Carlton pointed out that there is a variant in the textual
tradition that bears on this issue.
To summarize the textual data:
APOSTEILW Aleph A B C D E . . .1175*(NA27) . . .
APOSTELW Y 33 Maj
APOSTELLW 1175*(Alford)
*note that NA27 and Alford disagree on the reading of 1175
We can summarize this information by observing that no scribe
before the 8th or 9th century saw fit to "correct" the aorist
subjunctive to the future indicative. Now this is not the kind of
information that makes for airtight argumentation. But would if
be unfair to suggest that scribes copying the *earlier*
manuscripts did not consider the *first person aorist
subjunctive* as inappropriate in this context? And could we
further surmise that the later scribes "corrected" to a future
indicative because they were laboring under a
misunderstanding about the semantic scope of the subjunctive?
What I am suggesting is, that the later scribes sensed that this
was an "incorrect" use of the subjunctive and that these later
scribes were themselves incorrect in this conclusion.
Certainly this is speculation but perhaps not completely
useless speculation.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point