[B-Greek] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 21 11:36:21 EDT 2006


I don't know what you refer to as "other factors" to solve the problem.  There are no other factors -- that is all we have.
 
george
gfsomsel
_________



----- Original Message ----
From: "moon at sogang.ac.kr" <moon at sogang.ac.kr>
To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; moon at sogang.ac.kr; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 11:15:10 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [B-Greek] The two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15.24


[George]: 
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. 

[Moon]: 

George, thanks for your comments. But I do not think that 
the fact that the two hotan clauses are subjunctive, not indicative, 
is relevant to the issue here. The finite (indicative) and non-finite 
(subjunctive, participle, infinitive) distinction has to do with 
whether the situation described is actual or potential (from the speaker's viewpoint). 

We can talk about temporal relation between potential events as well as actual events. 
The temporal relation between the two subjunctive clauses can be inferred from 
the verbal aspects (the present vs. the aorist) used and other contextual factors. 
In this particular case, if we want to infer the temporal relation between the two 
subjunctive clauses (even if it was not intended by the author), we could say: 

the event that he destroyed all dominion, etc, precedes the event that 
he delivers the kingdom to God. 

But even if this temporal relation holds, it does not mean that the author of 
this verse wanted the reader to parse the verse as: 


1. EITA TO TELOS,. . . 
a. hOTAN PARADIDWi 
1) hOTAN KATARGHSHi . . . 

It seems that we need to find other factors to solve the problem here. 

Moon Jung 
Sogang Univ, 
Seoul, Korea




More information about the B-Greek mailing list