My own thought is that there's not an ounce of difference in meaning between ὃς ἐὰν and ὃς ἂν in these two expressions introducing a generalizing conditional construction. But if there's a choice to be made between them in particular cases, what governs the preference? My guess is that it has something to do with the prosodic sequence of ὃς ἐὰν δέξηται in the first instance and ὃς ἂν ἐμὲ δέξηται in the other -- but I don't have much confidence in my guess. Would someone (who knows) enlighten Wes and me?Wes Wood wrote: Luke 9:48 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ὃς ἐὰν δέξηται τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐμὲ δέχεται· καὶ ὃς ἂν ἐμὲ δέξηται, δέχεται τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με· ὁ γὰρ μικρότερος ἐν πᾶσιν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχων οὗτός ἐστιν μέγας.
What is the difference between ὃς ἐὰν and ὃς ἂν here? Is the εἰ 'embedded' in ἐὰν affecting the clauses on both sides of καί, or is something else being expressed? I am trying to understand why it is written the way it is.
ὃς ἐὰν and ὃς ἂν
ὃς ἐὰν and ὃς ἂν
I'm posting publicly a question that was put to me on the mistaken assumption that I might know the answer:
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: ὃς ἐὰν and ὃς ἂν
Given the common interchange of ἐάν and ἄν in the Koine (see BDF § 107 for a general and compact discussion), and in this verse particularly in the manuscripts, I am skeptical that the difference here is semantic rather than orthographic. If I am editing the text, I would consider the usual canons of textual criticism unreliable as to orthography and adopt an editorial policy of spelling them based on their traditional contexts. Here, the critical text seems to follow the two non-harmonistic readings of B.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
- Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
- Contact:
Re: ὃς ἐὰν and ὃς ἂν
My first thought was that ἐὰν = ἄν. In other words, Koine writers/speakers pronounced the two words identically. So how does a modern day reader collate the different passages using ἄν \ ἐάν into either an εἰ ἂν or simply ἂν understanding. Here is BDF's appropriate section (Blass-Debrunner-Funk):
Perhaps we could fill out (cite) the texts which are referenced in BDF. This could be a thread which could help all understand the ambiguity of ἄν and ἐάν.Interchange of ἄν and ἐάν: ἐάν, not ἤν or ἄ̄ν, is the Hell. form for ‘if’ (uncontracted like ἑαυτοῦ σεαυτοῦ; but MGr ἄν ‘if’); ἄν is found, however, now and then in NT MSS, thus Jn 12:32 B, 13:20 (ἐάν DEFG al.), 16:23 BC al., 20:23 twice (ἐάν AD, once S*), A 9:2 SE. This is in accord with the strong inroads which ἐάν made on the province of ἄν, which could easily have produced uncertainty for the scribe. Ἐάν appears very frequently instead of ἄν after relatives in the NT, as in the LXX and pap. (Mayser I1 152f.; II 1, 263f., 265, 267; II 3, 58f.; the highpoint is in the i/ii AD: Thack. 67), perhaps in order to underline the conditional aspect. Ἐάν for ἄν, e.g. Mt 5:19 ὃς ἐάν (ἐάν om. D*, ἄν Dc; shortly thereafter ὃς δʼ ἄν), 8:19 ὅπου ἐάν, 10:14 ὃς ἐάν CEF al. (ἄν SBDKLW), 42 ὃς ἐάν (ἄν BD), 11:27 ᾧ ἐάν (ἄν D), A 7:7 OT ᾧ ἐάν (ἄν BD), also e.g. ὅστις ἐάν G 5:10, ἥτις ἐάν A 3:23, but always ἕως ἄν (Gregory 96; cf. pap. and LXX, Mayser I1 153; II 1, 269; Thack. 65. Ἄχρι οὗ ἄν s. §383(2); Barale, Didaskaleion 2 [1913] 443); John only ὃ ἐάν 15:7 (ἄν B), 1 Jn 3:22 (ἄν B), 3 Jn 5. Cf. Mlt. 42f., 234 [62f.] and on the very strongly vacillating orthography of the NT MSS, v. Soden 1385f. Xen., Mem. 3.10.12 ᾧ ἐάν, Lysias 24.18 οὓς ἐάν, Arist., Ath. 30.2 (pap.) οἳ ἐάν. Langdon, AJPh 24 (1903) 447–51; Witkowski, Bericht 240f.; Barale, op. cit. 439ff.; on ἄν in Lk and Jn, Pernot, Études 168f.
Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (p. 57). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.