I’m puzzling over Mark 9:42.
καλόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ μᾶλλον εἰ περίκειται μύλος ὀνικὸς περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ….
Is it better to explain this as a conditional statement, thus:
Protasis: if a large millstone were hung around his neck …
Apodosis: It would be better for him … [taking εἰμι as expressing an impersonal subject, "it"]
Or should εἰ be taken to introduce a subject clause (as ὁτι might do)? Thus:
For a large millstone to be hung around his neck would be better…
.
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
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!
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.”
So you still have a conditional type statement; it’s not an either-or decision it seems.
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.
Ahh. Now I get it. That makes better sense. Thanks.