[B-Greek] 1 Peter 3:3-4, ESTW OU vs. MH ESTW

Eric Inman eric.inman at wescorpflex.com
Sat Feb 19 11:21:03 EST 2005


To all:

I've recently been asked if this passage prohibits certain forms of outward
adornment. The Greek is hWN ESTW OUK hO EXWQEN ... KOSMOS, ALL' hO KRUPTOS
... ANQRWPOS. My conclusion is that this is not a prohibition followed by a
positive command. Rather, it is a single, positive command in which OU is
used to form a contrast for clarifying what is commanded. The negation does
not attach to the imperative verb, thus forming a prohibition. Rather, it
attaches to the noun phrase, thus eliminating external adornment from
inclusion with what is being commanded. Therefore external adornment might
still be permitted, but it just would not be considered as satisfying this
particular command. The hidden person is necessary regardless. This
conclusion would be supported by the fact that MH is usually used for
prohibitions rather than OU. Do you think I am understanding this correctly?

The Engish "not" is ambiguous with respect to the distinctions between OU
and MH, and so it seems difficult to translate the above passage the way I
described. The translations I've looked at seem to cast it as a prohibition
followed by a positive command. To a Greek listener or reader, I believe the
difference between ESTW OU and MH ESTW would have been huge. I say this
partly because of my years of immersion in the Indonesian language, which
makes a similar distinction. Unfortunately, the Indonesian translations that
I've looked at make it explicitly a prohibition followed by a positive
command.

Do any of you happen to know any Indonesian speakers who are also Greek
scholars?

Thanks,

Eric Inman
Shoreview, Minnesota, USA




More information about the B-Greek mailing list