Re: Questions on 1 Pet.2:11-16

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Sun Sep 28 1997 - 07:40:54 EDT

At 4:57 AM -0500 9/28/97, Martin Arhelger wrote:
>Theo wrote:
>> Questions on the text of 1 Pet. 2:11-16
>I think it modifies PARAKALW. Here are some reasons:

Perhaps this may seem a quibble, but in formal grammatical analysis I think
we'd want to say that hWS PAROIKOUS KAI PAREPIDHMOUS must construe with and
therefore technically *modify* an implicit accusative *object* of PARAKALW.
It is those who are being exhorted who are to be exhorted just as strangers
and sojourners would be exhorted. So, I think that (see note below on what
Kuehl says) that hUMAS must be implicit here, even if not expressed, and to
get this into English, at least, we do have to supply the object pronoun,
"I exhort YOU as ..."

>1) PARAKALW + hWS is found also in 1 Timothy 5:1: Rebuke not an
>elder, but exhort him as a father; the younger men as brethren
>ADELFOUS ... ). Here it is evident, that WS PATERA and WS
>ADELFOUS are the motives and reasons for the exhortations.

But here too, although an object of PARAKALEI is not formally expressed, it
is clearly implied by the dative PRESBUTERWi that was just used with the
negative imperative (aor. subj., to be precise) MH EPIPLHXHiS, so that we
must understand an implicit accusative object of PARAKALEI (in English we
have to supply a "him": "... but exhort *him* as (you would exhort) a
father. Moreover, the object is supplied in what follows immediately as
another parallel pair with PARAKALEI: it is NEWTEROUS the object, then
predicative hWS ADELFOUS.

>2) The section of 1 Peter 2:11 - 17, and especially Verses 11
>and 12 deal with the subject: The Christian and the authorities
>of this world. Now the motive to be strangers and sojourners (in
>this world) are a strong reason to BOTH verses, and not only to
>the appeal to "keep from the fleshly desires". So it is more
>convincing, to combine "as strangers ..." with "I exhort".
>Some (Kuehl, e.g.) think, to connect of PARAKALW and hWS
>PAROIKOUS would make the addition of hUMAS indispensable:
>PARAKALW hUMAS hWS PAROIKOUS. But in Jude 1:3 there is no
>accusative in connection with PARAKALEW as well.
>By the way: There is another instances, where the connection of
>PARAKALEW has been discussed sometimes: 1 Timothy 2:1: Connect
>PRWTWN PANTWN with PARAKALW (the common, and I think correct
>notion) or with POIEISTHAI DEHSEIS ... ?
> ______________________________
>| |
>| Martin Arhelger |
>| D-53121 Bonn |
>| Germany |
>| |

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:30 EDT