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

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

Expand Messages
  • Carl W. Conrad
    ... Yes, formally PESONTA is active, but I d prefer to call it the default form for voice; PIPTW is certainly an intransitive verb, but it (and its
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 2 11:45 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      At 9:27 AM -0400 7/2/00, Maluflen@... wrote:
      >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).

      Yes, "formally" PESONTA is active, but I'd prefer to call it the default
      form for voice; PIPTW is certainly an intransitive verb, but it (and its
      compounds) does function for passive to BALLW (and its compounds).

      ><< 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.

      On the contrary; GAR is frequently used in a reply to another in the sense,
      "Yes, that's so, because ..."

      ><< 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.

      Perhaps Koine is less regular here, but not, I think, much less; when the
      introductory verb is a verb of perception (including OIDA), the indirect
      discourse normally is with a participle rather than with an infinitive.

      ><<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?

      "Iterative" aorist? No, rather, if I'm right about the indirect discourse
      with participle after verb of perception, then PESONTA refers to a single
      complete act. "I was (they were) witnessing the fall/ejection of Satan."

      > << ..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." >>
      >
      >Agreed.
      >
      >Leonard Maluf

      --

      Carl W. Conrad
      Department of Classics, Washington University
      Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
      cwconrad@... OR cwconrad@...
      WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes: [Responding to Leonard who wrote] An interesting point.
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 2 5:42 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        cwconrad@... writes:

        [Responding to Leonard who wrote]
        << >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.

        << On the contrary; GAR is frequently used in a reply to another in the sense,
        "Yes, that's so, because ...">>

        Pardon me for insisting here, but my whole point was that in this statement
        of Jesus, there is nothing equivalent to an opening "Yes, that's so,
        [because...]". It still seems odd to me to imagine a GAR simply slipped into
        its normal postpositive position in Lk 10:18 as it stands. I would be
        delighted if you could cite an example (perhaps from classical sources,
        because I doubt one exists in the NT) that would illustrate the validity of
        what you are saying here.

        Leonard Maluf
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:48:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes:
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 2 5:46 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:48:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          cwconrad@... writes:

          << Perhaps Koine is less regular here, but not, I think, much less; when the
          introductory verb is a verb of perception (including OIDA), the indirect
          discourse normally is with a participle rather than with an infinitive.>>


          Thanks Carl for this. I must acknowledge that I had completely forgotten this
          rule. But now that you remind me, I can recall numerous NT instances of this
          syntax.

          Leonard Maluf
        • Carl W. Conrad
          ... I guess that what I was thinking of with the GAR was the rather standard usage of it in stichomythia in classical Attic grammar, where the postpositive GAR
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 3 3:26 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            At 8:42 PM -0400 7/2/00, Maluflen@... wrote:
            >In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            >cwconrad@... writes:
            >
            >[Responding to Leonard who wrote]
            ><< >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.
            >
            ><< On the contrary; GAR is frequently used in a reply to another in the sense,
            > "Yes, that's so, because ...">>
            >
            >Pardon me for insisting here, but my whole point was that in this statement
            >of Jesus, there is nothing equivalent to an opening "Yes, that's so,
            >[because...]". It still seems odd to me to imagine a GAR simply slipped into
            >its normal postpositive position in Lk 10:18 as it stands. I would be
            >delighted if you could cite an example (perhaps from classical sources,
            >because I doubt one exists in the NT) that would illustrate the validity of
            >what you are saying here.

            I guess that what I was thinking of with the GAR was the rather standard
            usage of it in stichomythia in classical Attic grammar, where the
            postpositive GAR indicates a causal relationship between the response and
            the question posed by an interlocutor in the immediately preceding line. I
            don't really think I could put my fingers on an example of what I was
            arguing in the case of EQEWROUN.

            --

            Carl W. Conrad
            Department of Classics, Washington University
            Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
            cwconrad@... OR cwconrad@...
            WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.