Grace Theological Journal 7.1 (1986) 3-19.
[Copyright © 1986 Grace
Theological Seminary; cited with permission;
digitally prepared for use at
THE
CLASSIFICATION OF
SUBJUNCTIVES: A STATISTICAL
STUDY*
JAMES L. BOYER
Besides providing statistical information not easily
available else-
where and offering supporting elements within each classified
use,
this study seeks to explore two related subjects which are
clarified by
this inductive study. They are (1) the parallel between the i!na + sub-
junctive construction and the infinitive, and (2) the occurrence of
future indicatives in many instances where aorist subjunctives
might
have appeared. Both of these are significant to the exegete.
*
* *
INTRODUCTION
IT
is not within the intended scope of this article to deal with the
theoretical question of the primary significance of
the subjunctive
mood or with the question of its historical origin
and development. I
begin with the basic understanding that the
subjunctive mood ex-
presses some doubtfulness, contingency, or
uncertainty by reason of
futurity. My purpose is to classify the various
constructions in which
*Informational materials and
listings generated in the preparation of this study
may be found in my "Supplemental Manual of
Information: Subjunctive Verbs." Those
interested may secure this manual through their
local library by interlibrary loan from
the Morgan Library, Grace Theological Seminary,
IN 46590. Also available is "Supplemental
Manual of Information: Infinitive Verbs."
This
augments my article "The Classification of Infinitives: A Statistical
Study" GTJ 6
(1985)
3-27. I plan to prepare other supplemental manuals as time permits, beginning
with one on participles.
This study is one of several
published in GTJ on related aspects of the grammar of
the Greek NT: (1) "Project Gramcord:
A Report" (1 [1980] 97-99); (2) "First Class
Conditions:
What Do They Mean?" (2 [1981] 75-114); (3) "Second Class Conditions
in New Testament Greek" (3 [1982] 81-88); (4)
"Third (and Fourth) Class Conditions"
(3
[1982] 163-75); (5) "Other Conditional Elements in New Testament
Greek" (4 [1983]
173-88);
(6) "The Classification of Participles: A Statistical Study" (5 [1984]
163-79);
and (7) "The Classification of Infinitives: A
Statistical Study" (6 [1985] 3-27).
4
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
the subjunctive appears in the Greek NT, providing
statistical informa-
tion about these structures
in general, and about many of the elements
which appear in them. The system of classification is
the traditional
one found in most grammars.
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN INDEPENDENT
CLAUSES
Hortatory Subjunctive
Usually named first of these
independent or main verb uses of
the subjunctive is the hortatory subjunctive, in
which "the speaker
is exhorting others to join him in the doing of an
action",l as in
I
John 4:7: ]Agaphtoi<,
a]gapw?men a]llh<louj / 'Beloved, let us love
one another’.2 Thus it serves to supply
the deficiency of the imperative
mood which like English has no first person forms.3
It is almost
always in the plural (66 of 69 occurrences); the three
exceptions seem
to express a slightly different sense. Rather than
an exhortation ad-
dressed to self there is an invitation to
someone else to permit the
speaker to do something, as in Luke
a@fej
e]kba<lw
to> ka<rfoj to> e]n t&? o]fqalm&? sou / 'Brother, let me
take out the speck that is in your eye'. The other
example of a first
person singular is Acts 7:34, with similar meaning.
The example just given also
illustrates another frequent char-
acteristic of the hortatory
subjunctive: the use of an introductory
imperatival word immediately before the subjunctive.
The words so
used in the NT (and their frequencies) are a@fej (3), a@fete
(1), deu?te
(3),
and deu?ro (1).4 The
first two are aorist imperatives but function
as mere hortatory particles. The last two are
adverbial particles, with
the ending inflected as if to show their
imperatival nature. All four
function elsewhere as equivalents of a full
imperative.5
Deliberative
Subjunctive
The subjunctive is also used in
deliberative questions, in which a
person asks himself or another what he is to do,6
as in Matt 6:31 ti<
1 H. P. V. Nunn, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (
University, 1951) 82.
2 Unless stated otherwise
the translation of biblical examples is from NASB.
3 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 93.
4 This usage also
characterized this construction in classical Greek, using a@ge, fe<re
or deu?ro. It continues in modern Greek in a@j (shortened from a@fej).
5 BAGD,
125, 176.
6 Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J. H.
Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) 98.
BOYER: THE
CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 5
fa<gwmen / 'What shall we eat?'
Not all examples are deliberative,
however, and BDF expands the title to "the
Doubtful [Dubitative] or
Deliberative
Subjunctive7 (cf. Matt
you escape?'). The use of the subjunctive in these
sentences points to
the doubtful, hesitating quality of subjective
consideration.
Normally questions in the subjunctive use first
person, singular
or plural (57 of 102), but when these questions
are quoted indirectly
the first person may change to second or third.
Even beyond this
there are a few instances where the deliberation is
not with one's self,
but advice is being asked from another party. Mark
swmai; / 'What shall I ask
for?') does not mean that Herodias
is
deliberating with herself--rather
she is asking her mother's advice.
Matt
27:22 is a similar case.
These may be simple questions or
introduced by an interrogative
pronoun or adverb, such as ti< (54), ti<j (1), pw?j; (18), pou? (6), o!pou
(2),
po<qen
(1), and poi<oj (1). Five times the
indirect question is pre-
ceded by the substantivizing
article.
The deliberative question (as the
hortatory subjunctive) may be
preceded by an introductory word, i.e., qe<leij,
qe<lete, or bou<lesqe
(as in classical). If these are thought of as proper verbs
the subjunctive
clause then would be an object clause replacing the
frequent infinitive
object. But the absence of a conjunction and the
parallel with the
introductory hortatory particles
make it at least possible to consider
these as compressed, deliberative, double questions,
as in Matt 20:32
ti<
qe<lete poih<sw u[mi?n / 'What do you want?
What shall I do for
you?'8 (In 1 Cor
sentence as two questions.)
There are other ways to express the deliberative
question. (1) The
future indicative is used, as in Luke
Luke
11:5 the future indicative is used first,. followed by two sub-
junctives, each connected with
the future indicative by kai<. (2) Even
the present indicative is used, as in John 11:45.
(3) A paraphrastic
a construction using dei? or
du<namai plus an infinitive may also be used,
as in Matt
Aorist Prohibition
Strange as it may seem to the beginning Greek
student, the use
of the subjunctive instead of the imperative in
aorist prohibitions is
native to Greek from earliest times. Robertson says,
"It seems clear
7 BDF, 185.
8 My translation; NASB renders this subjunctive as if it were an infinitive object
clause: 'What do you wish me to do for you?'
6
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
that originally both in Sanskrit and Greek
prohibition was expressed
only by the subj. Hence the growth of the imperative
never finally
displaced it.”9 In the NT as in
classical Greek these negative com-
mands are almost always in
the subjunctive mood when they use the
aorist tense. The exceptions are few10 and
there seems to be no clear
difference in sense. All of them are third person,
but there are also 6
examples where third person aorist prohibitions
are in the subjunctive
mood.
Since these subjunctives are substitutes for the
imperative, a con-
sideration of them will be
included in a later study of that mood.
Here
it may be sufficient to point out that they sometimes occur with
an introductory o!ra or o!rate, as in classical and parallel to intro-
ductory words with hortatory
and deliberative subjunctives. The
prohibition is introduced by mh< or one of its
compounds.
Emphatic Future Negation
The sense of this construction is clear; the
most emphatic way to
say that something shall not happen in the future
is to use ou]
mh< with
the subjunctive mood. But it is not so clear by
what process this
construction arose, nor why it means
what it does. The subjunctive
does not naturally express such certainty, and the
doubling of the
simple negative might seem to make an affirmative, but
the case is
not so simple. The grammarians review the theories
with varying
conclusions.11 I prefer to think of it as a form of litotes;
i.e., the
second negative (mh<) negates the
subjunctive verb and together they
express a doubtful idea; the first negative (ou]) negates the doubtful
clause introduced by mh<. As a whole the clause
communicates that
"there is no doubt about it; it is not an uncertain
matter."
The first negative in two instances is a
strengthened form of ou]
(ou]xi<, Luke
ou]de< (Luke
This category of subjunctive use is not limited
to the independent
or main clause classification. It may appear
anywhere an indicative
might appear, in o!ti substantive clauses
(11), in relative clauses (9), or
in object clauses (1). In Mark 13:2 it occurs both
in the main clause
and in the subordinate relative clause.
9 Robertson, Grammar, 841.
10 There are 8 aorist imperatives with mh< as compared with 88
subjunctives. One is
in Matt 6:3; the other 7 are in 3 parallel
passages of the synoptic gospels, Matt 24: 17-
18
= Mark
11 Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 929; J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, vol. I of A Gram-
mar of NT Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906) 188ff.
BOYER: THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 7
Not strictly within the present scope of study
but closely related
to a major item to be dealt with later is the
occurrence of this con-
struction with the future
indicative instead of the subjunctive.12
Doubtful Assertion or
Cautious Statement
Is the subjunctive ever used in the New Testament
to express
doubtful assertion--what we express in English by
"I may do it"? It
would seem to be a natural sense; but the answer is
not clear. Classical
Greek
grammars speak of such a use; for example, "the present sub-
junctive with mh< may express a doubtful
assertion, with mh<
ou] a
doubtful negation."13 Turner says
it is "rare in the NT" and cites
three possible examples. Matt 25:9 has a variant
reading mh<pote ou]k
a]rke<s^ which then could be
read 'Perhaps there might not be suf-
ficient for us and you'. The
edited text has instead the ou]
mh< + sub-
junctive construction, 'No,
there will not be enough for us and you
too'. The second example is 1 Thess
5:15 which seems most naturally
to be a simple prohibitive subjunctive, 'See that
no one repays another
with evil for evil'. If it is indeed a subjunctive
of cautious statement
the meaning might be, 'Look, someone might repay
with evil', a
rather unlikely choice. The third example is 2 Tim
difficult sentence: mh<pote dw<^ au]toi?j o[ qeo>j meta<noian / 'if perhaps
God
may grant them repentance'. This translation in NASB could be
proper for a subjunctive of cautious statement, but NASB marginal
note points to Acts
structure is entirely different. Turner translates
the phrase 'perhaps
God
will give'. BAGD makes it elliptical, involving an imbedded
deliberative question: '(seeing)
whether God may perhaps grant'.15 At
any rate, this may possibly be the only example of
a subjunctive of
doubtful assertion in the NT.
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN DEPENDENT
CLAUSES
By far the more frequent use of the subjunctive
mood is in de-
pendent or subordinate clauses.16
12 There are 13 examples: Matt 15:6;
John
provide more.
13 H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges (
le is Book Co., 1916) 297.
14 Turner, Syntax, 98.
15 BAGD,519.
16 81.5%, or 1513 instances
to 344 in "main verb" clauses. Even this is not an
accurate representation, for as I have shown
above in dealing with the independent
8
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
In Final (Purpose/
Result) Clauses
The largest group of dependent subjunctives is
found in final
clauses those expressing purpose or result, or,
as they are referred to
in some grammars, telic or ecbatic.17
One example is Rom
de>
pareish?lqen i!na pleona<s^ to> para<ptwma
/ 'And the Law came
in that the transgression might increase'. These
clauses are introduced
by a variety of conjunctive expressions: i!na (405), i!na mh< (91), i!na
mhde< (l), i!na mhdei<j (2), i!na mh<pote
(1) (total with i!na 500); mh< (3),
mh<
pwj (5), mh<pote
(25) (total with mh< 33); o!pwj (33), o!pwj
a@n (5),
o!pwj
mh< (3) (total with o!pwj 41). These are all
consistent with older
Greek
usage, except that the i!na clause is greatly
extended because it
so often serves as a paraphrasis
for the infinitive,18 and o!pwj has lost
ground.
The same lack of distinction between purpose and
result is to be
seen in these clauses as with the infinitives of
purpose,19 though in
most cases the context makes the sense clear. The
vast majority are
true purpose clauses (97%). There are four examples
where the sense
clearly seems to be result,20 one of
which is especially difficult to
understand if it expresses purpose: John 9:2: [Rabbi<, ti<j h!marten, . . .
i!na
tuflo>j gennhq^?; / 'Rabbi, who sinned.
. . that he should be born
blind?' In 12 instances21 I have
considered the matter undecided, al-
though I would lean toward their being result. The
list of those cases
which are not clearly purpose or result could be
greatly expanded.
Another parallel with the infinitive of purpose
is the frequent use
of these subordinate purpose clauses after
intransitive verbs of motion,
and almost without exception the same verbs are
involved (a]nabai<nw,
katabai<nw and e@rxomai and its compounds). Also transitive verbs
(like
a]poste<llw
and pe<mpw)
use the subjunctive purpose clause and
the infinitive of purpose interchangeably.
In Substantival
or Noun Clauses
These noun clauses will be treated next because
they are closely;
related to the final clauses--they are not
second in frequency of
uses, many of them were found within subordinate clauses,
particularly in the delibera-
tive where the question is
being quoted indirectly and in emphatic negation which may
appear in any clause.
17 38%, or 574 of 1513.
18 BDF, 196-202.
19 Cf. my article, "The Classification
of Infinitives: A Statistical Study," GTJ
6
(1985)
10-12.
20 John 9:2; 1 Cor
21 Matt
2
Thess 3:14; and 2 Tim 1:4.
BOYER: THE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJUNCTIVES 9
occurrence.22 Indeed, they are
identical with the final clauses in form,
using the same conjunctive phrases and the same
subjunctive mood.
Until
NT Greek was recognized as a part of Koine
Hellenistic Greek
rather than of older, classical Greek, grammarians and
commentators
went to great pains to insist that these must be
interpreted as telic.
Now
they are recognized as a legitimate idiom of the language of that
time and are treated separately.
The following conjunctive phrases are used in
these nominal
clauses: i!na (198), i!na
mh< (15), i!na
mhdei<j (2) (total with i!na 215); mh<
(16),
mh< pou
(1), mh< pwj
(4), mh<pote
(3) (total with mh< 24); o!pwj (14).
Like
the final clauses from which they were derived, these nominal
clauses most frequently function in places where
infinitives could have
been used.
As
Subject
There are 19 subjunctives in subject nominal
clauses. Ten are
subjects of an impersonal verb (sumfe<rei
[9] or lusitelei? [1]), as in
John
16:7: sumfe<rei u[mi?n
i!na e]gw> a]pe<lqw / 'it is to your advantage
that I go away'. Four are subjects of the copulative
verb e]sti<n
(whether
expressed [3] or understood [1]), as in Matt
t&?
maqht^? i{na ge<nhtai
w[j o[ dida<skaloj au]tou? / 'It is enough for the
disciple that he become as his teacher'. Five are
subjects of a passive
verb (di<dwmi
[2], gra<fw
[2], or zhte<w [1], as in 1 Cor 4:2: zhtei?tai
e]n
toi?j
oi]kono<moij i!na pisto<j
tij eu[req^? / 'It is required of
stewards
that one be found trustworthy'. Elsewhere the
infinitive is used com-
monly.
As
Object
A very large number of subjunctives appear in
clauses which
function as the object of a verb. These will be
classified according to
the different types of verbs which have these
clauses as objects.
Robertson
says that these clauses are "found with verbs of striving,
beseeching, commanding, fearing.”23 I
will follow that pattern, but
supplement it by calling attention to the close
parallels with object
infinitives.
With Verbs of Striving. The first category includes verbs which
express effort to bring about an action ('to
attempt', 'to accomplish',
'to
cause', 'to plan', etc.), as in John
h[me<raj e]bouleu<santo i!na a]poktei<nwsin au]to<n / 'So from that day
22 There are 251 instances (17%), making
them fourth in frequency.
23 Robertson, Grammar, 991.
10
GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
on they planned together to kill Him'. There are
28 which use a i!na
clause as object: poie<w* ('to cause', 7), e[toima<zw (3), ti<qhmi ('to
appoint',
3), a]gallia<w (2), a]ggareu<w (2), bouleu<w (2), diati<qhmi (2),
and zhte<w* (I); (total 28).
Compare this group with the second
category of complementary infinitives. Those
marked with the asterisk
also use the infinitive object (three more [listed
below] have cognates
which use the infinitive).
With Verbs of Wishing. qe<lw is the only verb of
wishing which
uses the i!na clause as object, e.g., I Cor
14:5: qe<lw de> pa<ntaj u[ma?j
lalei?n
glw<ssaij, ma?llon de> i!na profhteu<hte
/ 'Now I wish that
you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you
would prophesy'.
qe<lw is used this way 8
times; there are 3 elliptical constructions in
which qe<lw
probably should be supplied. This usage is parallel to my
first category of complementary infinitives which includes