How to get a syntax search to show me where hoti is used like in Acts 13:34a?

I often have trouble building syntax searches that give me what I'm looking for. Right now I am interested in Acts 13:34. The first oti there is usually understood to introduce a clause that is subordinate to the clause that follows, so ESV: "And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, ... he has spoken in this way, ...." Some scholars (Rese, Strauss) have argued instead that this oti goes with the previous one: God has fulfilled his promise in that he raised up (in history) Jesus (33) AND in that he raised him from the dead (34). I began looking for how oti is used in Luke-Acts and elsewhere in the NT, and I'm having trouble finding a good parallel to either interpretation. Is oti ever used in the sense of "as for the fact that"? I'm not even sure what that would be called ... an adverbial clause modifying "said"? I did various syntax searches and couldn't find anything quite like it. The clause almost looks like a substantival, but it functions more adverbally. As for the interpretation of Rese and Strauss, I am not quite sure how they see this fitting: is the oti clause then an object of euaggelizomai in verse 32? This also seems puzzling since the oti of verse 33 does not define "what God fulfilled" (as Strauss implies), but apparently what "we" proclaim (it's an epexegetical oti clause?). Thoughts on how to find similar constructions based on either theory?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Fred Chapman

Can you post screen shots of the searches you have already done? This will help to avoid duplicating what you already know to be true (or not true) based on the results they returned. I looked at the OpenText graph and it shows The primary clause of that sentence is the phrase "he has spoken in this way" the clause that begins with "oti" is secondary or subordinate to that one, even though it appears first in the text. According to the LSGNT "oti" modifies "einov" (he has spoken).

Kevin Becker

The Cascadia and OpenText databases both show this oti as being the head of a clause. There are plenty of those in the NT so that doesn't help at all. The Lexham Syntactic Greek NT seems to be better suited to this type of search. The Notes and Expansions classify this but it doesn't help you find potentially other occurrences.

I tried this one and got 16 results. I didn't have time to do some double-check the helpfulness of the results though.

Fred Chapman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/222056#Comment_222056

The Cascadia and OpenText databases both show this oti as being the head of a clause.

Kevin,

I think I see this in the Cascadia. But where is it delineated as the head in OpenText. Not questioning you, just trying to understand it from one who has always been better with Syntax than I have.[:)]

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/222063#Comment_222063

Kevin,

I think I see this in the Cascadia. But where is it delineated as the head in OpenText. Not questioning you, just trying to understand it from one who has always been better with Syntax than I have.

Sorry, I shouldn't have used the word head. I didn't mean it in the way that Cascadia uses it. I meant it as "first word in a clause"

David Sloan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/222079#Comment_222079

Thanks for the replies. I didn't realize which of my email addresses the notifications were going to go to or I would have gotten your responses earlier ...

I eventually figured out what I wanted, but I probably spent 4 hours trying different things and managed to crash Logos a couple times. Oops.

What I eventually did was using Cascadia. Not sure how to get a screenshot in here (it's not showing for me), but I searched for a verbal clause that had two verbal clauses within it. The first of those had terminal node (conjunction) with a word (lemma=hoti). The second clause I didn't specify anything under. It came up with 13 results, but 11 of them were causal hoti clauses followed by the clause they are subordinate to. The other two results were what I was really looking for: In Luke 20:37 and Ac 13:34 (my passage) we have a hoti clause that is not causal and comes before the main clause it is subordinate to.

Not sure I've worded everything accurately, but hopefully you get the gist of what I did. Hopefully next time I try to do a syntax search it won't take me four hours, too. ;-)

Fred Chapman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/222079#Comment_222079

Sorry, I shouldn't have used the word head. I didn't mean it in the way that Cascadia uses it. I meant it as "first word in a clause"

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying