[B-Greek] Gnomic Subjunctive Aorist? (was Aorist Subjunctive in 1 Jn 1:9)
=)
p1234567891 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 5 23:58:40 EDT 2011
Dear Alastair,
Alright, I will give my answers to your questions then. =)
Why does the text have a future tense hARPASAI? Because "[he] will plunder
his house" after "[he] binds the strong [one]", just as the phrase "kai
tote" implies. Clearly "the strong [one]" is singular and not plural, so it
is not impossible but unlikely to refer to "the strong [ones]" in general.
Why not a *perfect* instead of the aorist DHSHi? Because subjunctives
usually come in aorist form, as Mark Lightman also pointed out. In other
words what we call tense of the verb (present, aorist, perfect...) may be
constrained by what we call the mood (indicative, subjunctive), and may not
be independent "parameters" of the verb. It is almost natural for "ean" to
be followed by either a present or aorist subjunctive, so they do not have
exactly the same meaning as the indicative counterparts (even if they once
had).
Why does the NASB translate both into the English *present*? I am not
interested in what people translate the words as, especially since each
translation has its own features and flaws. I think we are instead
interested in what the author originally meant, which may not be anything
more than an indefinite possibility.
Regards,
David Lim
On 6 April 2011 11:30, Alastair Haines <haines at alastairs.com> wrote:
> Hi again David
>
> I'm going to be a little naughty, and try to steal your example (Matthew
> 12:29), which I think you have accurately identified as a subjunctive aorist
> in the protasis of a conditional, where a generic/gnomic/omnitemporal
> reading might be a possibility. Although you provide evidence that, at least
> in this case, the aorist isn't generic/gnomic/omnitemporal, please allow me
> to offer counter-evidence.
>
> 29b ἐὰν μὴ πρῶτον δήσῃ τὸν ἰσχυρόν;
> 29c καὶ τότε τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ διαρπάσει.
> 29b EAN MH PRWTON DHSHi ISXURON;
> 29c KAI TOTE THN OIKIAN AUTOU DIARPASEI.
>
> The example is slightly complicated because the verb (in this case DEW, "I
> bind") is negated (by MH). Additionally, the example suggests, to me at
> least, that the connection between protasis and apodosis, in this particular
> case, is procedural (note PRWTON ... TOTE) rather than deontological or
> teleological, as in Matthew 6:14-15. However, it is nicely analagous to
> Matthew in that the conditional structure is "EAN + (aorist) subjunctive
> (DHSHi) ... future indicative (DIARPASEI)".
>
> There's another complication, though, in that the protasis does
> double-duty, providing a condition both for 12:29a and 12:29c.
>
> 29a ἢ πῶς δύναται τις εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ
> 29a καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἁρπάσαι, ...
>
> 29a Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house
> and carry off his property,
> 29b unless he first binds the strong *man?*
> 29c And then he will plunder his house. (NASB)
>
> The basic idea seems to be:
> (all x) (all y) (possible for x to rob y implies possible for x to bind y)
> equivalently
> (all x) (all y) (impossible for x to bind y implies impossible for x to rob
> y).
>
> The significance, of course, is that Jesus (according to the text) is not
> only asserting *power* to bind, but *intention* to rob. The dispute with
> the Pharisees is regarding them acknowledging Jesus' power, but questioning
> his motives. So, yes, as you said David, "the strong man" in this gospel
> tradition, refers to the Devil: Jesus' boss according to the Pharisees, but
> his "target" according to Jesus. However, I think you're too smart for the
> text, David. Jesus is his typically (almost annoyingly) circumlocutionary
> self here, talking of some abstract, generalised "strong man" rather than
> giving the Devil his name in this verse.
>
> I should stop there, and just ask some questions.
> Why does the text have a future tense hARPASAI?
> Why not a *perfect* instead of the aorist DHSHi?
> Why does the NASB translate both into the English *present*?
>
> I think there are a lot of generic indicators in this verse.
> "How is it *possible* for *just anybody* to go into the home of *the
> strong* and grab *his* stuff?
> Unless..."
>
> alastair
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* =) <p1234567891 at gmail.com>
> *To:* Alastair Haines <haines at alastairs.com> ; B-Greek List<b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2011 10:19 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [B-Greek] Gnomic Subjunctive Aorist? (was Aorist
> Subjunctive in 1 Jn 1:9)
>
> Dear Alastair,
>
> It is true that the definite article would not in general exclude the
> possibility of a statement being gnomic. However an article usually means
> one of three things. We would first expect it to refer to an antecedent,
> which is usually the closest in grammatical proximity. If there is none in
> the expected places, we would then expect the articular noun to be specified
> by one or more adjectival clauses, which may include prepositional clauses
> or participles. If neither of the two are present then it usually refers to
> a known entity in the wider current scope, which may end up being the common
> frame of reference. This is meant mostly for ordinary nouns and names are
> not included. "pneumati qeou" therefore falls into the third category,
> referring to "[the] spirit of God" in the Jewish frame of reference. "h
> basileia tou qeou" is in the second category, referring to "the kingdom
> which is of God". The second "the strong man" is of course in the first
> category, referring to the previously-mentioned "strong man". Within that
> sentence alone it is impossible to decide for the first, however Matt
> 12:24-28 indicates that Jesus had a specific "strong man" in mind, therefore
> it must be non-gnomic, although of course anyone may disagree with this
> analysis. The point is that it is most probably non-gnomic. =)
>
> Regards,
> David Lim
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list