| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stephenR
Veteran Member
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
Location: St Helens, Lancs, England
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: Asymmetric conditions in Mark 8:35 |
 |
|
In Mark 8:35 we have an interesting construction:
oJV gavr eja;n qevlh/ th;n yuch;n aujtou: sw:sai ajpolevsei aujthvn. oJV d =ajn ajpolevsei th;n yuch;n aujtou: .... swvsei aujthvn.
The first condition has ejavn with the pres subjunctive in the protasis, and future indicative in the apodosis.
The second condition has ajn with the future indic in the protasis, followed by future in the apodosis.
Zerwick says this use of a future for a condition expressed as a relative clause is a Hellenistic anomaly, and has the same force as a General condition
Stephen
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Klaas
Contributing Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 22
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:56 am Post subject: Re: Asymmetric conditions in Mark 8:35 |
|
|
Χαῖρε, ὦ Στέφανε,
| stephenR wrote: | In Mark 8:35 we have an interesting construction:
oJV gavr eja;n qevlh/ th;n yuch;n aujtou: sw:sai ajpolevsei aujthvn. oJV d =ajn ajpolevsei th;n yuch;n aujtou: .... swvsei aujthvn. |
On the net [http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AC_%CE%9C%CE%AC%CF%81%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%BD#.CE.B7.27] I found:
ὃς γὰρ ἂν θέλῃ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ σῶσαι, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν• // ὃς δ' ἂν ἀπολέσῃ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, οὗτος σώσει αὐτήν.
| stephenR wrote: | | The first condition has ejavn with the pres subjunctive in the protasis and future indicative in the apodosis. |
Concerning the tenses I agree, but I think ἐάν should definitely be ἄν, since otherwise the protasis would contain two words [ὅς & ἐάν] that normally would introduce a subordinate clause right behind each other. So ἐάν must definitely be ἄν in this protasis.
| stephenR wrote: | | The second condition has ajn with the future indic in the protasis, followed by future in the apodosis. |
The text on the site I gave, reads ἀπολέσῃ instead of ἀπολέσει. In the first case there’s no problem. I think ἀπολέσει could be a ‘miswriting’ of ἀπολέσῃ [aor. subj. 3rd ps act]. The ῃ-sound and ει-sound were proncounced practically the same way in the first century.
The coincidence in this case is that the future stem (active) [ἀπ-ολεσ] is the same as the aorist [ἀπ-ολεσ].
So it would be worthwhile studying Zerwick’s data in order to see whether this ‘misspelling’ occurs in those instances as well where aorist and future stems differ.
Because one can see in that case whether the writer is using an aorist or future stem.
But even if the writers use future stems, it could point to mixing up the usages of these stems after ἐάν/ἄν as a result of coinciding pronunciation of indicative future and subjunctive aorist (active) in (non-ir)regular verbs in post-classical Greek.
_________________
כח גַּם אֱוִיל מַחֲרִישׁ, חָכָם יֵחָשֵׁב
(משלי פרק יז)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klaas
Contributing Member
Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 22
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:38 am Post subject: Re: Asymmetric conditions in Mark 8:35 |
|
|
| Klaas wrote: | | stephenR wrote: | | The first condition has ejavn with the pres subjunctive in the protasis and future indicative in the apodosis. |
Concerning the tenses I agree, but I think ἐάν should definitely be ἄν, since otherwise the protasis would contain two words [ὅς & ἐάν] that normally would introduce a subordinate clause right behind each other. So ἐάν must definitely be ἄν in this protasis. |
I just saw in another passage in Matthew the following
19 ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν• ὃς δ’ ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ, οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν.
It’s clear that actually ὃς ἐὰν should be in good Attic this must have been ὃς ἂν (like in the second protasis: Attic would have constructed this like ὃς μὲν ἂν …, ὃς δ’ ἂν).
In such subordinate clauses Attic would either have ὅστις/ὃς ἄν or ἐάν τις [the sub clause being introduced by either a subordinating conjunction –εἰ- or a relative pronoun - ὅστις/ὃς-], but not both combined [ὅστις/ὃς ἐάν].
The reason it appears in the New Testament could be that the combi εἰ + ἄν resulted in ἐάν, ἤν & sometimes ἄν in Attic (especially καὶ ἐάν appears in Attic quite often as κἄν) and the distinction between ἐάν and ἄν might have faded away. Something that could point in this direction, is that the conditional conjunction in Modern Greek is αν [ἄν] (ελάτε εδώ αν θέλετε! – come here if you like!) which evolved from ἐάν.
_________________
כח גַּם אֱוִיל מַחֲרִישׁ, חָכָם יֵחָשֵׁב
(משלי פרק יז)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Usergroups
Calendar
REGISTER
Log in
Log in to check your private messages
