[B-Greek] "Mixed conditions" an aporetic category? (was:"Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement???")
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Jul 1 07:37:07 EDT 2009
On Jun 30, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
> Carl,
>
> On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:
>>
>> EIPEN DE hO KURIOS, EI ECETE PISTIN hWS KOKKON SINAPEWS, ELEGETE AN
>> THi SUKAMINWi TAUTHi, EKRIZWQHTI KAI FUTEUQHTE EN THi QALASSHi KAI
>> hUPHKOUSEN AN hUMIN.
>>> Is this a simple conditional statement??? the use of the
>>> indicative in the protasis seems to indicate it is, but I
>>> understand simple conditionals are rather rare. Also, the
>>> theological interpretations I have encountered seem to treat this
>>> verse as a general conditional statement. Any input would be
>>> greatly appreciated.
>>
>> This is actually a mixed condition,
>
> Which raises the question, what is at fault here? The language of
> the author or the system of categories for conditionals? In light
> of our recent discussion of the genitive case, I wonder what the
> categories accomplish for us. When a question like this is raised,
> I assume the student is preparing an exegesis paper or getting
> ready for an exam. I read the text in Luke without any question
> about what it was saying. So my training in Koine must be defective
> somehow since I should have stopped and asked, what is wrong here,
> this construction doesn't fit into the canonical paradigms for
> Greek conditionals.
I really do not think that the standard conditional categories are at
all problematic: the generalizing conditions with AN + subjunctive,
the future conditionals with AN + subjunctive, the counterfactuals
with imperfect or aorist indicative in protasis, imperfect or aorist +
AN in the apodosis. These are standard and examples of these are well-
attested in a plethora of instances. At any rate, it seems to me that
MOST contingencies are structured in ancient Greek in intelligible
patterns; problems arise when the formulation of a particular
contingency/condition doesn't fall within the expected patterns.
Wallace has himself raised the question (or discussed it at some
length (GGBB, pp. 702-712).
On the other hand, "mixed" conditions fall unquestionably into a "non-
categorizable category" such as Wallace's "Descriptive (Aporetic)
Genitive," which is a catch-all for un-categorizable subcategories.
Whenever one confronts a "mixed condition," one goes to some pains to
find some logical accounting for the failure to conform to the
standard patterns and make sense of the odd-ball inconcinnity of
protasis and apodosis.
In the present instance, the simple EI ECETE protasis appears to have
the best support as the "original" reading, while EAN ECHTE and EI
EICETE both have some support. As has been noted, TR has EI EICETE,
and one has to ask, Is that because Erasmus found it in his scanty MS
evidence or might it be because he knew that was what it OUGHT to be?
The few versions I've looked at show translators reading this as a
present counterfactual condition or reading it very ingeniously
(Peterson's MESSAGE).
You ask: "Which raises the question, what is at fault here? The
language of the author or the system of categories for conditionals?"
I think you meant to point to the latter, but my own thinking is that
the author is here at fault. I really don't want to get into a
controversy over issues in the synoptic question here, but by way of
suggesting how Luke's formulation may have originated, I look to what
may have been his source, Mark 11:22-23:
22 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει
αὐτοῖς· ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ. 23 ἀμὴν
λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ὄρει
τούτῳ· ἄρθητι καὶ βλήθητι εἰς τὴν
θάλασσαν, καὶ μὴ διακριθῇ ἐν τῇ
καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ πιστεύῃ ὅτι ὃ
λαλεῖ γίνεται, ἔσται αὐτῷ. [KAI APOKRIQEIS hO
IHSOUS LEGEI AUTOIS: ECETE PISTIN QEOU. 23 AMHN LEGW hUMIN hOTI hOS AN
EIPHi TWi OREI TOUTWi: ARQHTI KAI BLHQHTE EIS THN QALASSAN, KAI MH
DIAKRIQHi EN THi KARDIAi AUTOU ALLA PISTEUHi hOTI hO LALEI GINETAI,
ESTAI TOUTWi.]
However awkward the phrasing may be here, there is nothing
unintelligible; ECETE PISTIN QEOU in Mk 11:22 is an imperative; the
conditional construction follows in verse 23 hOS AN EIPHi ... KAI MH
DIAKRIQHi ... ALLA PISTEUHi ... ESTAI TOUTWi. The co;nditional
construction follows the ordinarily structural pattern for a future
condition, with AN + subjunctive in the protasis, future indicative in
the apodosis.
Matthew has two passages parallel to the Marcan construction and
perhaps deriving from the same tradition:
Matt. 17:20 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς· διὰ τὴν
ὀλιγοπιστίαν ὑμῶν· ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω
ὑμῖν, ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν ὡς κόκκον
σινάπεως, ἐρεῖτε τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ·
μετάβα ἔνθεν ἐκεῖ, καὶ μεταβήσεται·
καὶ οὐδὲν ἀδυνατήσει ὑμῖν. [hO DE LEGEI
AUTOIS· DIA THN OLIGOPISTIAN hUMWN· AMHN GAR LEGW hUMIN, EAN ECHTE
PISTIN hWS KOKKON SINAPEWS, EREITE TWi OREI TOUTWi· METABA ENQEN EKEI,
KAI METABHSETAI· KAI OUDEN ADUNATHSEI hUMIN.]
Matt. 21:21 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν
αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν ἔχητε
πίστιν καὶ μὴ διακριθῆτε, οὐ μόνον
τὸ τῆς συκῆς ποιήσετε, ἀλλὰ κἂν τῷ
ὄρει τούτῳ εἴπητε· ἄρθητι καὶ
βλήθητι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν,
γενήσεται· [APOKRIQEIS DE hO IHSOUS EIPEN AUTOIS· AMHN LEGW
hUMIN, EAN ECHTE PISTIN KAI MH DIAKRIQHTE, OU MONON TO THS SUKHS
POIHSETE, ALLA KA)N TWi OREI TOUTWi EIPHTE· ARQHTI KAI BLHQHTI EIS THN
QALASSAN, GENHSETAI·]
Both these passages display the same pattern: EAN + subjunctive in the
protasis, future indicative in the apodosis -- the same pattern found
in Mk 11:22-23.
Lk 17:6, as noted above, has the awkward formulation EI ECETE ...
ELEGETE AN ... KAI hUPHKOUSEN AN ... If in fact, as seems to be the
case, this is the original wording of the text, It looks to me like
the ECETE derives from the Marcan imperative; it should be EICETE,
imperfect indicative, in a present counterfactual construction. The
variants in the MSS are EI EICETE and EAN ECHTE; my guess is that EI
EICETE is an early "correction" for EI ECETE, while EAN ECHTE is
borrowed from Matthew's parallel formulation.
In retrospect, I'm grateful to Travis Schuler for raising this
question and to Elizabeth Kline for "pushing the envelope" here. For
my part, I wouldn't assume there's any reason for raising the original
question other than puzzlement at what the text of Luke 17:6 (NOT
17:16) says. QAUMASTOS GAR ESTIN hO LOGOS hOUTOS.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list