Re: (Fwd) 2 COR 3;12-13 XROWMEQA

Carlton Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 20:43:02 +0400

>I have a question about XRWMEQA in 2 Cor. 3:12.
>
>It seems legitimate to take the verb as a hortitory subjunctive.
>However, if verse 13 is an aposiopesis as BDF Para 482 suggests, then
>there is an assumed EIMI with the negative ou. Here is my problem,
>it seems that the parallel between these two verbs is too strong to
>take one as subjunctive and the other as indicative. However, the ou
>would seem to argue against the assumed form of eimi being in the
>subjunctive. Does this rule out the horitory subjunctive forXRWMEQA?
> Is it possible that in an ellipses like this that the distinction
>between ou and mh as it relates to the moods does not follow
>consistently? I would be glad for any references in grammars which
>you have found that deal with this type of thing.
>
This is not really an easy question. Let me attempt it and let others correct.

Most students learn first that OU is used with indicative and MH is used
with everything else. However, the use of the negatives (OU always an
adverb whereas MH can serve as a conjunction or interrogative particle) is
far more complicated than that. MH can easily be used with indicatives in
certain circumstances, eg. Jn 3:18 hOTI MH PEPISTEUKEN EIS TO ONOMA
"because he has not believed in the name." MH used here because the nature
of the whold "he who believes . . . he who does not believe" does not call
for direct negations but hypothetical.

Also the negatives do not always negate the verb. In the case of 2 Cor
3:12 the comparative clause as a whole is negated not the understood verb
WMEN. What is being negated is an objective fact, thus OU is appropriate.

I wish I had references to cite, but my best resources are at the office
and I am working off the top of my head. I do recall reading about the
negatives in the old unabridged Grim/Wilke/Thayer, in the library at N.O.
Seminary.

Carlton Winbery
LA College