Matthew 16 28

Subjunctive in Mt. 16:28 Phylax phylax at aracnet.com
Sat Sep 19 02:01:58 EDT 1998

John 12:27 Subjunctive in Mt. 16:28 Looking at Matthew 16:28, there there are two subjunctives:… hOITINES OU MH GEUSWNTAI QANATOU EWS AN IDWSIN TON UION TOU ANQRWPOUERCOMENON … I would expect GEUOMAI to be in the indicative and don’t know what tomake of it in the subjunctive. I won’t bother to speculate and illustrate how little I really knowabout these things. 🙂 Thanks – Steven Schultz

John 12:27Subjunctive in Mt. 16:28

Subjunctive in Mt. 16:28 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Sep 19 07:41:15 EDT 1998

Subjunctive in Mt. 16:28 1 Cor 7:17 At 1:01 AM -0500 9/19/98, Phylax (identifying himself as Steven Schultz) wrote:> Looking at Matthew 16:28, there there are two subjunctives:> >… hOITINES OU MH GEUSWNTAI QANATOU EWS AN IDWSIN TON UION TOU ANQRWPOU>ERCOMENON …> > I would expect GEUOMAI to be in the indicative and don’t know what to>make of it in the subjunctive.The aorist subjunctive with OU MH may be used, as here, as an absoluteassurance of a future happening: “who will SURELY not taste death …” I’mnot sure about the whole history of the construction; one quite commonlysees OU MH + aorist subjunctive 2nd person forms as powerful imperatives;this may go back all the way to the Homeric use of the subjunctive to serveas a future.The second subjunctive with hEWS AN is certainly a more common sort ofclause of anticipation: “until x has occurred.”I personally believe–but this is not the forum to argue the case–that thephrasing in the passage you’ve cited derives from Mark’s original in Mk 9:1:AMHN LEGW hUMIN hOTI EISIN TINES hWDE TWN hESTHKOTWN hOITINES OU MHGEUSWNTAI QANATOU hEWS AN IDWSIN THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU ELHLUQUIAN ENDUNAMEI.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Subjunctive in Mt. 16:281 Cor 7:17

Subjunctive in Mt. 16:28 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Sat Sep 19 10:34:57 EDT 1998

1 Cor 7:17 Holy Spirit and indications of grammar At 23:01 18/09/98 -0700, Steven Schultz wrote:> Looking at Matthew 16:28, there there are two subjunctives:> >… hOITINES OU MH GEUSWNTAI QANATOU EWS AN IDWSIN TON UION TOU ANQRWPOU>ERCOMENON …> > I would expect GEUOMAI to be in the indicative and don’t know what to>make of it in the subjunctive.Steven:There are two points at issue here:1. The use of OU MH with the aorist subjunctive2. The close relationship between future and aorist subjunctive [ OU MH + future occurs in v. 22 ]I don’t know if you have access to Zerwicks’s “Biblical Greek Illustratedby examples” ( Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome 1963 ), so let meattempt to summarise his points.I. above is covered by par. 444″ OU MH with the aorist subjunctive or the future indicative is usedclassically as an emphatic negaitve for the future.In the NT, the use of the construction has become more frequent, whilethe emphasis seems to have decreased …………[snip]Outside the Book of Revelation, where it occurs 16 times, this constructionis almost limited to LXX quotations and the words of Jesus ( 57 out of 61occurrences in the gospels ) so that Semitic influences might have beensuspected, were it not that it has no Semitic equicalent,” and he points out that the LXX indiscriminately renders the simple Hebrrewnegative as either OU or OU MH.He goes on to say that it cannot be explained by popular Greek usage sinceOU MH rarely occurs in the papyrii. and where it occurs, is very emphatic.He inclines to the view of Moulton ( p. 192) that:” its use is due to the feeling of the writers that it is pecularly suited, as being especially decisive, to sacred utterances.”He concludes, therefore, that:”In the majority of the NT uses OU MH may be said to express ‘prophetic’emphasis. and in the other cases it expresses, as in Greek in general, an’emotional’ emphasis, and it is to be noted that it is never used by theEvangelists, ( or by Luke in Acts ) in their own narrative but only inquoting the spoken word “2. above is covered in par. 341.”…. considering the affinity between the future and the ( aorist )subjunctive, both in origin ( the future seems to be a variant on thatsubjunctive ) and in sense ( both as it were regarding an expectation andnot a realized fact”Hope this helps.MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [Bray, Ireland]”Apply yourself wholly to the text; apply the text wholly to yourself.” – Johann Albrecht Bengel

1 Cor 7:17Holy Spirit and indications of grammar

Subjunctive in Mt. 16:28 Byron P. Knutson byronk at open.org
Sun Sep 20 02:46:25 EDT 1998

Holy Spirit and indications of grammar Gobbledygook (was Re: 1 Cor 7:17) >———————————————————————-> >Subject: Subjunctive in Mt. 16:28>From: “Phylax” <phylax at aracnet.com>>Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 23:01:58 -0700>X-Message-Number: 1> > Looking at Matthew 16:28, there are two subjunctives:> >… hOITINES OU MH GEUSWNTAI QANATOU EWS AN IDWSIN TON UION TOU ANQRWPOU>ERCOMENON …> > I would expect GEUOMAI to be in the indicative and don’t know what to>make of it in the subjunctive.> > I won’t bother to speculate and illustrate how little I really know>about these things. 🙂> > Thanks –> Steven Schultz> > If I might be so bold as to add my 2 cents.When ever the subjunctive is used, the first thing you know is that there isan element of doubt introduced.1. It may be the certainty of the thing referred to.or2. If not the certainty of the thing or event, then the time of it is inquestion.In this case the death of those disciples who would see this event was notin question. They would die. They would not certainly die, however, untilafter they saw the Lord coming in His kingdom. They would definitely seethe Lord coming in His kingdom, but the time of that event was in question(thus the 2nd subjunctive). The first subjunctive, as I see it, isquestioning the time of their death after the certain event of seeing theLord come in His kingdom. That is, they would die after that, but whenafter that only God knew. Otherwise, it might be inferred that the firstevent having taken place the second would immediately follow right upon itsheels rather than living on for many years after that before they died.Looking for His soon return,Byron Knutson

Holy Spirit and indications of grammarGobbledygook (was Re: 1 Cor 7:17)

Subjunctive in Mt. 16:28 Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Sun Sep 20 06:33:45 EDT 1998

Holy Spirit and indications of grammar Holy Spirit and indications of grammar Byron P. Knutson wrote;>If I might be so bold as to add my 2 cents.> >When ever the subjunctive is used, the first thing you know is that there is>an element of doubt introduced.> >1. It may be the certainty of the thing referred to.>or>2. If not the certainty of the thing or event, then the time of it is in>question.> >In this case the death of those disciples who would see this event was not>in question. They would die. They would not certainly die, however, until>after they saw the Lord coming in His kingdom. They would definitely see>the Lord coming in His kingdom, but the time of that event was in question>(thus the 2nd subjunctive). The first subjunctive, as I see it, is>questioning the time of their death after the certain event of seeing the>Lord come in His kingdom. That is, they would die after that, but when>after that only God knew. Otherwise, it might be inferred that the first>event having taken place the second would immediately follow right upon its>heels rather than living on for many years after that before they died.> I would disagree with one statement points 1. and 2. in the context of thisstatement. There is no doubt (contingency) in the phrase hOITINES OU MHGEUSWNTAI . . . It is a strong statement about the future, “who willcertainly not taste . . . The second clause introduced by hEWS AN has thesubjunctive and does indicate contingency about when they see. . . Thefirst subjunctive is not talking about when but about the negative fact,hence no contingency in the first. The structure with OU MH + subjunctiveis a common way of making a statement of what will certainly not happen.Carlton L. WinberyFogleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana CollegePineville, LA 71359winberyc at popalex1.linknet.netwinbery at andria.lacollege.edu

Holy Spirit and indications of grammarHoly Spirit and indications of grammar

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>