Hebrews 10:37 Future Indicative vs. Subjunctive
Posted: September 7th, 2014, 10:36 pm
In the citation of Habakkuk 2:3–4 in Hebrews 10:37–38, Hebrews has a negated future indicative as opposed to the LXX's emphatic-negative subjunctive.
Heb 10:37 - ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει·
Hab 2:3b LXX - ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ.
The author of Hebrews has edited Hab 2:3–4 and made other modifications to the citation to fit his discourse (including flipping the clauses in 2:4), but is there any significance to this particular change from subjunctive to future indicative for χρονίζω?
Harold Attridge in his Hermeneia Commentary on Hebrews says the author "strengthens the remark by using the future (οὐ χρονισει) for the subjunctive (οὐ μη χρονισῃ)" (Attridge, Hebrews, 302).
However, I have not seen this claim anywhere else and am not sure if it can be substantiated by any grammars.
So is the future indicative more certain / emphatic in any sense? Or is it the other way around?
Or is the change insignificant from a syntactical standpoint and we perhaps have a case of different text traditions?
Any help is appreciated. Thanks!
Heb 10:37 - ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει·
Hab 2:3b LXX - ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ.
The author of Hebrews has edited Hab 2:3–4 and made other modifications to the citation to fit his discourse (including flipping the clauses in 2:4), but is there any significance to this particular change from subjunctive to future indicative for χρονίζω?
Harold Attridge in his Hermeneia Commentary on Hebrews says the author "strengthens the remark by using the future (οὐ χρονισει) for the subjunctive (οὐ μη χρονισῃ)" (Attridge, Hebrews, 302).
However, I have not seen this claim anywhere else and am not sure if it can be substantiated by any grammars.
So is the future indicative more certain / emphatic in any sense? Or is it the other way around?
Or is the change insignificant from a syntactical standpoint and we perhaps have a case of different text traditions?
Any help is appreciated. Thanks!