[B-Greek] Vantage Point - conditional Jn 11:12

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Thu Sep 21 03:28:58 EDT 2006


Dear Elizabeth,

Your points below are well taken. I would say that hypothetical conditional 
clauses should not be used in arguments regarding the tense or non-tense of 
a particular form. But conditional clauses can be used, depending on the 
context.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: "greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:15 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] Vantage Point - conditional Jn 11:12


> JOHN 11:11 TAUTA EIPEN, KAI META TOUTO LEGEI AUTOIS: LAZAROS hO FILOS
> hHMWN KEKOIMHTAI: ALLA POREUOMAI hINA EXUPNISW AUTON.  12 EIPAN OUN
> hOI MAQHTAI AUTWi: KURIE, EI KEKOIMHTAI SWQHSETAI.
>
> In the disciples response to Jesus  KURIE, EI KEKOIMHTAI SWQHSETAI
> what is the temporal vantage point?

The temporal vantage point (the deictic center) is undisputably speech time. 
That is the case in the great majority of NT clauses. So, when someone 
suggests another vantage point, alarm bells may start to ring: Is this an ad 
hoc argument in order to save a theory, or does the context justify a 
vantage point different from speech time?
>
> EI KEKOIMHTAI - if he has fallen asleep, undergone a change of state
> from wakefulness to sleep and is currently in the state of sleeping.
> The change of state is view as in the past but the current state is
> viewed as present.
>
> SWQHSETAI future
>
> The vantage point of hOI MAQHTAI is after he has fallen asleep and
> before SWQHSETAI.
> The fact that LAZAROS is dead and not in a state of sleep is
> irrelevant to the question of temporal vantage point. The vantage
> point is a temporal framework imposed by hOI MAQHTAI.
>

You are correct. When the diciples spoke, Lazarus had "fallen asleep" (note 
my shift of deictic center because I look back from my time of writing) and 
the resultant state (his sleep) held. Then the diciples looked to the future 
and epressed that he in the future would get well.

> My question. Why do we need a special set of rules for conditionals?
> This really is a question. It seems self evident to some that
> conditionals are a special case. I don't understand this. If the
> vantage point is understood as a temporal framework imposed by the
> speaker with no necessary connection to reality or unreality then I
> don't see why conditional statements require a different treatment
> from historical narative.

I agree with you. Conditionals need no special treatment simply because they 
are conditionals.

>
>
> Elizabeth Kline
>
Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
> 





More information about the B-Greek mailing list