Deo”) chosen (not merely “eximius,” but selected, chosen out), had in honour (see below on 1 Peter 2:6),

Over the decades, I have chased countless syntax anomalies only to discover they were not remarkable.