From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@wellesley.edu)
Date: Mon Jan 29 1996 - 16:06:35 EST
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."
As usual, Carl Conrad is absolutely right; "Listen to him!"
Edward Hobbs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT