Q. A translation of this clause is simple enough: Jerusalem will be trampled by [the] Gentiles?. My question concerns the future periphrastic construction (ESTAI PETOUMENH) here. I have recently come across an interpretation that seems to think that idea behind the verb tense here is that the trampling began at some point previous to Jesus speaking and will continue until some point in the future, e.g. until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled? (see Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 1892, p. 36 who has and will [continue] to be trampled?) I, however, am unable to see how the future periphrastic could be understood in this way. So my questions are:
Q1. Could the future periphrastic construction be understood this way? If so, what are some examples of this usage?
Answer: "Not with any notion that the action indicated by ESTAI PATOUMENHbegins prior to the utterance of the prophecy. That's a notion you can scuttle right away. But it does clearly indicate continuous action in the future."
Q2. If Luke had wished to convey the idea that Jerusalem's trampling had begun at some point previous to Jesus speaking and would continue until some point in the future, what would verb would he have used here?
Answer: This would require, I think, an imperfect of the verb, something like HN PATOUMENHor EPATEITO; that would indicate that the trampling began prior to the utterance and is still going on at the time of the utterance.
I think its necessary to have the fuller text to see how this future periphrastic clause relates to and is clarified by the following clause: Luke 21:24: "IEROUSALHM ESTAI PATOUMENH hUPO EQNWN, ACRI hOU PLHRWSWSIN KAIROI EQNWN."
First, it should be noted that this is a simple future periphrastic formed with EIMI and the present participle; it is NOT a future perfect periphrastic (that would have to be (ESTAI PEPATHMENH). Essentially this future periphrastic conveys the same sense as the simple future (PATHQHSETAI); if theres any difference, it would lie in an emphasis upon continuity by use of the present passive participle. And that is precisely the emphasis that your question concerns.
Second, an emphasis upon continuity is clearly present by virtue of the ACRI clause that follows and governs the understanding of ESTAI ATOUMENH+ subjunctive indicates a terminal point in the future at which time the continued trampling will cease -- but the trampling is to continue until that time has come.
Third, there is no indication whatsoever of any trampling prior to the time of utterance of this prophecy; the reference is wholly to a future time, the siege of Jerusalem indicated in Lk 21:20 by (hOTAN DE IDHTE KUKLOUMENHN hUPO STRATOPEDWN IEROUSALHM, TOTE GNWTE hOTI HGGIKEN hH ERHMWSIS AUTHS). Presumably the reference is to the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian's army in 69, although that specification doesn't bear on the grammatical question here. The point is that the trampling is something that will follow the encirclement and subsequent sack of Jerusalem by armiesand the carrying away of aptives at a time still lying in the future from the time when this prophecy is spoken.
Wallace has a discussion of the (simple) future periphrastic on pp. 648-9 -- he does note there the emphasis upon aspect in the participle (i.e., the continued trampling), but there's no specific discussion there about Luke 21:24."
Answers from Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
So even though there's going to be some crazy Dub who tries to argue that this trampling was continuation left over from Nebuchadnezzar's day, a little further digging can further show that their theory has absolutely no basis beyond wishful thinking.
