118 Travis B. Williams apart from other moods in the classical period, namely, its denotation of a remote sense of possibility. Consequently, when it is employed in Hellenistic Greek it is very likely that it carries a meaning closely akin to its classical usage. On a prescriptive level, then, we might suggest that the use of the optative in 1 Pet 3,14a means that the degree of potentiality has been moved into the range of improbability. Although its usage was on the decline, it is very likely that the semantics of the fourth-class condition in the Koine period was similar to that of classical Greek. When we turn to an actual examination of the evidence, we discover that this hypothesis does, in fact, turn out to be valid. Within comparable material from the Hellenistic period the fourth-class protasis (εἰ + optative) conveys a future contingency whose fulfillment ranges between uncertainty and improbability26. The important point of this conclusion is that in the literature that we examined the condition was not used to describe something that was a reality or even something that was likely. Therefore, we cannot force such a meaning on the usage in 1 Pet 3,14a, even if it appears to contradict our understanding of the epistle’s broader context. Of course, we must remember that no real contradiction threatens our analysis, because the question is not the reality of suffering in general, but the possibility of suffering for righteousness in particular. It would thus seem that the fourth-class condition in this passage describes the unlikelihood that the 26 In the NT, there are only three instances of this particular construction (aside from those in 1 Peter) that function as genuine conditions. But even among these examples, two are more or less stereotypical parentheses (1 Cor 14,10; 15,37). So the only genuine parallel is found in Acts 24,19, where the condition falls in the range of improbability. The LXX contains approximately twenty-five occurrences of εἰ + optative, with a large percentage coming from the Atticistic 4 Maccabees. Of these, only seven function as genuine conditions. The scale of potentiality found within these examples spans from uncertainty (1 Sam 24,20 [24,19 Eng.]; Job 20,23; 4 Macc 12,4) to high improbability (Isa 49,15; 4 Macc 14,17) and even to the hypothetical (Job 6,2; 34,14). Turning to extra-biblical literature, we find the same type of pattern. Twenty-six examples appear in the OT Pseudepigrapha, with the large majority (22 occurrences) being found in the Letter of Aristeas. But again, not all are used conditionally. Approximately eighteen are employed in this manner (Sib. Or. 4,171; Let. Aris. 189. 190. 191. 197. 205. 207bis. 211. 212. 224. 232. 244. 246. 248. 258. 263. 297). All of these except one denote a sense of uncertainty. However, this number can be misleading. For sixteen of the eighteen occurrences appear in the same type of formula. If these examples are viewed as one collective voice, the numbers would be much more uniform—two examples of uncertainty (Sib. Or. 4,171; evidence from Let. Aris.) and one example of improbability (Let. Aris. 297). The Apostolic Fathers yield substantially fewer examples. In this corpus there are seven instances of εἰ + optative; however, only two function as genuine conditions. Of these, one seems to be consigned the realm of uncertainty (Herm. Sim. 9,12,4), while the other is closer towards improbability (Diogn. 2,10).