Secondary Sequence with Subjunctive? Gal. 1:4

[Jason Hare]

τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν...

Should the use of the aorist participle turn this into a secondary sequence? Should ἐξαιρέω technically have been in the optative (ἐξέλοιτο)? Is the use of the subjunctive in the purpose clause due to the loss of the optative in the Koine?

[Wes Wood]

τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν...

Should the use of the aorist participle turn this into a secondary sequence? Should ἐξαιρέω technically have been in the optative (ἐξέλοιτο)? Is the use of the subjunctive in the purpose clause due to the loss of the optative in the Koine?

After secondary tenses, primary tenses of the indicative and all subjunctives may be changed to the same tense of the optative; but an indicative denoting unreality (with or without ἄν) is retained. Imperfects and pluperfects are generally retained (2623b).

The mood in the NT is generally the subjunctive. The classical 'oblique optative' is never used even after a secondary tense in the NT nor elsewhere in the lower Koine vernacular; cf. Knuenz 15ff.

I believe that these two quotes are referring to the same phenomenon. If that is the case then it would appear that 1) the optative may or may not be found after secondary tenses in Classical Greek--but the tenor of the entire section (in Smyth) seems to me to suggest that the shift will be highly probable and 2) the subjunctive never switches to the optative in the New Testament or in Koine in general. I have no doubt you already possessed a greater understanding of this construction than I do even now, but I appreciate the question very much. I definitely learned something new.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν...

Should the use of the aorist participle turn this into a secondary sequence? Should ἐξαιρέω technically have been in the optative (ἐξέλοιτο)? Is the use of the subjunctive in the purpose clause due to the loss of the optative in the Koine?

RE: Should the use of the aorist participle turn this into a secondary sequence?

I am not sure.

If we assume that's correct, then the comments of Cooper might be pertinent.

Although oblique optatives must be accounted the usual construction in final sentences in the secondary temporal sequence ... subjunctives are often found after such verbs.

{...}

The subjunctive in final sentences in secondary sequence is actually the more frequent construction in Th[ucydides].

Guy Cooper (vol 1, p714 §54.8.1.A)

postscript

Reading the grammars on this I am struck by how opaque the classical philology metalanguage is. I have forgotten most of this metalanguage over the last 20 years and find these grammars hard to use. I spend most of my time reading texts and the metalanguage is just an obstacle that gets in the way of understanding.

[Jason Hare]

Thanks, folks!

[cwconrad]

postscript: Reading the grammars on this I am struck by how opaque the classical philology metalanguage is. I have forgotten most of this metalanguage over the last 20 years and find these grammars hard to use. I spend most of my time reading texts and the metalanguage is just an obstacle that gets in the way of understanding.

I'm inclined to feel this is true about metalanguage generally, whether classical or academic-linguistic. "Opaque" seems precisely the right adjective, too. It seems generally to be the case that what the alien language is saying seems at least a bit clearer than what the metalanguage is saying about the text in question. It's not altogether unlike the absurdity of unpacking a metaphor. The metaphor itself seems transparent in comparison with the convoluted endeavors to explain its meaning.