Comments on: Condition or subject clause? Mk 9:42

By: Rod Decker

Rod Decker — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:06:02 +0000

Ahh. Now I get it. That makes better sense. Thanks.

By: cwconrad

cwconrad — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:48:57 +0000

But the conditional statement has the original ὃς ἂν σκανδαλίσῃ .. as the protasis, not the final εἰ περίκειται μύλος ὀνικὸς … which I DO understand as a substantive clause. But my English structure doesn’t attempt to follow the structure of the Greek.

By: Rod Decker

Rod Decker — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:40:26 +0000

So you still have a conditional type statement; it’s not an either-or decision it seems.

By: cwconrad

cwconrad — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:24:32 +0000

My Englishing of it (from my Brief Commentary):
“But if anybody lays snares in the way of even one of these little ones who trust me, he’d be better off thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck.”

By: Rod Decker

Rod Decker — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:18:33 +0000

I initially took it conditionally, then I noted the subject option. How would you “English” the whole verse if the εἱ clause were a subject clause, Carl?

If I were to assume a conditional statement, I might do it like this:

“It would be better rather for anyone who would offend one of these little ones who believe in me if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the lake.”

I noted later that BDAG does list this ref, but in 1.a.β, which is his conditional category. That leaves me in a bit of a quandary with BDAG on one side and Carl on the other!

By: cwconrad

cwconrad — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:20:05 +0000

I think this is pretty clearly an instance of a subject-clause: “It would be better for him for a millstone to be … “, BDAG §2. marker of an indirect question as content, that