[B-Greek] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 21 07:47:49 EDT 2006
Whether one takes the structure of this verse as being
1. EITA . . .
a. hOTAN PARATIDWi . . .
b. hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . .
or
1. EITA . . .
a. hOTAN PARADIDWi
1) hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . .
would seem to be somewhat dependent upon one's view of the relationship of the aorist to the present in the subjunctive. hOTAN does not clue us in to what the relationship might be since one hOTAN is very much like any other hOTAN. If one takes the view that the aorist does not include a temporal element outside the indicative, then one would probably choose the first option. If one takes the view that the aorist is still indicative of some temporal sequence then the second alternative might be adopted. It would thus seem to be a judgment call based upon one's view of the relationship of the tenses since the particle is not going to establish the relationship by itself.
george
gfsomsel
_________
----- Original Message ----
From: "moon at sogang.ac.kr" <moon at sogang.ac.kr>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:24:37 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24
Let me ask a question about the relationsip betwee the two hOTAN clauses in
1 Cor 15:24:
(1) EITA TO TELOS,
(2) hOTAN PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI,
(3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN.
The question is:
(a) are the two hOTAN clauses parallel, both connected directly to TO TELOS?
(b) or, is the second hOTAN clause (3) connected to the clause of the first
hOTAN clause (2)?
If (a) is right, we may translate the verse as:
Then the end (will come), when he delivers the kingdom to the God and Father,
that is, when he has nullified all dominion, all authority and power.
If (b) is right, we have the following structure:
(1) EITA [ TO TELOS,
(2) hOTAN [ PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI,
(3) hOTAN KATARGHSHi PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN ] ]
This option is taken by NIV, and its translation is as follows:
Then the end will come,
when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father
after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
The problem with the decision of NIV is that this reading is somewhat akward.
If Paul had intended this reading, wouldn't he have written:
EITA TO TELOS,
hOTAN PARADIDWi THN BASILEIAN TWi QEWi KAI PATRI,
KATARGHSAS PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN
The participle clause KATARGHSAS carries less weight than does the full-blown hOTAN clause,
and thus can be subordinated to the hOTAN clause. But in the present case, the two
hOTAN clauses look quite parallel, so it tends to prevent the reader from regarding the second hOTAN
clause to be subordinate to the first hOTAN clause. (By the way, I failed to find similar examples
in the NT and the LXX.)
Moon Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list