[BACK] [NEXT]John 1:11; eivj ta. i;dia h=lqen( kai. oi` i;dioi auvto.n ouv pare,labon, he came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.REM. On the use of negatives in later Greek, see Gild., Encroachments of mh, on ouv in later Greek, in A.J. P. I. pp. 45 ff.
466. In classical Greek, the Future Indicative used to express a prohibition sometimes has ouv sometimes mh,. HA. 844; G.MT. 69, 70. In the New Testament a Prohibitory Future takes ouv.Matt. 6:5; kai. o[tan proseu,chsqe( ouvk e;sesqe w`j oi` u`pokritai,, and when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites.467. In questions that can be answered affirmatively or negatively, ouv is used with the Indicative to imply that an affirmative answer is expected; mh, to imply that a negative answer is expected. HA. 1015; G. 1603.Matt. 13:55; ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` tou/ te,ktonoj ui`o,j, is not this the carpenter’s son?468. In Rom. 10:18, 19; 1 Cor. 9:4, 5; 11:22, mh,ouv is used in rhetorical questions equivalent to affirmative statements. Each negative has, however, its own proper force, ouv making the verb negative, and mh, implying that a negative answer is expected to the question thus made negative.
John 7:51; mh. o` no,moj h`mw/n kri,nei to.n a;nqrwpon eva.n mh. avkou,sh| prw/ton parV auvtou/ kai. gnw/| ti, poiei/, doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself?
469. In classical Greek, the Indicative in conditional and conditional relative clauses is regularly negatived by mh,. But ouv sometimes occurs in conditions of the first class. In this case ouv negatives the verb of the clause or other single element rather than the supposition as such. HA. 1021; G. 1610, 1383.
In the New Testament, conditional clauses of the second class (248) are regularly negatived by mh,. In other conditional clauses and in conditional relative clauses, the Indicative usually takes ouv as its negative, occasionally mh,. In concessive clauses the Indicative takes ouv.John 9:33; eiv mh. h=n ou-toj para. qeou/( ouvk hvdu,nato poiei/n ouvde,n, if this man were not from God, he could do nothing. See also Matt. 24:22.REM. In Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21, ouv occurs in the protasis of a conditional sentence of the second class.
Rom. 8:9; eiv de, tij pneu/ma Cristou/ ouvk e;cei( ou-toj ouvk e;stin auvtou/, but if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. See also Luke 14:26.
Matt. 10:38; kai. o]j ouv lamba,nei to.n stauro.n auvtou/ kai. avkolouqei/ ovpi,sw mou( ouvk e;stin mou a;xioj, and he that does not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me. See also Luke 9:50; 14:33; cf. 2 Pet.1:9; l John 4:3.
Luke 18:4, 5; eiv kai. to.n qeo.n ouv fobou/mai ouvde. a;nqrwpon evntre,pomai( dia, ge to. pare,cein moi ko,pon th.n ch,ran tau,thn evkdikh,sw auvth,n, though I fear not God nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her.
2 Cor. 13:5; h' ouvk evpiginw,skete e`autou.j o[ti VIhsou/j Cristo.j evn u`mi/nÈ eiv mh,ti avdo,kimoi, evste, or know ye not as to your own selves that Jesus Christ is in you? unless indeed ye are reprobate. See also 1 Tim. 6:3; Tit. 1:6.
470. It is possible that ouv in conditional and conditional relative sentences in the New Testament is usually to be explained as negativing the predicate directly (cf. G. 1383. 2; Th. eiv, III. 11.), mh, on the other hand as negativing the supposition as such. Yet the evidence does not clearly establish this distinction; to press it in every case is certainly an over-refinement. Cf., e.g., 1 John 4:3, pa/n pneu/ma o] mh. o`mologei/ to.n VIhsou/n evk tou/ qeou/ ouvk e;stin, and 1 John 4:6, o]j ouvk e;stin evk tou/ qeou/ ouvk avkou,ei h`mw/n. See also 1 Tim. 6:3 and Tit. 1:6, where mh, is used after eiv, yet quite evidently belongs to the verb rather than to the supposition as such.
471. eiv mh, in the sense of except is used as a fixed phrase, without reference to the mood which would follow it if the ellipsis were supplied. Cf. 274.Matt. 17:8; ouvde,na ei=don eiv mh. auvto.n VIhsou/n mo,non, they saw no one save Jesus only.472. In clauses introduced by mh, as a conjunction, the Indicative takes ouv as its negative. After other final particles its negative is mh,. HA. 1021, 1033; G. 1610.
Mark 9:9; diestei,lato auvtoi/j i[na mhdeni. a] ei=don dihgh,swntai( eiv mh. o[tan o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou evk nekrw/n avnasth/, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have arisen from the dead.Rev. 9:4; kai. evrre,qh auvtai/j i[na mh. avdikh,sousin to.n co,rton th/j gh/j, and it was said unto them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth. The continuation of this sentence by ouvde, . . . ouvde, is a syntactical irregularity. Col. 2:8 illustrates the rule.473. In indirect discourse the negative of the direct form is retained. HA. 1022; G. 1608.Matt. 16:11; pw/j ouv noei/te o[ti ouv peri. a;rtwn ei=pon u`mi/n, how is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not to you concerning bread?REM. In 1 John 2:22 a clause of indirect discourse depending on a verb meaning to deny contains a redundant ouv. Cf. 482, and B. p. 355.
474. In causal clauses, and in simple relative clauses not expressing purpose or condition, the Indicative is regularly negatived by ouv. HA. 1021; U. 1608.John 8:20; kai. ouvdei.j evpi,asen auvto,n( o[ti ou;pw evlhlu,qei h` w[ra auvtou/, and no man took him; because his hour was not yet come.REM. 1. In John 3:18 a causal clause has an Indicative with mh,. This is quite exceptional in the New Testament, but similar iustances occur in later Greek. B. p. 349, Gild. u.s. p. 53.
Mark 2:24; i;de ti, poiou/sin toi/j sa,bbasin o] ouvk e;xestin, behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
REM. 2. Tit. 1:11, dida,skontej a] mh. dei/ is an exception to the general rule for relative clauses, unless indeed the relative clause is to be taken as conditional. Cf. 469.