Conditional in Joh 18,36

Peter Streitenberger
Posts: 219
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:45 am

Conditional in Joh 18,36

Post by Peter Streitenberger » October 31st, 2013, 8:59 am

Dear Greek-friends,

currently I'm reading the thesis of Prof. Gerry Wakker on Conditions and Conditionals, but I still have no clue how to distinguish present or past conditionals being irreal.
For example I'd like to know whether Joh 18,36 is a present or past Irrealis:

εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἦν ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμή, οἱ ὑπηρέται ἂν οἱ ἐμοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο, ἵνα μὴ παραδοθῶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις·

Is the Apodosis here: "would fight" (present) or "would have fought" (past) ?

Thank you for a clarification....

Yours
Peter, Germany
0 x



cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Conditional in Joh 18,36

Post by cwconrad » October 31st, 2013, 9:15 am

Peter Streitenberger wrote:Dear Greek-friends,

currently I'm reading the thesis of Prof. Gerry Wakker on Conditions and Conditionals, but I still have no clue how to distinguish present or past conditionals being irreal.
For example I'd like to know whether Joh 18,36 is a present or past Irrealis:

εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἦν ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμή, οἱ ὑπηρέται ἂν οἱ ἐμοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο, ἵνα μὴ παραδοθῶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις·

Is the Apodosis here: "would fight" (present) or "would have fought" (past) ?

Thank you for a clarification....

Yours
Peter, Germany
It's "would fight" -- ἠγωνίζοντο is imperfect, not aorist, which would be required for "would have fought." It's a present counterfactual condition.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Peter Streitenberger
Posts: 219
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:45 am

Re: Conditional in Joh 18,36

Post by Peter Streitenberger » October 31st, 2013, 9:46 am

Dear Prof. Conrad,

thank you again, indeed ! Short but helpful. Is there anything on this issue, which you could recommend ? As I said, I'm reading Wakker on this.
Yours
Peter, Germany
0 x

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Conditional in Joh 18,36

Post by David Lim » November 1st, 2013, 8:39 am

cwconrad wrote:It's "would fight" -- ἠγωνίζοντο is imperfect, not aorist, which would be required for "would have fought." It's a present counterfactual condition.
Carl, can I ask about the following? I'm not sure how they fit your statement about the imperfect indicative corresponding to the present counterfactual. What do the aorist and perfect indicatives correspond to?
[Luke 17:6] ειπεν δε ο κυριος ει εχετε πιστιν ως κοκκον σιναπεως ελεγετε αν τη συκαμινω ταυτη εκριζωθητι και φυτευθητι εν τη θαλασση και υπηκουσεν αν υμιν
[Gal 1:10] αρτι γαρ ανθρωπους πειθω η τον θεον η ζητω ανθρωποις αρεσκειν ει γαρ ετι ανθρωποις ηρεσκον χριστου δουλος ουκ αν ημην
[Gal 3:21] ο ουν νομος κατα των επαγγελιων του θεου μη γενοιτο ει γαρ εδοθη νομος ο δυναμενος ζωοποιησαι οντως αν εκ νομου ην η δικαιοσυνη
[Heb 4:8] ει γαρ αυτους ιησους κατεπαυσεν ουκ αν περι αλλης ελαλει μετα ταυτα ημερας
[Heb 8:7] ει γαρ η πρωτη εκεινη ην αμεμπτος ουκ αν δευτερας εζητειτο τοπος
[Heb 11:15] και ει μεν εκεινης εμνημονευον αφ ης εξηλθον ειχον αν καιρον ανακαμψαι
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Conditional in Joh 18,36

Post by cwconrad » November 1st, 2013, 11:06 am

David Lim wrote:
cwconrad wrote:It's "would fight" -- ἠγωνίζοντο is imperfect, not aorist, which would be required for "would have fought." It's a present counterfactual condition.
Carl, can I ask about the following? I'm not sure how they fit your statement about the imperfect indicative corresponding to the present counterfactual. What do the aorist and perfect indicatives correspond to?
[Luke 17:6] ειπεν δε ο κυριος ει εχετε πιστιν ως κοκκον σιναπεως ελεγετε αν τη συκαμινω ταυτη εκριζωθητι και φυτευθητι εν τη θαλασση και υπηκουσεν αν υμιν
[Gal 1:10] αρτι γαρ ανθρωπους πειθω η τον θεον η ζητω ανθρωποις αρεσκειν ει γαρ ετι ανθρωποις ηρεσκον χριστου δουλος ουκ αν ημην
[Gal 3:21] ο ουν νομος κατα των επαγγελιων του θεου μη γενοιτο ει γαρ εδοθη νομος ο δυναμενος ζωοποιησαι οντως αν εκ νομου ην η δικαιοσυνη
[Heb 4:8] ει γαρ αυτους ιησους κατεπαυσεν ουκ αν περι αλλης ελαλει μετα ταυτα ημερας
[Heb 8:7] ει γαρ η πρωτη εκεινη ην αμεμπτος ουκ αν δευτερας εζητειτο τοπος
[Heb 11:15] και ει μεν εκεινης εμνημονευον αφ ης εξηλθον ειχον αν καιρον ανακαμψαι
I'm not going to try to format this so that the replies are sandwiched between the cited texts.

Lk 17:6 This, I think, is not altogether counterfactual because there doesn't seem to be an assumption that the disciples addressed do not have faith. Call this "mixed" if you will Perhaps the real protasis here would be, "If you really wanted to move a mountain (but you don't, do you?)."

Gal 1:10 This is unquestionably a present counterfactual condition: εἰ ἤρισκον ... οὐκ ἂν ἦν

Gal 3:21 This is counterfactual but it's mixed: the protasis is past (if X had occurred), the apodosis is present (Y would now obtain).

Heb 4:8 This is another mixed counterfactual:( if he hadn't done X, then he wouldn't now be speaking about ...)

Heb 8:7 This is a standard present counterfactual condition: εἰ + impf. in protasis, impf. + ἂν in apodosis

Heb 11.15 This is really another standard present counterfactual condition. What makes it look different is that its perspective is that of the mindset of the "pilgrims" while alive and traveling on their way toward "the promised land": "If what they were thinking about was the land that they'd left behind, then they would have opportunity enough to retrace their steps and go back."
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Vasile Stancu
Posts: 36
Joined: May 31st, 2011, 3:13 am
Location: Timisoara, Romania
Contact:

Re: Conditional in Joh 18,36

Post by Vasile Stancu » November 3rd, 2013, 3:46 am

cwconrad wrote:... It's a present counterfactual condition.
It makes perfect sense in English; however, there are languages (Romanian, at least) where the use of present in translation would induce some strange idea about the sequence of the related events: the reader would expect that the servants Jesus makes reference to would fight (or were at that time in the process of fighting) so as he be not delivered to the Jews, while, at the time of this conversation, he had already been delivered to them.
0 x

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Conditional in Joh 18,36

Post by cwconrad » November 3rd, 2013, 7:38 am

Vasile Stancu wrote:
cwconrad wrote:... It's a present counterfactual condition.
It makes perfect sense in English; however, there are languages (Romanian, at least) where the use of present in translation would induce some strange idea about the sequence of the related events: the reader would expect that the servants Jesus makes reference to would fight (or were at that time in the process of fighting) so as he be not delivered to the Jews, while, at the time of this conversation, he had already been delivered to them.
Certainly languages may represent conditionals each in their own way, so far as I know. But, when asked about a Greek construction, I'm always analyzing it in terms of what's regular practice in Greek.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Peter Streitenberger
Posts: 219
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:45 am

Re: Conditional in Joh 18,36

Post by Peter Streitenberger » November 7th, 2013, 8:19 am

Dear Prof. Conrad, dear friends,

in the new German "Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament" the author quotes
Matthew 24:43: Ἐκεῖνο δὲ γινώσκετε, ὅτι εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, ἐγρηγόρησεν ἄν, καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴασεν διορυγῆναι τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ.

Then he states that this must be an example of an Irealis in the present, and translates it with "if...knew....he would be awake". Unfortunately he offers no explanation for his decicion.

So my question: should we take this example in Mat 24,43 as past or present irealis, and why ?
Thank you further on !
Yours
Peter, Germany
0 x

Peter Streitenberger
Posts: 219
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:45 am

Re: Conditional in Joh 18,36

Post by Peter Streitenberger » November 7th, 2013, 8:19 am

Dear Prof. Conrad, dear friends,

in the new German "Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament" the author quotes
Matthew 24:43: Ἐκεῖνο δὲ γινώσκετε, ὅτι εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, ἐγρηγόρησεν ἄν, καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴασεν διορυγῆναι τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ.

Then he states that this must be an example of an Irealis in the present, and translates it with "if...knew....he would be awake". Unfortunately he offers no explanation for his decicion.

So my question: should we take this example in Mat 24,43 as past or present irealis, and why ?
Thank you further on !
Yours
Peter, Germany
0 x

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Conditional in Joh 18,36

Post by cwconrad » November 7th, 2013, 9:33 am

Peter Streitenberger wrote:Dear Prof. Conrad, dear friends,

in the new German "Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament" the author quotes
Matthew 24:43: Ἐκεῖνο δὲ γινώσκετε, ὅτι εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, ἐγρηγόρησεν ἄν, καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴασεν διορυγῆναι τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ.

Then he states that this must be an example of an Irealis in the present, and translates it with "if...knew....he would be awake". Unfortunately he offers no explanation for his decicion.

So my question: should we take this example in Mat 24,43 as past or present irealis, and why ?
Thank you further on !
Yours
Peter, Germany
The text in question:
εἰ ᾔδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴασεν διορυχθῆναι τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ.
I'm sorry if I may seem unhelpful here (ἀνωφελής?), but this strikes me as rather pointless splitting of hairs. The verb of the protasis in Mt 24;43 is ἤδει. If we think of οἶδα as a perfect functioning as a present, then we should understand ἤδει as pluperfect functioning for imperfect. On the other hand, English really seems to prefer "if he knew" to "if he had known" or even to understand the two as meaning the same thing. Does your Griechische Grammatik translate ἤδει as "wusste" or as "hätte gewusst"? I would personally prefer to translate ἤδει in this instance as "if he had known." For my part I'd prefer to call this a "past counterfactual" condition -- though, truth to tell, I think that the question of how to classify this instance is more or less pointless -- the text is perfectly intelligible and the only reason for analysis would be "justifying" how it's translated. I think that the present tense of the subordinate indirect question (ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται) has probably skewed the analysis; indirect questions are quite commonly phrased in the tense of the hypothetical originally posed question. So, for what it's worth, I'd English the text in question thus: "If the householder had known what time of night the thief would arrive, he would have stayed awake and not allowed his house to be burglarized."
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”