Re: Dative of extent of time?
Thu, 22 Aug 96 11:01:51 MST
>> Why dative here? AT Robertson discusses at some length the use of the
dative to express extent of time and ends up saying, "Certainly the
accusative is the most frequent idiom in the N.T. for the idea of extension
of time, as can be seen in Mk 2:19, Lk 13:8, Ac 13:18, Rev 20:3, etc. In Jn
14:9 WH have TOSOUTON XRONON in the text and put TOSOUTWi XRONWi in the
margin." BDF (Blass, I think), #201: "The temporal dative in answer to the
question 'how long?' is used instead of the accusative, contrary to
classical usage. Its position is secure, however, only with transitive
verbs along with scattered examples with the passive, while the acusative
is retained with intransitives." John 14:9 is apparently an exception, in
that TOSOUTWi XRONWi here appears with the intransitive verb EIMI. It
appears there is meager MS support for TOSOUTON XRONON (Vaticanus
included?); the dative must be original.<<
Good observation Carl.
Would not Luke 8:27 and Acts 8:11 also parallel the examples?
Luke 8:27 kai XRONWi ikanw ouk enedusato imation kai ...
NIV Luke 8:27 For a long time this man had not worn clothes ...
Acts 8:11 proseixon de autw dia to ikanw XRONWi tais mageiais exestakenai
NIV Acts 8:11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time
with his magic.
exestakenai is active (perf act inf) according to Friberg Revised.