“`html
An Exegetical Analysis of Matthew 7:6: Textual and Grammatical Implications of μηποτε + Verb
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Matthew 7:6: Textual and Grammatical Implications of μηποτε + Verb is based on a b-greek discussion from 1904. The discussion focuses on a significant textual variant in Matthew 7:6, concerning the choice of verb mood and tense following the negative particle μηποτε. Specifically, it examines the manuscript evidence and grammatical implications surrounding the aorist subjunctive καταπατήσωσιν versus the future indicative καταπατήσουσιν.
The primary exegetical issue at stake is the precise nuance of the warning conveyed by Jesus in Matthew 7:6 and its grammatical validity within Koine Greek, particularly when μηποτε introduces a clause expressing a potential negative outcome. The choice between the aorist subjunctive, which typically denotes a potential or a dreaded future action, and the future indicative, which suggests a more certain future outcome, significantly impacts the interpretation of the command and the anticipated consequences. This textual divergence necessitates careful examination of internal stylistic evidence from Matthew’s Gospel and broader Hellenistic Greek usage, alongside the external witness of the manuscript tradition.
Μη δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν χοίρων, μήποτε καταπατήσωσιν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτῶν καὶ στραφέντες ῥήξωσιν ὑμᾶς. (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) text, consistent with the majority of manuscripts and critical editions like Nestle 1904, reads the aorist subjunctive καταπατήσωσιν (they should trample).
- The primary textual variant not adopted by SBLGNT is the future indicative καταπατήσουσιν (they will trample), found in some manuscripts (B C L N W X Θ Σ 047 0211 f13 33 al) and endorsed by editors such as Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, and Tischendorf (7th, 8th editions).
Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The textual critical apparatus concerning Matthew 7:6 reveals a significant divergence regarding the verb following μηποτε. The majority of witnesses, including א E G K M S U V Δ Π Φ Ω 0281 (Byz ca. 1450) f1.35 565. 892. 1424. 1500. 2224, as well as editors like Merk, Soden, and Vogels, attest to the aorist subjunctive καταπατήσωσιν. Conversely, a substantial minority of manuscripts (B C L N W X Θ Σ 047 0211 f13 33 al) and editors (Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Tischendorf [7th, 8th]) present the future indicative καταπατήσουσιν.
While Hellenistic Greek occasionally permits the future indicative following μηποτε, Matthew’s consistent stylistic preference elsewhere in his Gospel (e.g., 4:6; 5:25; 13:15, 29; 15:32; [25:9]; 27:64) is to employ the aorist subjunctive in such constructions. Notable parallels demonstrate similar manuscript fluctuations, where a minority opts for the future indicative against Matthew’s characteristic use of the aorist subjunctive (e.g., 5:25, 13:29, 25:9, 27:64). Weiss (p. 66) argues strongly against the future indicative in 7:6, drawing a parallel to Matthew 27:64, asserting that while the aorist subjunctive might evolve into a future indicative usage, the reverse is grammatically improbable in this context. This suggests that the future indicative reading in 7:6 represents a secondary development.
A possible explanation for the minority reading’s emergence is assimilation to the future indicative pattern found in preceding verses (e.g., κριθήσεσθε, μετρηθήσεται [7:2]; ἐρεῖς [7:4]; διαβλέψεις [7:5]). Similarly, nearby textual emendations in Matthew 7:9 (αἰτήσῃ) and 7:10 (ἐὰν ἰχθὺν αἰτήσῃ) might have contributed to a tendency toward future indicative forms or confusion of moods.
The provided text does not contain specific lexical notes from KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) or BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Lexicon). However, the verb καταπατέω generally means “to trample down, tread underfoot,” often implying disdain, contempt, or destruction. The exegetical focus here is primarily on the grammatical mood and tense rather than specific semantic nuances of the verb itself, which are generally well-understood.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The choice between καταπατήσωσιν (aorist subjunctive) and καταπατήσουσιν (future indicative) after μηποτε directly impacts the grammatical structure and rhetorical force of the warning. In Koine Greek, μηποτε followed by the aorist subjunctive expresses a cautionary purpose clause (“lest they should…”) or an apprehension of a future event (“fear that they might…”). This construction emphasizes the *potential* yet *dreaded* nature of the outcome, urging preventative action.
If the future indicative were adopted, μηποτε καταπατήσουσιν would suggest a more definite, albeit still warned-against, future action (“lest they will trample”). While grammarians note instances where μηποτε can take a future indicative, especially in later Hellenistic Greek, the consistent stylistic preference of Matthew for the aorist subjunctive in such contexts (as highlighted by the textual evidence) strongly favors the subjunctive reading. The aorist subjunctive maintains the tone of a prudential warning, implying that the negative outcome is preventable if the preceding injunctions are heeded. The future indicative, in contrast, could subtly shift the emphasis from prevention to a more certain prediction of undesirable consequences.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the overwhelming manuscript evidence, Matthew’s consistent stylistic preference for the aorist subjunctive following μηποτε, and grammatical arguments (such as those by Weiss), the reading καταπατήσωσιν (aorist subjunctive) in Matthew 7:6 is definitively the preferred and most textually sound option. The future indicative καταπατήσουσιν appears to be a secondary variant likely arising from scribal assimilation or grammatical regularization.
Here are three translation suggestions that reflect the preferred reading:
- “Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to tear you.”
This translation preserves a literal rendering of the aorist subjunctive, emphasizing the potential, dreaded outcome. - “Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor throw your pearls before pigs, so that they do not trample them and turn around and attack you.”
This option uses a more idiomatic English construction (“so that they do not”) to convey the preventative purpose inherent in the Greek subjunctive. - “Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls to pigs, otherwise they will trample your pearls and then turn and tear you to pieces.”
This dynamic equivalent captures the sense of warning and consequence in more direct, modern English, implying the undesirable future outcome if the warning is ignored.
“`