Subject: Heb 3:12 future ind.

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:51:11 -0400 (EDT)

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 <-----------------

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:02:54 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

> Herbert Weir Smyth, _Greek Grammar_ (classical), ... notes that object
> indicative.  

> It appears that the

This would also apply to Mk.14:2, since ESTAI occurs there as well, and a
warning/caution is also given.  However, since MHPOTE ("lest") is used, it
seems that the intention of the following clause in any case remains a
warning or a caution.  Therefore, if a strict rule really applied, then
most MSS in Lk.12.58 should also have the indicative, which they do not. 

My own suspicion remains that the use of the indicative following MHPOTE
with EIMI is a special case due to the nature of EIMI as the irregular
verb substantive, and that the specific types or nature of verbs following
really do not impact the grammatical construction, which normally would
require the subjunctive. 

I.e., I likewise am suggesting with Jimmy that the Heb.3.12 and Mk.14.2
passages probably have no application in relation to Lk.12.58, but for
different reasons.  Yet without those apparent NT "exceptions", I see even
less reason to allow the Alexandrian indicatives in Lk.12.58 merely on the
ground of their being more "difficult", since now they have no real
grammatical justification. 

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~