Mon Apr 8 00:51:17 1996

From majordom  Mon Apr  8 00:51:17 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA09373; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:51:17 +0500
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:51:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: "James R. Adair" 
X-Sender: jadair@scholar
To: TC List 
Subject: Heb 3:12 future ind.
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1247
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

There has been some discussion about the appropriateness of the future
indicative in Heb 3:12.  The question was raised whether the aorist
subjunctive rather than the future indicative shouldn't have been
expected, despite the fact that no mss (that I am aware of) contain the
subjunctive.  Herbert Weir Smyth, _Greek Grammar_ (classical), provides
what seems to me to be a reasonable explanation.  He notes that object
clauses after verbs of effort or warning normally take the future
indicative.  His examples offer a striking comparison with Heb 3:12; e.g., 
SKOPEISQE TOUTO, OPWS MH LOGOUS EROUSIN MONON ... ALLA KAI ERGON TI
DEIKNUEIN EXOUSIN (see to this, that they not only make speeches but are
also able to show some proof) (Smyth:498).  He gives other examples of the
same construction with the verb SKOPEW and ORAW.  It appears that the
MHPOTE clause following BLEPETE fits this pattern, thus negating the value
of Heb 3:12 as an argument in the discussion over future indicatives and
subjunctives in Lk 12:58 and elsewhere. 

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

Back