Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4467Re: [Synoptic-L] Re Lk 10,18 eqewroun

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    Jul 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 7/2/2000 6:23:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      cwconrad@... writes:

      [Responding to Leonard: "what did you think of the arguments for a 3rd plural
      understanding of the main verb in 10:18?"]

      << Let me acknowledge a modicum of plausibility to it, upon a closer look.>>

      Good to hear. I don't expect more than that. After all, the versions, ancient
      and modern (beginning with Vulg.: videbam satanam..), all have translated
      with the first pers. sing. I do think, however, that the alternative reading
      should be looked at carefully before being rejected out of hand.

      << The disciples returning form their mission report that what most has
      impressed them is the subordination of TA DAIMONIA to them as they act in
      Jesus' name (as I understand the force of EN TWi ONOMATI SOU). Jesus
      replies (18): "they were having a vision (EQEWROUN impf. 3d pl.): Satan
      hurled like a stroke of lightning from heaven (PESONTA aor. pass. ptc.
      functioning as passive ptc. of BALLW; >>

      You undoubtedly meant: PESONTA aor. act. ptc.? To reflect the nuance of the
      aor. tense in English it is perhaps sufficient to render: "They watched Satan
      fall like lightning from heaven", (i.e., they were co-spectators when Satan
      fell dramatically from heaven), instead of "they watched Satan falling like
      lightning...", which would call for a present ptc. (PIPTONTA).

      << I would like the sequence better if
      there were a GAR following EQEWROUN).>>

      An interesting point. However, I think a GAR would be expected here only if
      the sentence continued a sequence of comments made by a single subject. For
      example, if Jesus had replied: "The demons are indeed subject to you; for
      (GAR) they were co-spectors when Satan fell...". Without this continuity of
      discourse, I believe a GAR is less in order, even with the meaning that
      results from reading the verb as 3rd plural.

      << What's always impressed me about
      10:19 is the aorist ptc. PESONTA in a participial clause of indirect
      discourse introduced by a verb of seeing, in this instance QEWREW. QEWREW
      is not quite the same as hORAW or BLEPW.>>

      Are you sure this is a correct syntactical analysis? I always thought
      indirect discourse necessarily required an infinitive verb form (with acc.
      subject). It is certainly close, if not identical in meaning to a sentence in
      indirect discourse that would have employed an infinitive form of the verb
      (if I am right). But I would analyze this as an alternate syntax to indirect
      discourse, with roughly the same meaning. Cf. Lk 5:2, e.g.

      <<Then, as you note, there is a shift of focus in what Jesus says marked by
      the IDOU: "Take note, I have indeed given you power/authority to be
      untouched by Satan's minions . . .BUT you shouldn't be happy so much about
      their subordination to you as by the fact that your names stand written
      (EGGEGRAPTAI, another 3d sg. verb with n. pl. subject!) in the heavens."
      Does he mean to say that TA DAIMONIA/PNEUMATA have recognized those names?>>

      Interesting suggestion. I'm not sure, but the twofold reference to heaven/the
      heavens in the passage as a whole is certainly a factor to be considered in
      its exegesis.


      Yes, but then one must probe further and ask exactly what is Luke thinking
      about here. What does he see as the precise occasion of this dramatic fall?
      What does he expect his readers to understand? Could PESONTA be an iterative
      aor., and refer to a fall of Satan that occurs each time a demon is driven
      out by the disciples? Or what else might be conveyed by the aorist nuance?

      << ..yet I suppose it could be understood in terms
      of the subordination of the DAIMONIA/PNEUMATA as related to their
      understanding of the implications of their loss of power.>>

      In which case, similar questions need to be asked as above.

      << On the whole, I'm still more or less convinced of Conzelmann's notion of
      Jesus' ministry in Luke as a temporary "Satan-free" period running from the
      end of the Temptation until Passion Week when Satan once again gains the
      upper hand. Yet I will add that, for myself at least, all convictions
      regarding the Synoptics are "more or less." >>


      Leonard Maluf
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic