Re[2]: Dative of extent of time?

Carl W. Conrad (
Thu, 22 Aug 1996 11:15:45 -0700 (PDT)

At 1:01 PM -0500 8/22/96, wrote:
> >> 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
> autous
> 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.

Not exactly--they are instances of dative for extent of time, to be sure, but they are used with TRANSITIVE verbs in accordance with what Blass stated in BDF, whereas Jn 14:9 has it with EIMI.

Cheers, c