οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Alex Hopkins
Posts: 59
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 7:15 am

οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25

Post by Alex Hopkins »

Under a different thread,
David Lim wrote:Also, can anyone explain "ουκετι ου μη" in Mark 14:25? I searched in Smyth and online but found nothing. Probably it is because I do not know where to look.
The NT text referred to is
Mark 14:25 wrote: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ.
(Smyth references are shown after the relevant index entries:)
Distinguish between
-- οὐ μή w. fut. indic. or subjv. in prohib., 1800 C N, 1919, 2756
and
-- οὐ μή w. subjv. or fut. indic. in strong denial, 1804, 1919, 2754, 2755

This is an instance of οὐ μή with the subjunctive in a strong denial.

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25

Post by David Lim »

Alex Hopkins wrote:Under a different thread,
David Lim wrote:Also, can anyone explain "ουκετι ου μη" in Mark 14:25? I searched in Smyth and online but found nothing. Probably it is because I do not know where to look.
The NT text referred to is
Mark 14:25 wrote: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ.
(Smyth references are shown after the relevant index entries:)
Distinguish between
-- οὐ μή w. fut. indic. or subjv. in prohib., 1800 C N, 1919, 2756
and
-- οὐ μή w. subjv. or fut. indic. in strong denial, 1804, 1919, 2754, 2755

This is an instance of οὐ μή with the subjunctive in a strong denial.
I think you missed my query. The rule is that "ου" and compounds are used for the indicative. Here it is a subjunctive "πιω", so why is it that "μηκετι" is not used instead? Notice that "μηκετι" is indeed used in one of the examples given in Smyth 2755a.
δαυιδ λιμ
GarySimmons
Posts: 8
Joined: February 6th, 2012, 12:41 am

Re: οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25

Post by GarySimmons »

Perhaps Jesus' grammar was technically not correct, then; maybe it was a colloquialism of some sort.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25

Post by David Lim »

GarySimmons wrote:Perhaps Jesus' grammar was technically not correct, then; maybe it was a colloquialism of some sort.
I doubt so. "ουκετι ου μη" occurs two or three times in the new testament and once in the LXX and a few times in the ABP. In contrast "μηκετι ου μη" never appears at all.
δαυιδ λιμ
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25

Post by RandallButh »

GarySimmons wrote:Perhaps Jesus' grammar was technically not correct, then; maybe it was a colloquialism of some sort.
Thank you. I didn't realize that they were speaking Greek at the meal.
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25

Post by Scott Lawson »

David Lim wrote:Notice that "μηκετι" is indeed used in one of the examples given in Smyth 2755a.
BDF § 426: "The distinction beween the two negatives, objective οὐ and subjective μή, is in part fairly complicated in classical Greek. On the other hand, essentially everything can be subsumed under one rule for the Koine of the NT: οὐ negates the indicative, μή the remaining moods including the infinitive and the participle." (Emphases mine)

I'll point out that Smyth is not a New Testament Greek grammar.

BDF § 365."Οὐ μή with the aorist subjunctive or future indicative, both of which are classical, is the most definite form of negation regarding the future. This mode of expression is more common in the NT and for the most part less emphatic than in the classical language, but it is virtually limited to quotations from the LXX and sayings of Jesus (Mlt. 187-92 [297-303]). (1) The only certain example of the future is Mt 16:22 οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο....(4) The same subjunctive as a question can denote an affirmation (the two uses therefore have the same relationship as that between οὐ πράξω and οὐ πράξω;): Jn 18: 11 οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτό;"
Scott Lawson
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25

Post by David Lim »

RandallButh wrote:
GarySimmons wrote:Perhaps Jesus' grammar was technically not correct, then; maybe it was a colloquialism of some sort.
Thank you. I didn't realize that they were speaking Greek at the meal.
Hi Randall, I cannot tell whether you are serious.. what did you think Jesus said? And regardless of that, is "ου μη" with the subjunctive really considered a negative future indicative statement? If so, it would explain "ουκετι", but does anyone have examples demonstrating this, besides the ones with "ουκετι"?
δαυιδ λιμ
Louis L Sorenson
Posts: 711
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25

Post by Louis L Sorenson »

Perhaps you could read Mark 14.25 as οὐκέτι as οὐκέτι (ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν) οὐ μὴ πίω in order to keep the grammar 'neat'. But look at Mk 24.21: ἔσται γὰρ τότε θλῖψις μεγάλη οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς κόσμου ἕως τοῦ νῦν οὐδ' οὐ μὴ γένηται. Note the negative above in Mark 24.21 is not μηδ' οὐ μὴ but οὐδε οὐ μή.

None of the 3 οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ occurrences has any written Hebrew to compare against (Tobit 6.8; Ode 11.11; Jer 38.40), but I wonder if some influence did not happen here. A search of TLG finds some interesting statistics:

μηκέτι occurs about 5700x.
οὐκέτι 14,630x
οὐ μή ?x times out
οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ occurs 57x. Only in ecclesiastical writings (LXX or Church fathers). Never in Attic or other secular Greek authors.
μηκέτι μὴ 6x ~ μὴ μηκέτι 1χ Mostly late Greek. (along with ναί, ναίχι! ~ οὐ οὐχί)
μηκέτι οὐ μὴ | οὐ μὴ μηκέτι 0χ
οὐ μηκέτι 1χ in Menander. (Photius Lexicogr., Scr. Eccl., Theol., Lexicon (Ε – Ω) Alphabetic letter omicron, Page 360, line 13 <Οὐ μηκέτι>: ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐκ ἔτι· Μένανδρος.
οὑδ' οὐ μή 183x (Only later writers: Philo, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, NT, LXX (10x), Eusebius, Epiphanius, et. al. along with a couple of entries in Magical papyri, and later, e.g. 400 A.D. authors).
οὐκέτι μή 75χ (only 5 secular occurances Aristophanes, Xenophon, Galen, Chrysippus -- all the rest ecclesiastical)
μὴ οὐκέτι 17x (2 Thucydides. But these are almost elsewhere always broken by punctuation μη, οὐκέτι; never οὐ μὴ οὐκέτι)

What I get from the above is that (1) οὐκέτι οὐ μή (like οὐδ' οὐ μὴ) is either a Semitic influenced construction or a later Koine development - note that Philo also uses it; (2) This type of emphatic negation was only used in ecclesiastical contexts, not in Attic, and only came into secular use very late. Christian writers have a penchant for the absolute statement; hence their over-usage(?) or because this Markan phrase is part of their stock repertoire. (3) οὐ μή does not get negated by negative adverbs in secular Greek. (at least not οὐκέτι μηκέτι) (4) οὐκέτι μηκέτι do not get negated, but do the negating. (5) οὐ μή + οὐδέν also occurs: Origen Contra Selsum 7.70 has καὶ οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς οὐ μὴ ἀδικήσῃ following Lk 10.19 using a negative pronoun (as d.o.), but again, (cf. Is 39.6) it's all ecclesiastical or LXX literature using this triple negative cluster. And the pattern is οὐδὲν οὐ μή not μηδὲν οὐ μή.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25

Post by David Lim »

Louis L Sorenson wrote:[...]

What I get from the above is that (1) οὐκέτι οὐ μή (like οὐδ' οὐ μὴ) is either a Semitic influenced construction or a later Koine development - note that Philo also uses it; (2) This type of emphatic negation was only used in ecclesiastical contexts, not in Attic, and only came into secular use very late. Christian writers have a penchant for the absolute statement; hence their over-usage(?) or because this Markan phrase is part of their stock repertoire. (3) οὐ μή does not get negated by negative adverbs in secular Greek. (at least not οὐκέτι μηκέτι) (4) οὐκέτι μηκέτι do not get negated, but do the negating. (5) οὐ μή + οὐδέν also occurs: Origen Contra Selsum 7.70 has καὶ οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς οὐ μὴ ἀδικήσῃ following Lk 10.19 using a negative pronoun (as d.o.), but again, (cf. Is 39.6) it's all ecclesiastical or LXX literature using this triple negative cluster. And the pattern is οὐδὲν οὐ μή not μηδὲν οὐ μή.
Very interesting! Thanks for helping with the search!
δαυιδ λιμ
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”