Dear b-greekers, Clayton wrote: >Doing a little Christmas reading and ran into a grammatical issue in >Matthew 1:25. >L. Morris cites A.H. McNeil (Matthew, London 1915) in a footnote saying that >in the New Testament the negative particle followed by hEWS, hEWS hOU, >or hEWS hOTOU "always implies that the negatived (sic) action did, or will, >take place after the point of time indicated by the particle." >Whenever I hear someone use the word "always" in a statement like this I >figure it is time to fire up Accordance and prove them wrong. If you apply >McNeil's rule to Matt 12:20 you end up with a very humorous result. The >Messiah ends up breaking bruised reeds and quenching smoldering wicks. >Matt 5:18 is a little more questionable, perhaps the rule works here or >perhaps it doesn't. Rom. 11:8 also looks like a possible counter example. >There are undoubtedly more that I did not find. >Perhaps these are the exceptions that prove the rule. Or perhaps these >exceptions prove that there is no such rule. Here are some texts to look >over: >Matt. 1:25 Matt. 5:18 Matt. 5:26 Matt. 12:20 Matt. 16:28 Matt. >23:39 Matt. 24:21 Matt. 24:34 Matt. 24:39 Mark 9:1 Luke 9:27 Luke 12:59 >Luke >13:35 Luke 21:32 Luke 22:16 Luke 22:34 John 13:38 Rom. 11:8 Richard's reply: I agree that the rule is somewhat overstated. But if we restrict it to hEWS hOU and hEWS hOTOU the rule becomes iron-clad. There are no exceptions. In fact, even those cases where the main clause is positive follow the rule. Of couse, those cases where hEWS hOU, hEWS hOTOU or even hEWS mean "while" rather than "until" are not within the purview of the rule. So now I am ready to restate the rule in its more restricted form: << A temporal clause introduced by the conjunctive particles hEWS hOU or hEWS hOTOU, meaning "until", always implies that the action of the main clause was or will be discontinued or reversed after the point of time indicated by these particles. >> The fact is that this rule works even for the vast majority of cases where hEWS alone is found, especially where the main clause is negative. Of the referrences you cited, only Mt 12:20 seems to break the rule. Mt 5:18 is doubtful, as you say. Rm 11:8 doesn't count because hEWS is not a conjunctive particle introducing a temporal clause in this verse but an improper preposition. All the other verses you mention follow the rule quite nicely. I have not had the chance to check the LXX. I would be interested to know if this rule can be applied there. Richard Ghilardi -- qodeshlayhvh@juno.com New Haven, CT USA Nibai kaurno hwaiteis gadriusando in airtha gaswiltith, silbo ainata aflifnith: ith jabai gaswiltith, manag akran bairith. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu