[B-Greek] Luke 21:24 and the trampling of Jerusalem

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Jan 22 06:29:01 EST 2008


On Jan 21, 2008, at 8:06 PM, A Becker wrote:

> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I have a question concerning the following clause from Luke 21:24:
>
>
>
> Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ  
> ἐθνῶν
>
> IEROUSALHM ESTAI PETOUMENH UPO EQNWN
>
>
>
> A translation of this clause is simple enough: “Jerusalem will be  
> trampled by [the] Gentiles”. My question concerns the future  
> periphrastic construction ἔσται πατουμένη (ESTAI  
> PETOUMENH) here. I have recently come across an interpretation that  
> seems to think that idea behind the verb tense here is that the  
> trampling began at some point previous to Jesus’ speaking and will  
> continue until some point in the future, e.g. “until the times of  
> the Gentiles are fulfilled”. (see Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of  
> the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 1892, p. 36 who has  
> “and will [continue] to be trampled”). I, however, am unable to  
> see how the future periphrastic could be understood in this way.


I think it's necessary to have the fuller text to see how this future  
periphrastic clause relates to and is clarified by the following clause:

Luke 21:24  Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη  
ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν, ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν  
καιροὶ ἐθνῶν
IEROUSALHM ESTAI PATOUMENH hUPO EQNWN, ACRI hOU PLHRWSWSIN KAIROI EQNWN.

First, it should be noted that this is a simple future periphrastic  
formed with EIMI and the present participle; it is NOT a future  
perfect periphrastic (that would  have to be ἔσται  
πεπατημένη (ESTAI PEPATHMENH). Essentially this future  
periphrastic conveys the same sense as the simple future  
πατηθήσεται (PATHQHSETAI); if there's any difference, it  
would lie in an emphasis upon continuity by use of the present passive  
participle. And that is precisely the emphasis that your question  
concerns.

Second, an emphasis upon continuity is clearly present by virtue of  
the ACRI clause that follows and governs the understanding of ESTAI  
PATOUMENH. ἄχρι οὗ + subjunctive indicates a terminal point in  
the future at which time the continued trampling will cease -- but the  
trampling is to continue until that time has come.

Third, there is no indication whatsoever of any trampling prior to the  
time of utterance of this prophecy; the reference is wholly to a  
future time, the siege of Jerusalem indicated in Lk 21:20 by Ὅταν  
δὲ ἴδητε κυκλουμένην ὑπὸ  
στρατοπέδων Ἰερουσαλήμ, τότε γνῶτε  
ὅτι ἤγγικεν ἡ ἐρήμωσις αὐτῆς. (hOTAN DE  
IDHTE KUKLOUMENHN hUPO STRATOPEDWN IEROUSALHM, TOTE GNWTE hOTI HGGIKEN  
hH ERHMWSIS AUTHS). Presumably the reference is to the siege of  
Jerusalem by Vespasian's army in 69, although that specification  
doesn't bear on the grammatical question here. The point is that the  
trampling is something that will follow the encirclement and  
subsequent sack of Jerusalem by armies and the carrying away of  
captives at a time still lying in the future from the time when this  
prophecy is spoken.

Wallace has a discussion of the (simple) future periphrastic on pp.  
648-9 -- he does note there the emphasis upon aspect in the participle  
(i.e., the continued trampling), but there's no specific discussion  
there about Luke 21:24.

> So my questions are:
>
> 1. Could the future periphrastic construction be understood this  
> way? If so, what are some examples of this usage?

Not with any notion that the action indicated by ESTAI PATOUMENH  
begins prior to the utterance of the prophecy. That's a notion you can  
scuttle right away. But it does clearly indicate continuous action in  
the future.

> 2. If Luke had wished to convey the idea that Jerusalem’s trampling  
> had begun at some point previous to Jesus’ speaking and would  
> continue until some point in the future, what would verb would he  
> have used here?

This would require, I think, an imperfect of the verb, something like  
HN PATOUMENH or EPATEITO; that would indicate that the trampling began  
prior to the utterance and is still going on at the time of the  
utterance.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list