"incorrect" negative particles with moods

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Thu Sep 19 06:12:53 EDT 2002



On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, at 02:20 PM, Michael Nicholls wrote:

> I haven't been on the message board much, so maybe this has been 
> addressed
> before (apologies in advance).
>
> 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).

Along with John 3.18, BDAG gives several extra-biblical examples of MH 
"in a causal clause contrary to the rule, which calls for OU."

As for 1 Pet 1.8, BDAG lists other NT examples where OU is used with 
the participle "contrary to the rule" given at the beginning of the 
entry. They note that earlier literary influence may be at work in 
individual cases. B-D-F says that in Attic the choice was made 
according to the meaning of the participle in the individual case. One 
of the reasons given by BDAG for the use of OU instead of MH with the 
participle is that MH suggests contingency. They list the instance of 1 
Pet 1.8 among examples where OU with the participle indicates "strong 
emphasis or contrast."
============

Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list