1st class conditions in the NT

[Kristin]

I have another 101 construct search question. I am looking for all the first class conditions in the NT. I opened a construct and set it to the NA28, then I added the word εἰ, but now I need to say “followed by an indicative verb.” Is there a way to do this?

 

Thank you for any clarity anyone is able to provide.

 

Sincerely,

Kristin

[Kristin]

Oh. Maybe using a Greek construct might help. I think I might have figured it out, but I am still concerned since I never actually typed the word εἰ. Can someone please check my work?
 

[mgvh]

Matt 4.3, 6; 5.29-30; 6.23, 30; 7.11; 8.31; 11.14; 12.26-28; 14.28; 16.24; 17.4; 18.8-9, 28; 19.10, 17, 21; 22.45; 26.33, 39, 42, 63; 27.40, 43, 49; Mark 4.23; 8.34; 9.22-23, 35, 42; 11.13, 25; 14.29, 35; Luke 4.3, 9-10; 5.36; 6.32; 9.23; 11.8, 13, 19-20; 12.26, 28; 13.9; 14.26; 16.31; 17.2, 6; 18.4; 19.8; 22.42, 67; 23.31, 35, 37; John 1.25; 5.47; 6.46; 7.4, 23; 8.39-40, 42, 46; 9.25, 41; 10.24, 37-38; 11.12, 21-22; 13.17, 32; 14.7; 15.18; 18.8, 23, 36; 19.11; 20.15; Acts 4.9, 19-20; 5.39; 8.22; 13.15; 16.15; 18.15; 19.38-39; 25.5, 11; 26.8; Rom 1.10; 2.17; 3.5; 6.5; 7.16, 20; 8.11, 13, 25; 11.14, 18; 14.15; 1 Cor 3.12; 6.2; 7.9, 12-13, 15-16, 21, 36; 8.2-3, 13; 9.2, 11-12, 17; 10.27, 30; 11.6, 16, 34; 14.35, 37-38; 15.2, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 29, 32, 44; 16.22; 2 Cor 2.2, 5, 9-10; 4.3, 16; 5.3, 16; 7.14; 8.12; 10.7; 11.4, 20, 30; 12.11; 13.5; Gal 1.9; 2.14, 18; 5.11, 15, 18, 25; 6.3; Phil 2.17; 3.4, 11, 15; Col 1.23; 2.5; 1 Thess 4.14; 2 Thess 3.10, 14; 1 Tim 1.10; 3.1, 5; 5.4, 8, 16; 6.3; Titus 1.6; Phlm 1.17; Heb 6.9, 14; 7.11, 15; 9.13; 12.8; Jas 1.5, 23, 26; 2.8-9, 11; 3.2-3, 14; 4.11; 1 Pet 1.6; 2.19-20; 3.1; 4.11, 14, 18; 2 Pet 2.20; 1 John 5.9; 2 John 1.10; Rev 11.5; 13.9; 14.9

 

I think this is mostly accurate! I'm avoiding aorist, imperfect, and pluperfects since they are likely part of Class 2 Contrary to Fact.

 

Edited July 21, 2021 by mgvh

[Kristin]

Thank you so much! I had just been scrolling through my results and seeing it was picking up on a bunch of other conditions too. Thank you! (On a side note, thank you for the lecture, it was really interesting.)

[mgvh]

Ah ha! So you saw what I'm up to! Thanks!

This actually is another specification I could add to my highlight file system.

[mgvh]

I just dug a bit deeper. There are more instance where ει is used with an aorist that are really 1st class conditions. If I can figure out a better way to include those, I'll post it here.

Eg. Mat 10.25

[mgvh]

This search will get you all the obvious 2nd class Contrary to Fact conditions. There are doubtless more, but it's a start.

ConditionContrary2Fact.accord

[Kristin]

Thank you very much, @mgvh. I was actually going to ask you how you had done the first construct, as I could not follow the picture. For some reason I can't find "DEPENDENT." Whatever the case, I will save this as a workspace. If I am understanding correctly, to do the first class I would duplicate this and delete the αν column. Is that correct? The ESV seems to translate all the conditions the same which I find sort of obnoxious.

[mgvh]

DEPENDENT is a type of CLAUSE. (Drag over clause and choose dependent)

I chose that because a protasis will never be an independent clause.

 

The first class ones (ει plus indicative) are in the construct in my graphic above. I think those are pretty secure, but it doesn't get all of them.

If you run the contrary to fact search and NOT the αν, you will get a mix of first and second class ones you would have to look through individually. (The second class ones aren't always fully formed.) My initial search for 1st class counted on the indicative verb being a 'not past' verb, i.., present, present, perfect. That's fairly secure, I think.

But some 1st class ones do use a past tense verb with the sense of "I xxx is true (at least for the sake of argument), then..." I.e., the author knows that xxx isn't true, but asks us to consider that it is. It's not the same as contrary to fact.

 

And yes, most English versions obscure the difference between 1st and 3rd / 5th class (using subjunctive). That's why I used the example of Matthew 4.3. The devil has no doubt that Jesus is God's Son. So the devil is not asking Jesus to prove that he is God's Son. He's testing to see what being God's Son means to Jesus.

[Kristin]

1 hour ago, mgvh said:

DEPENDENT is a type of CLAUSE. (Drag over clause and choose dependent)... And yes, most English versions obscure the difference between 1st and 3rd / 5th class (using subjunctive). That's why I used the example of Matthew 4.3. The devil has no doubt that Jesus is God's Son. So the devil is not asking Jesus to prove that he is God's Son. He's testing to see what being God's Son means to Jesus.

 

Ok, great. Thank you for clarifying the "Dependent." I really like construct searches but I am not very good at them. Also, going through things individually is totally fine. I just run construct searches to get most of them and then find the rest when I translate individual verses.

Your mention of Mt 4:3 is for sure why I think this is important. It has always surprised me that the ESV didn't say "Since you are..." or something like that, as "if" does not convey the point of the verse.

Thank you again and take care,

Kristin

 

[ScottDF]

@Kristingrammarians that I have read usually say that 'since' is over translating, and that often 'if' is under translating. A couple examples are Mounce in his BBG 4th ed pg 401 and his referenced footnote of Wallace on the same page. As Mounce is part of the translation committee of both the ESV and NIV, that hesitancy probably pokes through (and probably has some warrant). This reminds me of DA Carson's tongue-in-cheek statement that, "Translation is treason." Whether that's right or wrong, translation sure is messy. 

[Kristin]

5 hours ago, ScottDF said:

@Kristingrammarians that I have read usually say that 'since' is over translating, and that often 'if' is under translating....

 

Hi Scott, I agree with that assessment of "since," and I agree translating is more complicated than most people would realize. I still don't find loose translations acceptable though. Especially the ESV, which even makes the claim that they are close to a literal translation, which is obviously not true.

[ScottDF]

@kristin pardon me if I push back against this a little. The ESV's Translation Philosophy does not actually say 'Literal' but 'Essentially Literal'. I suggest there is a good deal of difference between the two. Overly literal is ultimately bad translation. But if I talk any further here we're back at the reason behind DA Carson's quote. The Greek word εἰ does not mean 'since', or 'if' as is the case with many words. The idea of anything close to a one-to-one correspondence doesn't really exist. 'Literal' does not mean one-to-one correspondence for linguists. The dictionary meaning of literal is more the idea of getting the basic sense. With that meaning the ESV, or NAS are pretty 'literal' translations. I'm not trying to create an argument, but having spoken with a number of the translators of some of our English Bibles that's more of how they understand their task. 

[Kristin]

Hi @ScottDF, yes, you are correct that it is "essentially" literal and they are not claiming it is "literal." I was just meaning that they claim to seek "as far as possible to capture the precise wording," the reality of which I could argue... But either way, I think you are correct about how they would respond, and we seem to both agree that there are flaws with every translation.

[ScottDF]

@Kristin bullseye. We should have pizza sometime and lament all of it. I know the translators would be happy to join us even on their own translations! 

[Solly]

Then there is always the Vulcan Mind Meld….running and ducking.