Dear Richard S. and b-greekers, I fear that we are about to stray into the area of theology, so I will give you my reply off-list. I cannot reply in full to your post at this time anyway. Perhaps I can after a full day's work. Here is what John could have written if he had wanted to disavow the Jews' statements as his own true beliefs: DIA TOUTO OUN MALLON EZHTOUN AUTON hOI IOUDAIOI APOKTEINAI, << hWS OU MONON LUONTA TO SABBATON, ALLA KAI PATERA IDION LEGONTA TON QEON ISON hEAUTON POIWN TWi QEWi.>> according to Smyth 2086 OR ... <> according to Smyth 2242 and 2622 If my grammar is wrong, please correct me! [Stauch] The sections you cite are precisely the sections that my other poster sent me to review, and I found them (believe it or not) less than convincing on this point. Could it not be that Smyth section 2614 (and following) applies? I copy the example Smyth gives from 2615... [snip] [Ghilardi] Section 2615 is irrelevant precisely because you have confused causal hOTI with the conjunction hOTI that introduces oratio obliqua. The hOTI of Jn 5:18 is CAUSAL hOTI. The second rewriting of Jn 5:18 above contains IMPLIED indirect discourse. But the hOTI is still causal. Apparently the optative is always used in implied O. O. when the tense of the verb in the main clause is secondary, as it is here. Yours in His grace, 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. --- 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