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

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 23 17:49:58 EST 2008


Rolf,

I think you are misinterpreting what Carl said.  What he said was NOT that the future periphrastic EXCLUDED that there was an ongoing situation at the time of the statement but rather that it did not specifically SPECIFY that there was such an ongoing condition.  In answer to the question as to how one would specifically include an ongoing condition he opined that the imperfect would be required.  I find no fault with that.  Of course, context is the clue to everything, and your example of the NIV translation of Is 21.24 [LXX 47.7] is an example of context determining its significance since it is introduced by the speech formula "You said" which automatically throws it into the past.  
 
george
gfsomsel 
… search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.
 
 - Jan Hus
_________

----- Original Message ----
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:03:10 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Luke 21:24 and the trampling of Jerusalem



Dear list-members,

Carl's explanations below are excellent. However, 
I think the expression "would require" in the 
last paragraph is too strong. I would like to 
present some arguments regarding this point.

The original question is exegetical just as much 
as it is grammatical.  I will abstain from 
exegesis, but I think it is good that we are 
aware of  the fact that an understanding of the 
text of the New Testament is based on the 
interplay of lexicon, grammar and exegesis and 
not on lexicon and grammar alone.

The grammatical question is: Does the 
periphrastic future exclude the possibility that 
the actions described were ongoing, or that the 
state described held when the words were uttered? 
I think the answer is No.  An example which is 
quite parallel to Luke 21:24 is Isaiah 47:7 LXX.

The NIV translation of this verse is: 'You said, 
"I will continue for ever - the eternal queen"'" 
This is a translation of a Hebrew imperfective 
form of the verb HYH (to be/become). The LXX 
renders this with a perifrastic future (future of 
eimi and pres. act. part. fem. of ARCW). The 
context shows that this periphrastic construction 
has the meaning "to continue to rule".

We also have an example i Hebrews 2:13.  Here we 
have a future of EIMI together with a perf. act. 
part of PEIQW.  The NIV says: "I will put my 
trust in him." This is a quote from Isaiah 8:17 
where the LXX has the same two words in reverse 
order, and this is a rendering of a Hebrew 
perfect with a preceding WAW. It is obvious that 
the writer would not start to trust in YHWH in 
the future, because he already did that. So his 
trust was something that would continue.

In Matthew 10:22 we have a future of EIMI and a 
present passive participle of MISEW.  People had 
already shown hatred for the followers of Jesus, 
so this was not something that exclusively should 
start to occur in the future. These examples show 
that a periphrastic future can be an expression 
of a continuance of past actions or states, even 
though this is not necessarily semantically 
implied by the form itself, but only by the 
context.

Then, what about the periphrastic future of Luke 
21:24, what does it include? The answer is 
dependent on how we understand the context, and 
that is an exegetical question. Therefore I will 
only comment on how our exegesis can influence 
our grammatical views. Verse 20 is a prophecy 
showing that Jerusalem shall be destroyed, and 
verse 24 shows that the people of Judea would be 
taken as prisoners to all the nations. Then comes 
the periphrastic construction and the words that 
Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations for 
a particular period of time. Because Jerusalem 
first had to be destroyed before the trampling 
could begin, and that happened many years after 
the words were uttered, the only natural 
conclusion that most people can draw is that the 
periphrastic construction only refers to the 
future.

However, the premise for this is that "Jerusalem" 
in verse 20 has the same reference as "Jerusalem" 
in verse 24. But is this not an obvious fact? How 
can anyone claim that the reference of 
"Jerusalem" is different in a context of four 
verses?  Please take a look at John 2:19.  What 
is the antecedent of the personal pronoun AUTON 
in this verse (and in verse 20)? Grammatically 
speaking there is no doubt that the antecedent is 
NAOS. Therefore,  the meaning must be that if the 
literal temple was broken down in three days, 
Jesus would raise the literal temple again in 
three days. No other conclusion would have been 
possible if verse 21 had not explicitly said that 
it is wrong. Jesus had in mind the temple of his 
body.  This shows  it is possible that the 
reference of the same word may change inside a 
small prophetic context.

The word "Jerusalem" is used with many different 
references in the Bible, and because the words of 
Luke 21:24 are a part of  Jesus' great prophecy 
about the last days, which is difficult to 
understand, and where some words evidently are 
used in a literal way and others in a symbolic 
way, we cannot exclude the possibility that 
"Jerusalem" can have different references in 
verses 20 and 24.  I am not saying that this is 
the case; what I am saying is that we should 
leave this matter to the exegetes. If we do so, 
we are left with the grammatical situation that a 
periphrastic future may very well describe a past 
situation that continues into the future, but 
whether this is the case in Luke 21:24 is a 
matter of interpretation and not a matter of 
grammar.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo





>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:
>>
>>
>>
>>  ?ɈɦÉÕÉ"É-ÉøÉŠ?É  ?É-É-ÉøÉ« ¼ÉøÉ-ÉÕÉ"É
 ?ÉÀɉ ?¼? 
>>  ?É�ÉÀ?ÉÀ
>>
>>  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 ?É-É-ÉøÉ« ¼ÉøÉ-ÉÕÉ"É
 ?ÉÀɉ (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  ?ɈɦÉÕÉ"É-ÉøÉŠ?É  ?É-É-ÉøÉ«
 ¼ÉøÉ-ÉÕÉ"É ?ÉÀɉ 
>?¼? ?É�ÉÀ?ÉÀ, ?É'ɦɫ ÉÕ?
 ¼ÉŠÉ‰É¦É÷É�?É-É«ÉÀ 
>ɻɸɫɦÉÕ? ?É�ÉÀ?ÉÀ
>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 ?É-É-ÉøÉ« 
>¼Éˆ¼ÉøÉ-É‰É ?ÉÀɉ (ESTAI PEPATHMENH). Essentially this
 future 
>periphrastic conveys the same sense as the simple future 
>¼ÉøÉ-ɉÉ�ÐÉ-ɈÉ-ÉøÉ« (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. ?É'ɦɫ ÉÕ? + 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
 ?É-ÉøÉÀ 
>ɬ? ?ɬɉÉ-Ɉ É»É"ɻɊÉÕÉ"É ?ÉÀɉÉÀ ?¼? 
>É-É-ɦɸÉ-ÉÕ¼?ɬÉ÷ÉÀ ?ɈɦÉÕÉ"É-ÉøÉŠ?É ,
 É-?É-Ɉ É¡ÉÀ?É-Ɉ 
>?É-É« ?ɡɡɫɻɈÉÀ ? ?ɦ?É É÷É-É«V Éø?É-?V.
 (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)
>
>
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek







      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 



More information about the B-Greek mailing list