[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