[B-Greek] hOTI clause in 1 Pet 4:1
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Apr 26 15:51:34 EDT 2004
Dear Jon,
>I've been working on 1 Pet 4:1 and am having trouble determining whether the
>hOTI clause should be taken as giving an additional reason (because) for
>obedience to the imperative hOPLISASQE, or providing further content
>("that," or "namely that") for the proper ENNOIA ("way of thinking") of
>those enduring suffering.
>
>1 Pet 4:1
>
>CRISTOU OUN PAQONTOS SARKI KAI hUMEIS THN AUTHN ENNOIAN hOPLISASQE, hOTI hO
>PAQWN SARKI PEPAUTAI hAMARTIAS
>
>I know this is a difficult exegetical decision to make. I just wondered if
>anyone had some helpful thoughts for me.
HH: My first one is that the "namely that" option seems less likely
than the "because" option. Was Christ's mindset the idea that one who
has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin? He had never started
to sin, so He could not be thinking that He had ceased from it by
suffering, could He? Isn't the idea that we should arm ourselves with
an intention to suffer in the flesh, seeing that Christ suffered in
the flesh, because the one who has suffered in the flesh has ceased
from sin?
>Achtemeier argues that parallel expressions in non-biblical Greek (Philo
>Praem. poen. 42; Fug. 99; Spec. leg. 4.71; Josephus Ant. 15.200) and "the
>causative force already present in the genitive absolute clause with which
>the verse begins, throw the weight of probability in the direction of
>explanatory force. That is, the hOTI clasue provides further information on
>the content of the ENNOIA" (_1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter_,
>Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996: 278).
>
>I looked at the Josephus passage, and I confess that its syntax confuses me.
>Should the hOTI clause in Ant. 15.200 be construed as explanatory or causal?
>I'll list that text below for anyone who wants to comment on it too.
>
> . . . KAI PARESTHSEN hAPASIN ENNOIAN LABEIN hOTI THS BASILEIAS HS EICEN
>POLU MEIZW KAI LAMPROTERA KATA TAS hUPOURGIAS EPEDEIKNUTO . . . (Ant.
>15.200).
>
>It looks like Whiston translated it with a "because," but I'm not sure if
>that's right.
>
>"He also provided them with what they should need, as they passed over the
>dry desert, insomuch that they lacked neither wine nor water, which last the
>soldiers stood in the greatest need of; and besides, he presented Caesar
>with eight hundred talents, and procured to himself the goodwill of them
>all, *because* he was assisting them in a much greater and more splendid
>degree than the kingdom he had obtained could afford;"
HH: "Because" seems all right here, too, although I do not understand
the preceding phrase well: PARESTHSEN hAPASIN ENNOIAN LABEIN ("he
provided to all an intention to receive"?)
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list