hOMIWS 1Pt 3:1 particula transeundi?

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Jan 16 15:40:18 EST 2002


hOMIWS 1Pt 3:1 particula transeundi?

J. Michael's (1Pet WBC, p.156) states "hOMIWS is simply a connective . . .."
Michaels defends this assertion by pointing out several ways where a
comparison between OIKETAI (1Pet 2:18f) and the GUNAIKES (1Pt 3:1f) is not
felicitous. 

J.E. Huther (Meyer's Handbook, v.10, p.275) disagrees. Huther states "hOMIWS
not simply a particula transeundi; on account of the subsequent
hUPOTASSOMENAI it stands related rather to the exhortation in what precedes;
the participle here as in chap. ii. 18."

H. Alford agrees with Huther but thinks that the comparison between  OIKETAI
and GUNAIKES is only a very general one.

Danker (p. 708) calls hOMIWS in 1Pt 3:1 more than a connective, "in the same
manner, also . . .."

The problem with Michaels' proposal -- which is not new, Huther was refuting
it100 years before Michaels published  -- Michael's proposal has the
significant nasty side affect of disjoining high level constituents in the
semantic structure of Peter's discourse. My attitude about this is "let not
any NT scholar divided what Peter has joined together."

The precise points of comparison between  OIKETAI and GUNAIKES can be
ignored at this point. The lack of an exact detailed point by point
correspondence between OIKETAI and GUNAIKES does not alter the function of
hOMIWS.

It seems better to accept hOMIWS 1Pt 3:1 as both a boundary marker and also
a particle of comparison.

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062





More information about the B-Greek mailing list