I reproduce the verse for ease of reference:
18 Amhn legw umin, osa ean dhshte epi thV ghV estai dedemena en ouranw kai
osa ean lushte epi thV ghV estai lelumena en ouranw.
The phrase of concern is-
>
>hOSA EAN DhShTE . . .
>
>I have understoof the hOSA EAN to be the direct object of the verb
>DhShTE. Am I right?
Yes, you are right.
>Or is the hOSA alone the direct object and the EAN
>part of a conditional clause?
No.
>
>In Matt 18:19
>
Again, I reproduce the verse-
19 Palin (amhn) legw umin oti ean duo sumfwnhswsin ex umwn epi thV ghV peri
pantoV pragmatoV ou ean aithswntai, genhsetai autoiV para tou patroV mou tou
en ouranoiV.
>hOU EAN AIThSWNTAI. . .
>
>Again I am being thrown by the EAN. I believe the hOU is a relative
>pronoun but I do not understand what the EAN is doing. Is this a
>relative clause modifying the main verb?
Yes. ean plus subjunctive is, in contradistinction to the papyri, sometimes
employed in a relative clause in a final sense. That is, it seems, what we
have here. I.e., a relative clause (introduced by hou) with the subjunctive
used in the sense of a final clause. Zerwick calls this a "condicio
universalis" of the Koine. Cf. Moulton's Grammar, vol 3 loc cit "ean".
> Is this a epexegetic clause
>describing PRAGMATOS? Is this a conditional clause with the hOU being a
>direct object of the verb?
>
no.
>Boy, I have found a glaring weak spot! I really am lost on this one. :)
>Please help. The more you explain the EAN and what is going on, the
>better it will be for me.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tom
>
Hope this helps,
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
jwest@highland.net
or
jwest@theology.edu