Stephen Carlson wrote:John 20:1 wrote:καὶ βλέπει τὸν λίθον ἠρμένον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου.
Complementary participles with verbs of perception can be either in indirect discourse (e.g., NRSV, "and [she] saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb") or not (e.g., NASB, "and [she] saw the stone
already taken away from the tomb"). BDAG under βλέπω favors the former interpretation (indirect discourse), but is there any way to decide between the two interpretations?
(NB: it makes a slight semantic difference for the indirect discourse interpretation does not require actually seeing the stone. It could have been completely removed.)
"could have been" -- yes, but is that really very likely?
I'm reminded of Mark 9:1 Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει
where Mark's parallels are significantly different:
Mt 16:28 ... ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ.
Lk 9:27 ... ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.
Luke's formulation, of course, is no longer a combination of accusative + participle, so there's no question of an indirect statement, but one may ask the question about the Marcan and the Matthaean expressions (whether either or both is an indirect statement or a simple case of a participle qualifying the object of a verb of perception.