[Paragraph 350 of Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, Maximilian
Zerwick, S.J., is in a section dealing with "The Moods in Consecutive
Clauses". It is referred to in Zerwick, Grosvenor, An Analysis of the Greek
NT, in loc. Gal 2:13. Here it is:]
350. The consecutive conjunction has two constructions: with the indicative
if the speaker wishes to indicate the actual realization of the consequence;
with the infinitive otherwise (i.e. so long as the speaker has no special
need to indicate the actual event). It would seem that the latter
"non-commital" construction gained ground in the course of time, in the
sense that in classical usage a less important reason sufficed for the use
of the indicative than in later times; however that may be, the indicative
is used in the NT twice only, as against over fifty uses with the
infinitive, a circumstance which attracts especial attention to the cases
with the indicative. Thus where Jo 3.16 we read that "God so love the world
HWSTE TON hUION AUTOU TON MONOGENH EDWKEN, we have the right to suppose that
by using the indicative the writer wishes to insist on the actual fact of
the incarnation. Similarly we may suppose that indignation moved St Paul to
use the stronger indicative when he wrote that Peter's hUPOKRISIS was shared
by the other Jews hWSTE KAI BARNABAS SUNAPHX[chi]QH AUTWN TH hUPOKRISEI (Gal
2.13). It must however be noted that these two examples would not justify
such insistence upon them were it not that they are in such contrast to the
usual practice of using the infinitive with hWSTE.
[I believe the following footnote belongs to this section, although the
reference is unclear:]
I.e. twice only where WSTE introduces a subordinate clause with the
indicative, leaving out of the account the frequent use of hWSTE with an
indicative (or imperative etc.) introducing a main clause and meaning "so",
"therefore" as e.g. in the conclusion to teh parable about the sheep to be
rescued on the Sabbath, Mt 12.12: hWSTE EXESTIN TOIS SABBASIN KALWS POIEIN.
[Some of the language doesn't seem to be quite right, but I have proofread
my typing fairly carefully, and I think this is accurate. The copyright is
Rome 1963. I have the 2nd reprint (1985).]