[B-Greek] Luke 19:13
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Sat Sep 11 15:45:28 EDT 2004
On Sep 10, 2004, at 4:33 AM, D Jongkind wrote:
>> It had to do with a variant of PRAGMATEUSASQE, namely
>> PRAGMATEUSASQAI, which, because of its ending, Wieland took for an
>> infinitive. When he asked if PRAGMATEUSASQAI (which he took as an
>> infinitive) in indirect discourse was "consistent with ERCOMAI," he
>> was wondering whether the PERSON of ERCOMAI (first person) was
>> consistent with PRAGMATEUSASQAI in the indirect discourse we would
>> have if indeed PRAGMATEUSASQAI is taken as an infinitive. From what I
>> know about indirect discourse, ERCOMAI would normally have been used
>> in the third person in this instance if indeed PRAGMATEUSASQAI is
>> taken as an infinitive.
> I agree that /normally/ one would expect the third person in the whole
> infinitive construction, but I am not sure whether this is necessarily
> the case. Compare Acts 1:4
> PARHGGEILEN ... PERIMENEIN THN EPAGGELIAN TOU PATROS HN HKOUSATE MOU.
> I think that this is a good parallel to Wieland's version of Luke
> 19:13 with the infinitive PRAGMATEUSASQAI: indirect discourse with a
> return to the second and first person singular in the relative clause.
> Therefore I think that PRAGMATEUSASQAI can be genuine textual variant
> in its own right (as the editors of NA27 apparently thought as well).
> Perhaps the return to the first person in the following construction
> is not common, but I don't think it is unparalleled.
That is an excellent parallel, Dirk. What's funny about this is that
I've seen this phenomenon of mixed discourse (indirect to direct) many
times in my reading, but it never crossed my mind that Wieland's
variant might be such an instance. I think when he mentioned indirect
speech, I got tunnel vision and didn't consider other possibilities.
Just goes to show you how important it is to keep one's mind open. So
Wieland's variant may indeed be an instance of mixed discourse.
Steven Lo Vullo
More information about the B-Greek