Skip to content

1 Peter 4:3

Paul-Nitz wrote: Thanks. That's simpler and helpful. The addition of either ημιν and υμιν are variant readings here, by the way. Why would we expect a Dative Ptc? (I just read Smyth Section 1497 and 1498 about the Dative Ptc. Those descriptions don't seem to fit here.)
Because ἀρκετός normally takes the dative + infinitive, so a participle modifying ὐμῖν or ἡμῖν would also normally be in the dative, πεπορευομένοις. That's what motivates people to try to explain the accusative... Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — May 3rd, 2014, 6:49 am
Thanks. That's simpler and helpful. The addition of either ημιν and υμιν are variant readings here, by the way. Why would we expect a Dative Ptc? (I just read Smyth Section 1497 and 1498 about the Dative Ptc. Those descriptions don't seem to fit here.) Statistics: Posted by Paul-Nitz — May 3rd, 2014, 3:02 am
 
Paul-Nitz wrote: 1 Peter 4:3 ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυμίαις, οἰνοφλυγίαις, κώμοις, πότοις καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις. This Accusative Participle πεπορευμένους is puzzling to me. I was not unhappy to see some commentators having trouble. Some call it an “Accusative Absolute,” others a Hebraism. I'm not sure what an Acc Abs is and I don't know how it might be a Hebraism. Anyone care to school me? In ignorance of what those two options mean, I was wondering if the confusion comes from the preceding phrase. Could it be like this, that readers are taking κατειργάσθαι as
    • a) a Passive, and
    b) an Infinitive taking an Accusative Subject τὸ βούλημα
. Then we can’t take this πεπορευμένους as a sort of appositive to τὸ βούλημα . But if κατειργάσθαι is, with ἀρκετὸς, more like a Dative noun (“enough WITH doing the will”) then τὸ βούλημα becomes a normal Accusative Direct Object that is easily followed by πεπορευμένους as explaining what τὸ βούλημα is all about. *See Smyth Sections 1969, 2001-2003 2001 The infinitive serves to define the meaning of adjectives, adverbs, and substantives, especially those denoting ability,fitness, capacity, etc. (and their opposites), and generally those analogous in meaning to verbs which take the infinitive (2000). Here the datival meaning (purpose, destination) is often apparent. Cp. 1969.
Hey, Paul. An accusative absolute is supposed to work like a genitive absolute, sort of hanging there giving the circumstances under which action or state of being in the main clause is taking place. As for a Hebraism, I'm not sure. Hebrew gives me a headache. However, I think πεπορευμένους is simply modifying the subject of the infinitive with βούλημα as it's direct object. This posits υμιιν as the complement for αρκετός, which is then attracted, so to speak, into the accusative case for the participle, perhaps because it follows the infinitive. Yes, one would expect the dative,, but in languages one doesn't always get what one wants. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — May 2nd, 2014, 8:12 pm
1 Peter 4:3 ἀρκετὸς γὰρ ὁ παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείαις, ἐπιθυμίαις, οἰνοφλυγίαις, κώμοις, πότοις καὶ ἀθεμίτοις εἰδωλολατρίαις. This Accusative Participle πεπορευμένους is puzzling to me. I was not unhappy to see some commentators having trouble. Some call it an “Accusative Absolute,” others a Hebraism. I'm not sure what an Acc Abs is and I don't know how it might be a Hebraism. Anyone care to school me? In ignorance of what those two options mean, I was wondering if the confusion comes from the preceding phrase. Could it be like this, that readers are taking κατειργάσθαι as
    • a) a Passive, and
 
    b) an Infinitive taking an Accusative Subject τὸ βούλημα
. Then we can’t take this πεπορευμένους as a sort of appositive to τὸ βούλημα . But if κατειργάσθαι is, with ἀρκετὸς, more like a Dative noun (“enough WITH doing the will”) then τὸ βούλημα becomes a normal Accusative Direct Object that is easily followed by πεπορευμένους as explaining what τὸ βούλημα is all about. *See Smyth Sections 1969, 2001-2003 2001 The infinitive serves to define the meaning of adjectives, adverbs, and substantives, especially those denoting ability,fitness, capacity, etc. (and their opposites), and generally those analogous in meaning to verbs which take the infinitive (2000). Here the datival meaning (purpose, destination) is often apparent. Cp. 1969. Statistics: Posted by Paul-Nitz — May 2nd, 2014, 3:56 pm