Re: POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN noch einmal

From: Carl William Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 15 1998 - 12:28:03 EST


At 5:39 PM -0600 1/14/98, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 16:10:15 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad" wrote:

>>I've done my own Accordance check and then an analysis of the hOTE
clauses.
>>Of 103 hOTE clauses in NT: in 80 verses the hOTE clause immediately
PRECEDES >>the main clause it governs (4 are Matthaean end-of-discourse
formulae: KAI >>EGENETO hOTE ETELESEN hO IHSOUS TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS, ...
); there are 20 >>verses in which the hOTE >clause FOLLOWS upon its
antecedent; of these 3 are >>in the clause in the synoptic pericope
immediately following "what David did >>when"; 5 MORE have >immediately
preceding clause with existential EINAI (e.g. >>Jn 20:24 OUK HN >MET'
AUTWN hOTE HLQEN IHSOUS); 11 of them have hOTE clause
>>immediately following upon some indication of time (e.g. Jn 9:4 ERCETAI
>>NUX >hOTE OUDEIS DUNATAI ERGAZESQAI ; Lk 13:35 is probably bogus, if
>>hHXEI hOTE is omitted: Lk 13:35 OU MH IDHTE ME hEWS [hHXEI hOTE] EIPHTE:
...

>>Nearest parallel to 1 Peter 3:20 construction is Col 3:7 1Pet. 3:20
>>APEIQHSASIN POTE hOTE APEDECETO hH TOU QEOUS >MAKROQUMIA EN
>>hHMERAIS NWE KATASKEUAZOMENHS KIBWTOU ...
>>Col. 3:7 EN hOIS KAI hUMEIS PERIEPATHSATE POTE, hOTE EZHTE EN >TOUTOIS:
>>...
>>
>>I would argue that the hOTE clause in both 1 Pet 3:20 and Col 3:7 should
link >>directly to the preceding POTE rather than to the verb on which
>>the POTE hangs, the participle APEIQHSASIN in 1 Peter, the finite verb
>>PERIEPATHSATE in Col--so that the sequence is "at one time when ..." I
>>don't think the data I've gathered are necessarily conclusive, but it
>>seems to me that the question to be asked about the hOTE clauses is not
>>whether they can or cannot link with a participle (as it clearly does in
Jn
>>12:17 EMARTUREI OUN hO OCLOS hO WN MET'AUTOU hOTE TON LAZARON EFWNHSEN
>>... but rather what sorts of antecedents they CAN link to. The data seem
to >>indicate that most frequently they set the time frame for the main
clause
>>that immediately follows (80x) while they follow upon a main clause in
20 >>instances, and 11 of these are expressions of time ('the
>>day/night/hour is coming ...") and then there are these two instances
>>where the >hOTE clause really seems to link to an immediately preceding
POTE.
>>
>>In view of this I think it more likely that the hOTE clause in 1 Peter
3:20
>>should be read with APEIQHSASIN hOTE than with the more distant
(although not >>all that distant) POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN.
>
>Thanks for your research, Carl. If I can make just a few observations.
First, >you cite only one other case parallel to 1 Pet 3:20 where hOTE is
the temporal >indicator of a preceding participle (Jn 12:17). I hate to be
the bearer of bad >news, but we do have a textual problem here. At least
P66, D, and K have hOTI >rather than hOTE. One can readily see why a
scribe would change it to hOTE.
>
>Are there any other non-questionable examples in the NT, LXX, or even
>extra-biblical literature?
>
>The Col 3:7 parallel (?) is not a true parallel, because PERIEPATHSATE is
not a >participle.

See below; the participle is not the important element at all; what is
important is the POTE or other explicit or implicit noun or adverb of time
(hHMERA, hHMERAI, NUX, hWRA ... POTE) to which the hOTE clause functions
as a relative adjectival or relative adverbial clause.

>I like your suggestion, however, that: "The data seem to indicate that
most >frequently they (the hOTE clauses) set the time frame for the main
clause that >immediately follows (80x) while they follow upon a main
clause in 20 >instances..."

Paul, I think you are so hung up on linkage of a hOTE clause to a
participle or main verb that you are missing the point of the distinction
between the two DISTINCT major types we are dealing with in this group of
103 GNT hOTE clauses:

(1) By far the most common type (80 instances) shows the hOTE clause
PRECEDING the main clause and setting forth the temporal circumstances
bearing upon the event indicated in the main clause; but (2) the clauses
that FOLLOW the element on which they are dependent are quite different in
nature: they are fundamentally RELATIVE clauses, most of them relative
noun clauses, some of them relative adverbial clauses. Let me demonstrate
more fully what I mean:

(a) 3 instances are accounted for by the parallel Synoptic pericope of
RPlucking Grain on the SabbathS: Mt 12:3, Mk 2:25, Lk 6:3--Jesus asks the
question of the critics of his disciples (I cite Mt): OUK ANEGNWTE TI
EPOIHSEN DAUID hOTE EPEINASEN KAI hOI METU AUTWi (Lk has hO EPOIHSEN in
place of TI EPOIHSEN). Here the hOTE clause is not circumstantial but
relative, and the antecedent is an implicit adverbial expression
equivalent to TOTE, "At that time" or "then."

(b) 5 instances are accounted for by clauses with existential EINAI
preceding the hOTE clause. One of them had the participle WN in it and was
cited earlier, but I donUt think the others are significantly different:
Jn 12:17; Jn 20:24, Heb 7:10, Heb 9:17, Rev 6:12. I cite Jn 20:24--OUK HN
METU AUTWN hOTE HLQEN IHSOUS. Here there is an implicit TOTE functioning
as the antecedent of a relative adverbial clause.

(c) There are 11 instances of temporal expressions in the clause preceding
the hOTE clause: Lk 4:25 (EN TAIS hHMERAIS HLIOU), Lk 17:22 (hHMERAI), Jn
1:19 (MARTURIA = Rwhat he said in testimony thenS), Jn 4:21 (hWRA), Jn
4:23 (hWRA), Jn 5:25 (hWRA), Jn 9:4 (NUX), Jn 16:25 (hWRA), Rom 2:16 (EN
hHMERAi), Rom 13:11 (EGGUTERON [ESTIN] H), 2 Tim 4:3 (KAIROS). I cite 2
Tim 4:3: ESTAI GAR KAIROS hOTE THS hUGIAINHOUSHS DIDASKALIAS OUK
ANEXONTAI. In each of these instances the hOTE clause is a relative
adjectival indicator definiing precisely what time is being referred to.

(d) Lk 13:35, if we read hHXEI hOTE in OU MH IDHTE ME hEWS [hHXEI hOTE]
EIPHTE ("You will not see me until the time comes when you say ...", then
thereUs another instance of the hOTE clause serving as a a relative
clause.

This brings us back to 1 Peter 3:19 (... APEIQHSASIN POTE hOTE APEDECETO
hH TOU QEOUS MAKROQUMIA EN hHMERAIS NWE KATASKEUAZOMENHS KIBWTOU ... )and
Colossians 3:7
(... EN hOIS KAI hUMEIS PERIEPATHSATE POTE, hOTE EZHTE EN >TOUTOIS: ...)

Paul argues that because APEIQHSASIN is a participle in 1 Pet 3:20 while
PERIEPATHSATE is indicative in Col 3:7, but that is really irrelevant to
the nature of these hOTE clauses: each is a relative adverbial clause the
antecedent of which is an enclitic POTE (Rat one timeS); in 1 Peter that
enclitic hangs on a participle, in Colossians on an indicative, but the
relative clause has not the verb but the enclitic POTE as its antecedent.
It is because the POTE in 1 Peter 3:20 depends on APEIQHSASIN that I think
the event narrated in the hOTE clause must refer back to the time of the
disobedience, and not to the preaching (POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN), whenever that
preaching may have taken place.

>I am still struck by the preponderance of cases where the hOTE clause is
the >temporal indicator of the main verb, and would love to find an
example(s) more >parallel to 1 Pet 3:20, where the hOTE clause is the
temporal indicator of a >preceding participle.

But the participle is not the issue; the issue is what sort of antecedent
a hOTE clause that FOLLOWS the element on which it depends has. By far the
majority of those hOTE clauses in the GNT are indeed temporal
circumstantial clauses, but the other 1/5 are of a different sort
altogether.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:56 EDT