Romans 11:14

David R. Mills (dmills@mitec.net)
Fri, 15 May 1998 19:59:07 -0500

I have been studying Romans 11 and have several questions about verse 14
where it reads EI PWS PARAZHLWSW MOU THN SARKA KAI SWSW TINAS EX AUTWN.
First, does this clause fit one of the traditional classes of conditional
clauses, or is it a different construction altogether? Wallace (p. 707)
calls it a first class conditional clause with future indicatives, but
Robertson (W.P. iv, 395) says that EI introduces a purpose or aim (Burton
says hope or desire, Moods & Tenses, par. 276) and is a kind of indirect
discourse. Further, Robertson and Burton say the verbs following EI can be
either future indicatives or aorist subjunctives. In the latter case this
could not be a first class condition. My impression is that Burton, if not
Robertson, distinguishes this usage from the traditional classes of
conditional clauses, but I am not sure.

Second, in all the cases I could find where EI might be followed by a
subjunctive, the subjunctive could be a future instead. Are there any cases
where EI is clearly followed by a subjunctive rather than a future? (I did
find EI followed by the optative, but that apparently fits into class four
conditions.)

A final question concerns Robertson's reference to indirect discourse.
Would I be correct in assuming that in indirect discourse the tense and mood
of a verb in the protasis would remain the same as in direct discourse? And
if so, and assuming that EI is used in indirect discourse, could this be a
third class condition even though the protasis starts with EI ?

I don't know if my questions make any sense, but I am trying to understand
how someone could justify calling the verbs in this clause subjunctives.
Right now, Wallace's explanation seems the simplest.

David R. Mills
ESL Instructor
Creighton University