Luke 17:6

[] Luke 17.6 AN = contingency? Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 13 01:21:55 EST 2008

[] Luke 16:23 TOIS KOLPOIS [] Luke 17.6 AN = contingency? EIPEN DE hO KURIOS EI ECETE PISTIN hWS KOKKON SINAPEWSELEGETE AN THi SUKAMINWi TAUTHi EKRIZWQHTI KAIFUTEUQHTI EN THi QALASSHi KAI hUPHKOUSEN AN hUMIN How does AN change ELEGETE and uUPHKOUSEN had they notbeen there? Doesn’t AN make the verbs somewhat morecontingent on something? Almost as if, “you shallsay…” to “it is possible you could say…” Or, not”it will obey you” but something like “perhaps it willobey you.” (I think of AN as converting an Indicativeexpression/command closer to a Subjunctive.)Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas ____________________________________________________________________________________Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[] Luke 16:23 TOIS KOLPOIS[] Luke 17.6 AN = contingency?

[] Luke 17.6 AN = contingency? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Feb 13 05:16:12 EST 2008

[] Luke 17.6 AN = contingency? [] hEAUTOU vs SEAUTOU On Feb 13, 2008, at 1:21 AM, Mitch Larramore wrote:> > EIPEN DE hO KURIOS EI ECETE PISTIN hWS KOKKON SINAPEWS> ELEGETE AN THi SUKAMINWi TAUTHi EKRIZWQHTI KAI> FUTEUQHTI EN THi QALASSHi KAI hUPHKOUSEN AN hUMIN> > How does AN change ELEGETE and uUPHKOUSEN had they not> been there? Doesn’t AN make the verbs somewhat more> contingent on something? Almost as if, “you shall> say…” to “it is possible you could say…” Or, not> “it will obey you” but something like “perhaps it will> obey you.” (I think of AN as converting an Indicative> expression/command closer to a Subjunctive.)You should learn to expect AN in conditional constructions and learn to distinguish the conditional constructions. AN used with the imperfect and aorist indicative is regular in the result clause of contrary-to-fact conditions: ‘If you DID have faith (but you don’t), you WOULD be saying … “Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Luke 17.6 AN = contingency?[] hEAUTOU vs SEAUTOU

[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement??? Travis Schuler jckaroe95 at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 30 08:42:09 EDT 2009

[] purpose hina vs. result hina? [] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement??? Luke 17:6 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ κύριος εἰ ἔχετε πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως ἐλέγετε ἂντῇ συκαμίνῳ ταύτῃ ἐκριζώθητι καὶ φυτεύθητι ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ ὑπήκουσενἂν ὑμῖν.Is this a simple conditional statement??? the use of the indicative in the protasis seems to indicate it is, but I understand simple conditionals are rather rare. Also, the theological interpretations I have encountered seem to treat this verse as a general conditional statement. Any input would be greatly appreciated.Thank you

[] purpose hina vs. result hina?[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement???

[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement??? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Jun 30 12:10:08 EDT 2009

[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement??? [] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement??? On Jun 30, 2009, at 8:42 AM, Travis Schuler wrote:> Luke 17:6 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ κύριος εἰ ἔχετε > πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως ἐλέγετε > ἂν> τῇ συκαμίνῳ ταύτῃ ἐκριζώθητι καὶ > φυτεύθητι ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ > ὑπήκουσεν> ἂν ὑμῖν.Our protocol requires that IF you cite the Greek text using Unicode UTF-8 Greek, you MUST ALSO give the text in transliterated form:EIPEN DE hO KURIOS, EI ECETE PISTIN hWS KOKKON SINAPEWS, ELEGETE AN THi SUKAMINWi TAUTHi, EKRIZWQHTI KAI FUTEUQHTE EN THi QALASSHi KAI hUPHKOUSEN AN hUMIN.> > Is this a simple conditional statement??? the use of the indicative > in the protasis seems to indicate it is, but I understand simple > conditionals are rather rare. Also, the theological interpretations > I have encountered seem to treat this verse as a general conditional > statement. Any input would be greatly appreciated.This is actually a mixed condition, but in its fundamental structure, it is closer to a present counterfactual co;ndition; we would really expect the protasis to be in the indicative imperfect, since the apodoses are ELEGETE AN and hUPHKOUSEN AN, which are appropriate to present and past counterfactual result-clauses.. The present tense of ECETE is odd; the more appropriate imperfect form EICETE. is less to be noted among textual variants than EAN ECHTE, which is not at all appropriate.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement???[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement???

[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement??? Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 30 12:52:59 EDT 2009

[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement??? [] purpose hina vs. result hina? Carl wrote: <The present tense of ECETE is odd; the more appropriate imperfect form EICETE. is less to  be noted among textual variants than EAN ECHTE, which is not at all  appropriate.> I know that textual criticism is technically beyondthe parameters of the list, but I find it odd that neitherNA 27 nor Metzger has a note here indicating thatEIXETE is found in the Textus Receptus.  It mustbe poorly attested, because even Robinson Pierpontprints EXETE without a note, although Hodges/Farstaddoes at least have a note.  Without in any way arguing thatEIXETE is original, it seems it should at least be broughtto ones attention.  (And I’m glad Carl did so.)The NASB and the NRSV, by giving “If you hadfaith” (compare NIV “If you have faith”) seem to treat the passage as a normal contrary to fact condition,although I don’t know if this is because one often regularlyfinds these “mixed” types with presents where you wouldexpect imperfects, or because these versions are stillbeing influenced by the KJV which follows the T.R. Again, I say this not to argue for one or another text type,but just to point out what I’ve noticed  before, thatNA 27 often fails to even note T.R. readings which maybe secondary but should at least be part of the discussion. Mark LΦωσφορος ΜαρκοςFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Tue, 6/30/09, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>Subject: Re: [] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement???To: “Travis Schuler” <jckaroe95 at yahoo.com>Cc: at lists.ibiblio.orgDate: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 10:10 AMOn Jun 30, 2009, at 8:42 AM, Travis Schuler wrote:> Luke 17:6  εἶπεν δὲ ὁ κύριος εἰ ἔχετε  > πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως ἐλέγετε  > ἂν> τῇ συκαμίνῳ ταύτῃ ἐκριζώθητι καὶ  > φυτεύθητι ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ  > ὑπήκουσεν> ἂν ὑμῖν.Our protocol requires that IF you cite the Greek text using  Unicode UTF-8 Greek, you MUST ALSO give the text in transliterated form:EIPEN DE hO KURIOS, EI ECETE PISTIN hWS KOKKON SINAPEWS, ELEGETE AN  THi SUKAMINWi TAUTHi, EKRIZWQHTI KAI FUTEUQHTE EN THi QALASSHi KAI  hUPHKOUSEN AN hUMIN.> > Is this a simple conditional statement??? the use of the indicative  > in the protasis seems to indicate it is, but I understand simple  > conditionals are rather rare. Also, the theological interpretations  > I have encountered seem to treat this verse as a general conditional  > statement. Any input would be greatly appreciated.This is actually a mixed condition, but in its fundamental structure,  it is closer to a present counterfactual co;ndition; we would really  expect the protasis to be in the indicative imperfect, since the  apodoses are ELEGETE AN and hUPHKOUSEN AN, which are appropriate to  present and past counterfactual result-clauses.. The present tense of  ECETE is odd; the more appropriate imperfect form EICETE. is less to  be noted among textual variants than EAN ECHTE, which is not at all  appropriate.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement???[] purpose hina vs. result hina?

[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement??? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 30 13:49:58 EDT 2009

[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement??? [] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement??? Carl,On Jun 30, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:> On Jun 30, 2009, at 8:42 AM, Travis Schuler wrote:> >> Luke 17:6 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ κύριος εἰ ἔχετε>> πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως ἐλέγετε>> ἂν>> τῇ συκαμίνῳ ταύτῃ ἐκριζώθητι καὶ>> φυτεύθητι ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ>> ὑπήκουσεν>> ἂν ὑμῖν.> > Our protocol requires that IF you cite the Greek text using> Unicode UTF-8 Greek, you MUST ALSO give the text in transliterated > form:> > EIPEN DE hO KURIOS, EI ECETE PISTIN hWS KOKKON SINAPEWS, ELEGETE AN> THi SUKAMINWi TAUTHi, EKRIZWQHTI KAI FUTEUQHTE EN THi QALASSHi KAI> hUPHKOUSEN AN hUMIN.>> >> Is this a simple conditional statement??? the use of the indicative>> in the protasis seems to indicate it is, but I understand simple>> conditionals are rather rare. Also, the theological interpretations>> I have encountered seem to treat this verse as a general conditional>> statement. Any input would be greatly appreciated.> > This is actually a mixed condition,Which raises the question, what is at fault here? The language of the author or the system of categories for conditionals? In light of our recent discussion of the genitive case, I wonder what the categories accomplish for us. When a question like this is raised, I assume the student is preparing an exegesis paper or getting ready for an exam. I read the text in Luke without any question about what it was saying. So my training in Koine must be defective somehow since I should have stopped and asked, what is wrong here, this construction doesn’t fit into the canonical paradigms for Greek conditionals.> but in its fundamental structure,> it is closer to a present counterfactual co;ndition; we would really> expect the protasis to be in the indicative imperfect, since the> apodoses are ELEGETE AN and hUPHKOUSEN AN, which are appropriate to> present and past counterfactual result-clauses.. The present tense of> ECETE is odd; the more appropriate imperfect form EICETE. is less to> be noted among textual variants than EAN ECHTE, which is not at all> appropriate.Elizabeth Kline

[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement???[] Luke 17:16 simple conditional statement???