hOMOIWS 1Pt 3:1 particula transeundi?

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jan 17 01:44:29 EST 2002


The point here is that hOMOIWS 1Pt 3:1 appears to be functioning as a
"thematised adverb" (*Brown & Yule) which links the previous discourse
segment with the following. J.E. Huther understood this in the 1870's even
though he used different terminology:

"hOMOIWS  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."

Note that hUPOTASSW appears in 2pet 2:13, 18 and 3:1. So the general topic
of hUPOTASSW has been developed over three segments. It may be that hOMOIWS
only makes reference to this general topic. That is H. Alford's take on it.
However, I don't think we can assume that without a careful look at the
continuities and discontinuities between the 2:18-25 and 3:1f segments.

That project is beyond the scope of my topic in this post. I only wanted to
voice a protest against J. Michael's (1Pet WBC, p.156)  comment that
"hOMOIWS is simply a connective . . .."
  
greetings,

Clay

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

*See page 131-132 in Brown, G. and G. Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1983.

on 1/16/02 12:40 PM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:

> hOMOIWS 1Pt 3:1 particula transeundi?
> 
> J. Michael's (1Pet WBC, p.156) states "hOMOIWS 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 "hOMOIWS
> 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 hOMOIWS 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  hOMOIWS.
> 
> It seems better to accept hOMOIWS 1Pt 3:1 as both a boundary marker and also a
> particle of comparison.
> 







More information about the B-Greek mailing list