Fwd: Re: "incorrect" negative particles with moods

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 19 05:44:28 EDT 2002


Forwarded for George Somsel:

>In a message dated 9/18/2002 3:19:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>mikusa at hotmail.com writes:
>
>>I've come across two instances in which the "incorrect" negative particle
>>is used with verbs/verbals in the NT (maybe there are more).
>>
>>John 3:18 has MH PEPISTEUKEN, and 1 Peter 1:8 has OUK IDONTES.
>>
>>What is going on in these two instances? Are there good explanations for
>>these or are they simply deviations from the normal grammatical
>>conventions (notice I didn't say errors - grammar is subject to language,
>>not vise versa).
>>
>
>
>Let me simply address the instance of John 3:18 for now.
>
>BAGD (similarly BDAG) at the very beginning of the article on MH quotes
>A.T. Robertson on this
>
>"MH is the negative of will, wish, doubt. If OU denies the fact, MH denies
>the idea’" (Rob. 1167). Rob. ATRobertson, A Grammar of the Greek NT in the
>Light of Historical Research 1923.
>
>What comes to mind in regard to this passage is that MH PEPISTEUKEN might
>conceivably fall into the category of willing or wishing or doubting
>
>There is, however, an even more explicit statement in BAGD (and BDAG) at
>A6 (1zeta) in which it specifically cites this passage
>
>6. in a causal clause contrary to the rule, which calls for OU: hOTI MH
>PEPISTEUKEN EIS TO ONOMA J 3:18 (cf. Epict. 4, 4, 8; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 217
>DIHMARTON, hOTI MH TAIS hIERAIS hHMWN BIBLOIS ENETUXON; . . .
>
>gfsomsel





More information about the B-Greek mailing list