# Ancient Greek: Aorist subjunctive



## shannenms

As you know, in ancient Greek, aorist subjunctive is conjugated as if it is future subjunctive; I don't know whether this kind of naming is through a reasonable background or just based on this assumption that it is not merely possible to have a future subjunctive?

By the way, just to add, the aorist (subjunctive) can be used to imply an action in future, as opposed to its name.

Any help appreciated.


----------



## modus.irrealis

shannenms said:


> As you know, in ancient Greek, aorist subjunctive is conjugated as if it is future subjunctive;


Well, not quite. When a verb's aorist stem is different from it's future stem, the aorist subjunctive is always built off of the aorist stem. For example (apologies for the lack of accents), καλω has as future καλω (identical to the present), aorist εκαλεσα, but aorist subjunctive καλεσω.



> I don't know whether this kind of naming is through a reasonable background or just based on this assumption that it is not merely possible to have a future subjunctive?


What I've read is that it's just a coincidence that the future and the aorist for so many verbs look alike, because historically the main way for forming both involved adding a suffix starting with (or at least involving) a σ with the result the future and aorist stem are the same for a large number of verbs.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

I would find the idea of a “future subjunctive” a contradiction in terms. Aorist subjunctive may be seen as related to the future, so there is really no need for it. The question has some interesting linguistic-philosophical implications, though. 

In Spanish, there is a future subjunctive, but it is obsolete. Perhaps it emerged as an ambiguous form in the first place and was subsequently discarded through ordinary people’s sense of logic.  After all, language is a structure which is in constant search for an equilibrium. There are many examples of linguistic redundancies, but they tend to be levelled off through usage.
 ​


----------



## shannenms

Spectre scolaire said:


> I would find the idea of a “future subjunctive” a _contradiction in terms_. Aorist subjunctive may be seen as related to the future, so there is really no need for it. The question has some interesting linguistic-philosophical implications, though.




Are you trying to say that because the aorist subjunctive, or on the whole  subjunctive, refers to the future there is no need for this kind of construction?

Thanks.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

shannenms said:


> Because the aorist subjunctive refers to the future there is no need for this kind of construction*.* [_Question turned into the affirmative._]


 ​I am leaving Spanish verbal idiosyncrasies apart, though.  



Lisory said:


> En español el futuro de subjuntivo y el futuro perfecto " son tiempos relativos que sirven para expresar una accion venidera posible. Han caido practicamente en desuso y solo se conservan en el lenguaje juridico" Larousse de la conjugacion


 ​


----------



## shannenms

Spectre scolaire said:


> ​
> I am leaving Spanish verbal idiosyncrasies apart, though.
> 
> 
> ​


 
Thank you Spectre, unfortunately I know no Spanish
But this theory doesn't account for all the cases. There are some times that ancient writers used subjunctive instead of the optative with no reference to the future.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

As I said in #3, “The question has some interesting linguistic-philosophical implications, though.” I did read something about this question many years ago, and I wonder if Eduard Schwyzer in his huge Griechische Grammatik (second volume) has got a comment on it as well. 

I wouldn’t rule out the relevance of a Spanish view on this issue.  We’re here talking about typological features in syntax rather than a specifically Greek phenomenon.
 ​


----------



## ireney

Well, one has to remember that the tenses' relation to time holds true only for the indicative. In all other cases it's aspect and not time they relate to.
So the Present Subjuctive can refer to past, present or future and the same goes for the other two tenses' Subjunctive.


----------



## shannenms

ireney said:


> Well, one has to remember that the tenses' relation to time holds true only for the indicative. In all other cases it's aspect and not time they relate to.
> So the Present Subjuctive can refer to past, present or future and the same goes for the other two tenses' Subjunctive.


 

But this interpretation is to some extent contrary to fact. If we assume that there is an uncertainty about subjunctive, how it can be projected into the past. Likewise, if we suppose optative bears the same connotation as subjunctive, I admit that I haven't seen any optative which is related to the future(maybe I am wrong).


----------



## modus.irrealis

shannenms said:


> But this interpretation is to some extent contrary to fact. If we assume that there is an uncertainty about subjunctive, how it can be projected into the past.


I've always thought of the subjunctive in Ancient Greek as centering around ideas of volition and intention rather than simply uncertainty (although neither of those cover the use of the subjunctinve in general statements like νέος δ' ἀπόλλυθ' ὅντιν' ἂν φιλῇ θεός), and that would be more fitting in past contexts. You can say things like ἔγραψα ἵνα ἐκμάθῃς even though ἔγραψα ἵνα ἐκμάθοις would be more usual in Classical Greek for 'I wrote so that you may learn" (although in something like the New Testament where the optative barely exists, the subjunctive is used). I find all these moods very complicated and most grammars that I've read, even if they try to find a single idea for the subjunctive, end up just listing the various uses as relatively independent.



> Likewise, if we suppose optative bears the same connotation as subjunctive, I admit that I haven't seen any optative which is related to the future(maybe I am wrong).


The optative is strange (and I have no idea what, if anything, unifies all its various uses) but it has many uses that are related to the future. For example the optative of wish (μὴ γένοιτο 'may it not happen') refers to the future in some sense. There are also conditional statements like εἰ ταῦτα ποιήσειας, καλῶς ἂν ποιήσειας 'if you were to do these things, you would do well" which refer to the future.


----------



## shannenms

modus.irrealis said:


> I've always thought of the subjunctive in Ancient Greek as centering around ideas of volition and intention rather than simply uncertainty (although neither of those cover the use of the subjunctinve in general statements like νέος δ' ἀπόλλυθ' ὅντιν' ἂν φιλῇ θεός), and that would be more fitting in past contexts. You can say things like ἔγραψα ἵνα ἐκμάθῃς even though ἔγραψα ἵνα ἐκμάθοις would be more usual in Classical Greek for 'I wrote so that you may learn" (although in something like the New Testament where the optative barely exists, the subjunctive is used). I find all these moods very complicated and most grammars that I've read, even if they try to find a single idea for the subjunctive, end up just listing the various uses as relatively independent.
> 
> The optative is strange (and I have no idea what, if anything, unifies all its various uses) but it has many uses that are related to the future. For example the optative of wish (μὴ γένοιτο 'may it not happen') refers to the future in some sense. There are also conditional statements like εἰ ταῦτα ποιήσειας, καλῶς ἂν ποιήσειας 'if you were to do these things, you would do well" which refer to the future.


 

You have implied a very interesting aspect of the Greek language. I can't fully read your Greek sentences--I don't know why my browser doesn't support the accents

The use of subjunctive in the this phrase ἔγραψα ἵνα ἐκμάθῃς conveys uncertainty, I believe; you can compare it with the similar phrase when an infinitive is used instead of the subjunctive. Likewise, in English:
when there is no object to the verb this problem becomes prominent:
"I help you to help me" and "I help you that you may help me"
In the second sentence, there is a color of future subjunctive, as you see.

As for the optative, when that has this capacity to refer to the future, exactly the same as subjunctive, it makes me feel there has been some misconception among the ancient Greeks in using it in its own place, because it has gone beyond what was thought for that. 

Sorry for my horrible English, I hope I have expressed  myself clearly.

Thanks.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

ireney said:


> Well, one has to remember that the tenses' relation to time as expressed by a verb holds true only for the indicative. In all other cases it's aspect and not time they relate to. [My italics.]
> So the Present Subjuctive can refer to past, present or future and the same goes for the other two tenses' Subjunctive.


 I don’t know if my correction is “approvable” – I didn’t quite get your formula tenses’ relation to time.

The sentence in blue requires a precision; which “other two tenses” do you envisage? If you include aorist, this is indeed the quintessence of this thread. 

In a review of the book Subjunctive and Optative: their Origin as Futures by E. Adelaide Hahn, New York 1953, D.M. Jones writes in The Classical Review the following:



> Miss Hahn seeks to show that they [subjunctive and optative] originated not as moods but as tenses, in themselves indicating merely futurity, and that their modal uses derive from their temporal meaning. [...] The reference of subjunctive and optative in Indo-European was restricted to future time; their use in modal sentences referring to past and present time must be explained by way of analogy.


Another web site which is quotable – for whatever it’s worth*) – is Resources for Learning NT Greek by Corey Keating. Under the heading “Resources for learning New Testament Greek” we read:



> As far as the tense of the verb in the subjunctive mood, it should be remembered that the subjunctive only shows the kind of action (verbal aspect or ‘aktionsart’) and not time. Only verbs in the indicative mood indicate time in an absolute sense. [This is what ireney pointed out, and it is of course correct – but here comes an important addition:] [...] However, the ‘time’ implied by the subjunctive is usually future since it is a mood of contingency. Thus the future indicative and the aorist subjunctive are closely related and sometimes used in substitution for each other.


*) I get this creepy feeling when I read: “The purpose of this Web site is to provide resources for people seeking to know the Living God and His Word through the original language of the New Testament, Koine Greek.” – and in the text itself: “Greek is a tool to help us be accurate and help us clarify the truth. The end is to know God better, love Him more, and serve Him more fully. He is the end. Don’t make Greek the end; it is only a means.” [My underlining.] Unfortunately, linguistic comments on NT Greek, not to mention the Arabic of the Qur’an, are interspersed with religious jargon. On the other hand, some of the best scholars of NT Greek are linguists and/or classical philologists who keep their metaphysical convictions to themselves. I think we can trust the above quotation.


----------



## modus.irrealis

shannenms said:


> You have implied a very interesting aspect of the Greek language. I can't fully read your Greek sentences--I don't know why my browser doesn't support the accents


Do you see boxes for the accented letters, because then you may not have the right fonts -- you can get Gentium, which a very good free font here.



> The use of subjunctive in the this phrase ἔγραψα ἵνα ἐκμάθῃς conveys uncertainty, I believe; you can compare it with the similar phrase when an infinitive is used instead of the subjunctive.


I'm not sure I see any uncertainty there as opposed to other ways of expressing the purpose of an action but here the use of the subjunctive when the main verb is in a past tense (where the optative would be more usual) is often called "vivid".



> Likewise, in English:
> when there is no object to the verb this problem becomes prominent:
> "I help you to help me" and "I help you that you may help me"
> In the second sentence, there is a color of future subjunctive, as you see.


I think you're saying that in some sense the subjunctive is forward looking and refers to time after the main verb, so in my example it can refer to the past but as a future-in-the-past so to speak. I would agree with that (I can't think of any major uses of the subjunctive for which this is not true -- perhaps it's use in general statements like _hostis an touto poiêi agathos esti _'whoever does this is good'). But this is also true of the present and perfect subjunctives as well. I think Irene's point was that the difference between the present, aorist, and perfect subjunctives is not one of time but of aspect (so that aorist roughly means perfective outside of the indicative mood).



> As for the optative, when that has this capacity to refer to the future, exactly the same as subjunctive, it makes me feel there has been some misconception among the ancient Greeks in using it in its own place, because it has gone beyond what was thought for that.


I'm not sure what you mean here mostly because I'm not sure what the optative's place is. If the name is accurate then it's the mode of wishes, but I'm not entirely sure of how this is related to its use as a potential (_poiêsaimi an _'I would do') or why it replaces the indicative and subjunctive in subordinate clauses when the main verb is a past tense.


----------



## shannenms

Yesterday, I read Smyth's Greek Grammar in order to see what he says on this issue.
To my surprise, I saw that he asserts that subjunctive, in its primitive use, particularly in Homer, expresses futurity, like the future indicative, and has ou for its negative. I think, based on this comment from Smyth, it seems, very inappropriate to accept that such a tense/mood as the aorist subjunctive could have possibly existed in the primitive ancient Greece(these two words "aorist" and "subjunctive" are contradicting each other.)


----------



## modus.irrealis

shannenms said:


> Yesterday, I read Smyth's Greek Grammar in order to see what he says on this issue.
> To my surprise, I saw that he asserts that subjunctive, in its primitive use, particularly in Homer, expresses futurity, like the future indicative, and has ou for its negative. I think, based on this comment from Smyth, it seems, very inappropriate to accept that such a tense/mood as the aorist subjunctive could have possibly existed in the primitive ancient Greece(these two words "aorist" and "subjunctive" are contradicting each other.)


I won't defend the traditional terminology since it's far from perfect, but you have to remember that "aorist" refers to past time only in the indicative and in the infinitive used in indirect discourse (where it represents an aorist indicative). Everywhere else, including the subjunctive, "aorist" doesn't refer to the past but to aspect (what Smyth calls the "stage of action"). Similarly with "present" which only refers to present time in the indicative and the infinitive used in indirect discourse (and not always there, since a present infinitive can also represent an original imperfect). When looked at that way, these terms are not so contradictory.

Edit: I just realized that to be more complete, I should have also said \that "aorist" also has past time reference as a participle used in indirect discourse.


----------



## wonderment

modus.irrealis said:


> I won't defend the traditional terminology since it's far from perfect, but you have to remember that "aorist" refers to past time only in the indicative and in the infinitive used in indirect discourse (where it represents an aorist indicative). Everywhere else, including the subjunctive, "aorist" doesn't refer to the past but to aspect (what Smyth calls the "stage of action"). Similarly with "present" which only refers to present time in the indicative and the infinitive used in indirect discourse (and not always there, since a present infinitive can also represent an original imperfect). When looked at that way, these terms are not so contradictory.
> 
> Edit: I just realized that to be more complete, I should have also said \that "aorist" also has past time reference as a participle used in indirect discourse.



This is a really useful way of thinking about the aorist subjunctive. It bears repeating that the tenses of the subjunctive (and also optative) describe the aspect (the type of action) of a verb rather than its time: present (continuous or repreated action), aorist (once and for all, single event), perfect (completed action). But don’t forget the exception to this general rule: In indirect statements introduced by ὅτι or ώς, after a secondary tense of the main verb, the verb of the indirect statement may be put in the optative of its original tense. And in this construction, the tenses of the optative do have temporal significance: cf. ἔλεξεν ὅτι γράφοι, ἔλεξεν ὅτι γράψαι, ἔλεξεν ὅτι γράψοι.



> I'm not sure I see any uncertainty there as opposed to other ways of expressing the purpose of an action but here [ἔγραψα ἵνα ἐκμάθῃς] the use of the subjunctive when the main verb is in a past tense (where the optative would be more usual) is often called "vivid".



“Vividness” is an interesting way of drawing a distiction between the subjunctive and optative. Apparently different moods correlate with different degrees of vividness. Notice the verbs in the protasis of the three future conditions: indicative for the “future most vivid,” subjuctive for “future more vivid,” and optative for “future less vivid.” This helps to explain why historians like Thucydides and Herodotus prefer the subjunctive (in constructions where the optative would be more common)--because it makes the narrative more “vivid.”


----------



## modus.irrealis

wonderment said:


> But don’t forget the exception to this general rule: In indirect statements introduced by ὅτι or ώς, after a secondary tense of the main verb, the verb of the indirect statement may be put in the optative of its original tense. And in this construction, the tenses of the optative do have temporal significance: cf. ἔλεξεν ὅτι γράφοι, ἔλεξεν ὅτι γράψαι, ἔλεξεν ὅτι γράψοι.


Good point -- I guess all these exceptions can be grouped together because they all represent an original indicative and so having temporal significance makes sense.



> “Vividness” is an interesting way of drawing a distiction between the subjunctive and optative. Apparently different moods correlate with different degrees of vividness. Notice the verbs in the protasis of the three future conditions: indicative for the “future most vivid,” subjuctive for “future more vivid,” and optative for “future less vivid.” This helps to explain why historians like Thucydides and Herodotus prefer the subjunctive (in constructions where the optative would be more common)--because it makes the narrative more “vivid.”


Now if it was only clear what "vivid" means exactly . The subjunctive instead of optative use you mention I associate with the historic present, because both have the same feeling of using the construction you would use if the event was happening right now and I would say that describing a past event as if it were happening right now is "vivid." Interestingly enough, I've recently come across some theories that reverse the traditional view of "future most vivid" and "future more vivid" and see the former as implying the speaker's doubt as to the possibility of the if-clause actually occuring. I'm not convinced but but there still seem to be open issues about ancient Greek grammar.


----------



## wonderment

modus.irrealis said:


> Now if it was only clear what "vivid" means exactly . The subjunctive instead of optative use you mention I associate with the historic present, because both have the same feeling of using the construction you would use if the event was happening right now and I would say that describing a past event as if it were happening right now is "vivid."


Yes, I was thinking along these lines. In ancient historiography the present tense (in the indicative) is used to narrate events from the past when the author wants to make the narrative more immediate or “vivid” (just as you describe), thus the term “historical present.” Something similar takes place when a subjunctive is used in a construction that usually calls for an optative. Because in complex sentences that involve sequence of tenses, the subjunctive is normally associated with the primary tenses (i.e. the present and future tenses) and the optative with the secondary tenses (i.e. the past tenses). 



> Interestingly enough, I've recently come across some theories that reverse the traditional view of "future most vivid" and "future more vivid" and see the former as implying the speaker's doubt as to the possibility of the if-clause actually occuring.


Oh, the things linguists do to amuse themselves.   Just joshing...


----------



## WoundedEgo

This is a helpful discussion, but I'm not sure that you have arrived at any conclusion other than the fact that the aorist subjunctive does not make a statement about time, which is, of course, both true and very helpful in avoiding "the aorist fallacy" which treats all aorists as "past tense."

Could the feature of the aorist that colors the usage of the aorist subjunctive be a matter of "irrespective of details"? Sort of like in "Green Eggs and Ham" - when he says "I would not like them in box, I would not like them with a fox" etc. In other words, the sense might be "I do not like them, period." In other words, it treats the case as a whole, rather than regarding any "process."

For example, the first usage in the NT is here:

Mt 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye **have found** him, bring me word again, that I may come and **worship** him also.

So the aorist implies "not when you are looking, or near, but when you have actually got to the point where he is found."

"A completed action, usually in the past."

I like the analogy of a dot rather than a line. The dot may be future or past, but there comes a point when you arrive at a time when the event is either behind you or it is not. One might "paint" the house (process) but never get it painted (completed). The aorist is not concerned with how many hours you spent painting the house - it is either done or not. It is either painted (completely) or it is not. Period. The aorist is binary, while the imperfect is analog.

I'm not pontificating here, just explaining my understanding (and I am no expert).

Here is the next NT instance:

Mt 2:13  And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word (5632): for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Again this is future in time, but it establishes an *event* that will mark the point in time at which it will be okay to return.

If we take the "binary" idea in the next verse, it has the force of "do not conclude that..." rather than "don't be thinking along the lines that...":

Mt 3:9 And **think**[DOXHTE]  not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

In the next example from the NT, if my "binary" understanding is correct, then the sense here is that one is blessed from the point at which they are spoken evil of and forward, not during the process. Ie: Not, "blessed are you during people speaking falsely" but "blessed are you from the point when you are evil spoken of."

Mt 5:11  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say (5632) all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

There is a sort of perfection (completed, but continuing in effect) implied.

I think that the subjunctive does not so much contribute uncertainty as it does contingency on an event. For example, there is not a doubt being cast as to whether or not God will exalt the humble but rather there is an expression of contingency on an event (humbling):

1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he **may exalt** you in due time

If I'm correct (and I'm just submitting my thoughts, not making a claim) then this promise is not unconditional but very conditional on their faith:

Deut 31:6 Be courageous and strong, fear not, neither be cowardly neither be afraid before them; for it is the Lord your God that advances with you in the midst of you, {1} neither will he by any means forsake thee, nor desert thee. {1) Heb 13:5}

In other words, it has the sense of "IF you are not afraid before them...[then] the lord you god would in that case not forsake or desert you."

There is no sense of "he might not forsake you" but rather "if the condition is met then there will never be any event of God forsaking you."

Am I off base?

Thank you.


----------



## ElderMartin

I see someone wrote that the aorist subjunctive and future indicative are often interchangeable.  I wonder why John, quoting Jesus uses first the aorist subjunctive and then immediately the future indicative in this statement.  Why the difference?

John 6:35 - Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me *shall not hunger (aorist subjunctive)*, and he who believes in Me *shall never thirst (future indicative)*. (NASB)


----------



## apmoy70

In the Greek text, both these verbs *πεινάσῃ - διψήσῃ *are in the aorist subjunctive


----------



## ElderMartin

apmoy70 said:


> In the Greek text, both these verbs *πεινάσῃ - διψήσῃ *are in the aorist subjunctive


They're not according to the text I'm looking at, the NASB95RI nor USB4 Int. on Logos software.

I think the first one is in the aorist subjunctive because Jesus is the bread of life, and is there currently.  The water, like the Samaritan woman at the well, is told about a future living water.


----------



## ioanell

ElderMartin said:


> I wonder why John, quoting Jesus uses first the aorist subjunctive and then immediately the future indicative in this statement. Why the difference?


There seems to be a significant misunderstanding here. As there are numerous publications/editions of John’s Gospel, out of at least eight of them -which very easily can be found on the internet- five give the form διψήσει (future indicative) and three give the form διψήσῃ (aorist subjunctive). This most probably happens because some publishers tried to correct what they thought as errors within the source of these publications; source which must have been the near complete codex of the Gospel of John, the *Papyrus 66* (also referred to as 𝔓66), composed of larger or smaller papyri fragments. As many scribes of different educational backgrounds and personal views were successively involved in the copying of the manuscripts, scribes who lived (around the 2nd and 3rd cc.) and worked in the CE of the Hellenistic Koine language, it is more than certain that several errors, either as their own beliefs or by oversight were included in their copies -as relevant philological studies have shown.

So, in the excerpt of the Greek text ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρός με οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ͵ καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ διψήσει πώποτε we have two main clauses which both should be in the indicative mood and both verbs πεινάσει and διψήσει should be in the future tense. Future tense of the indicative mood and aorist tense of the subjunctive mood are not interchangeable as a fellow-user wrote above. 
The indicative is the mood of the “real” and every tense in this expresses sth which is or considered as real or certain. Given that Jesus’ words “he who comes to Me *shall not hunger, *and he who believes in Me *shall never thirst” *are a strong pledge for sth more than certain, there is no basis whatsoever for the subjunctive mood in a main clause, as long as the subjunctive denotes either desire on somebody’s part for sth to be or not to be done (besides, by the aorist of the subjunctive a prohibition or deterrence is indicated) or somebody’s query, question or puzzlement about doing or not doing sth. 
Another strong element which confirms that we (should) have (the future tense of) the indicative mood is the presence of the negative particle οὐ in the first position, a particle going with the indicative, the addition of the secondary negative particle μὴ simply being a Koine language indication for a stronger negation. (_When there is a negation in a main clause with subjunctive, then the negative particle is μὴ or an adverb or pronoun compound with μὴ as first member._)

It is perplexing why the publishers who correctly rejected the aorist subjunctive διψήσῃ for the future indicative διψήσει in the second clause retained the inexplicable and unjustified aorist subjunctive form πεινάσῃ in the first clause, instead of the correct future indicative form πεινάσει*.

*Note: the AG form of the verb was πεινήσει, changed later into πεινάσει ( < πεινάω < πεινήω)


----------



## apmoy70

^^The 1904 Byzantine Patriarchal Edition (the authoritative edition that bears the Ecumenical Patriarch's seal of approval) has both verbs in the aorist subjunctive:
Click me



ElderMartin said:


> They're not according to the text I'm looking at, the NASB95RI nor USB4 Int. on Logos software.
> 
> I think the first one is in the aorist subjunctive because Jesus is the bread of life, and is there currently.  The water, like the Samaritan woman at the well, is told about a future living water.


See above. The Orthodox Church prefers the Byzantine Patriarchal Edition over all the "comparative", "edited", "corrected" ones.


----------



## ioanell

"_The 1904 Byzantine Patriarchal Edition (the authoritative edition that bears the Ecumenical Patriarch's seal of approval) has both verbs in the aorist subjunctive._"

That’s very correct and can’t be questioned. However, as the Patriarch of the time didn’t claim “_the Pope’s _Infallibility”, the fact that this Edition bears the Patriarch’s seal of approval doesn’t prove anything, because the matter here is which and how much reliable was the source on which the Byzantine Patriarchal Edition was based.

The aim of the comment in #23 above was to show that with the transition of the Classical Era into the Hellenistic Koine Era many changes, several of them completely wrong in relation to the AG language, took place. One of them, often encountered in Hellenistic – mainly religious- texts, was the inexplicable use of the subjunctive mood in Independent clauses. In the same (Patriarchal Edition) text of John’s Gospel one can also see a line further, e.g. 6.37 “Πᾶν ὅ δίδωσὶ μοι ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει, καὶ τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς με οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω” which, in plain English, translates “Everything that Father gives to me, will come to me, and I shall not expel the one who comes to me"

The observations that can be made here are the same as in #23 above: while the first part _Πᾶν ὅ δίδωσὶ μοι ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς ἐμὲ ἥξει_ is in the indicative mood with the verb in future tense (_Πᾶν ὅ δίδωσὶ μοι ὁ πατὴρ_=the subject of the clause, _ἥξει_=the verb [_future tense of ἥκω_] _πρὸς ἐμὲ_=qualifier of direction), the second part _τὸν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς με οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω ἔξω _is in the subjunctive mood with the verb in the aorist tense (_I_=implied subject, _οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω=_the verb, _τὸν ἐρχόμενον_=the object, _πρὸς με_= qualifier of direction, _ἔξω_=adverbial qualifier of place.

Observations:

1. As long as the first clause has the verb in future tense [_ἥξει_= will come] and is connected with the second clause by καὶ, in the same way the verb of the second clause should be (_οὐ μὴ) _*ἐκβαλῶ*_=_ I shall (not) expel, according to the most obvious meaning and any translation. You can’t have an independent clause with the indicative and immediately after, linked with the connecting *καὶ*, another independent clause with the subjunctive, completely inexplicable and unjustified, according to its meaning.

2. Again, the negation particle _οὐ _[_μὴ_] (commented on in #23 above) is used with the subjunctive, whereas only going with the indicative.

Conclusion: The grammatical/syntactical (but not conceptional) errors of the Koine text in this Edition are more than obvious. But it is the Orthodox Church's right to prefer any Edition that it likes.


----------



## apmoy70

ioanell said:


> ...
> Conclusion: The grammatical/syntactical (but not conceptional) errors of the Koine text in this Edition are more than obvious. But it is the Orthodox Church's right to prefer any Edition that it likes.


Correct. And since the Church wrote, and compiled the Biblical  canon and its texts (in 367 AD), She (and only She) has the authority to change, alter, or modify it. And interpret it.


----------

