New Testament • Re: Is the lack of a verb in Luke 16.16a conspicuous?

Luke 16.16

My rule of thumb is that if a verb is missing and it's not in immediate parallelism with a preceding clause, try using a form of the verb εἶναι "to be." That's how some translations take it anyway. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — March 12th, 2014, 1:36 am
I figured that was the most likely option; but I started doubting it for a second, in light of the quasi-technical sense that εὐαγγελίζω had acquired, where it's almost exclusively used in these parts of the NT to refer to the Christian kerygma. That we have the standard association here with ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (that is, the Christ-inaugurated kingdom) seemed to play against it also applying to the "Law and prophets"...especially as I've found no other instances where scripture itself (or any sort of "essence" of pre-Christian religious message) is the subject of εὐαγγελίζω (although Acts 15.21 may be somewhat close, though using κηρύσσω). But...even though it might be unique, I think inferring from the next clause is still the best option. All that being said - you wouldn't happen to know any other examples that are particularly close in structure to this, would you? Statistics: Posted by Stewart Felker — March 12th, 2014, 12:41 am
Stewart, in general, when a verb is "missing" from a clause it is inferred from the nearest clause to it unless context strongly overrules. In this case, εὐαγγελίζονται is the likely candidate, and makes perfect sense in the context. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — March 11th, 2014, 10:16 pm
The verse as a whole reads ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται μέχρι Ἰωάννου ἀπὸ τότε ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται. Many translations have an (implied) verb - whether a simple verb of being, or something like "were proclaimed" - when translating ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται μέχρι Ἰωάννου. However, the parallel in Matthew 11.13 does indeed have a verb here: πάντες γὰρ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ νόμος ἕως Ἰωάννου ἐπροφήτευσαν. But could the Lukan author have reasonably expected the readers/hearers to understand what his intention was, without a verb? How do we really know what the Law and Prophets were "doing" here (and might understanding a verb of being here put one at the risk of reading supersessionism into the text?)? Statistics: Posted by Stewart Felker — March 11th, 2014, 8:31 pm