From: Mark O'Brien (Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 30 1996 - 15:27:41 EST
Original message sent on Mon, Jan 29 10:06 AM by EHOBBS@wellesley.edu (Edward
Hobbs) :
>Metzger does not say that there is a future subjunctive. The meaning of
>his comment on page 564 of his "Textual Commentary" is that IF such a
>reading as KAUQHSWMAI were genuine, it would imply the existence of a
>future subjunctive, which would be (!). Nor does he mean by "The reading
>KAUQHSWMAI (=future subjunctive!), while appearing occasionally in Byzantine
>times..." that in Byzantine times they used a future subjunctive.
>Rather, he means that THIS READING appears occasionally in Byzantine times
>--and goes on to call it "a grammatical monstrosity." Similarly, Debrunner
>says that the interchange of W and O in this (and two other) instance(s)
>is worth mentioning "because they have furnished the occasion for the
>IMPOSSIBLE ACCEPTANCE OF A FUTURE SUBJUNCTIVE." (p. 15)
>Metzger isn't teaching that a "future subjunctive" exists; he is saying
>that it is both ridiculous (!) and a "granmmatical monstrosity."
The question remains, then: What is this form? Is it just an error on the part
of a scribe? In the light of the variant in 1Co 13:3, this is the majority
reading (cf. with Maurice Robinson's comments in another post), and one wonders
how such a "grammatical monstrosity" could have been perpetuated so extensively
without being corrected early in the piece. I guess it would help greatly to
know where else this form is to be found in Byzantine Greek.
>As usual, Carl Conrad is absolutely right; "Listen to him!"
I'm doing my level best to be "quick to listen and slow to speak"... it's a
pretty difficult discipline, I've found!
Regards,
Mark O'Brien
Grad. student, DTS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT