I called them "indirect statements" because I cannot see any difference between their structure and that of indirect discourse. Is there any?Barry Hofstetter wrote:Not sure precisely what you are getting at, David. ὥστε + the infinitive is a standard way of showing result. It is not indirect statement. Indirect statement using the accusative and infinitive is rare in biblical Greek, which mostly uses ὅτι, but should the construction be used, then the "tense" of the infinitive becomes important.David Lim wrote:
Aren't "συζητειν προς εαυτους λεγοντας ..." and "ελθειν τα πετεινα του ουρανου ..." indirect statements, not only consequent to that which is before "ωστε"? I have always considered infinitives in indirect statements to be like aorists, thus I did not see any difference in aspect. For example, Matt 8:24, 13:54, Mark 9:26 and 1 Cor 5:1, have the "present" infinitive but it seems to have a clearly perfective aspect. Therefore I thought temporal relationships were dependent only on the context rather than the "tense" of the infinitive. Is it wrong?
Having had a quick look at your verses, I don't necessarily see a perfective aspect in any of them. Perhaps you could expand on why you think they do?
In Matt 8:24, I would find it odd if the author meant to convey an imperfective sense of "the waves were covering the boat". Mark 4:37 has a parallel passage in which "ηδη" implies the covering/filling was completed, at least to the point where the boat was sinking.
In Matt 13:54, I would likewise be surprised if the author did not simply mean that those whom Jesus taught in the synagogue were astonished and literally said the things in verses 54-56. It seems that this being astonished and saying was at that point of time after having heard Jesus.
In Mark 9:26, I read it to mean that they said "that he died" on seeing that "he became as if he were dead", this being a natural response.
In 1 Cor 5:1, the incident that gave rise to the whole issue was that "someone had the father's wife", a completed action that was heard of.
But well it could be my assumptions...