BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

The Usage of Negatives in the New Testament

sermonindex Jul 12, 2003

This Is Appendix 105 From The Companion Bible. There are two principal negatives used in the New Testament, all others being combinations of one or other of these with other particles. I - ou (before a vowel ouk ; before an aspirated vowel ouch) = no, not; expressing full and direct negation, independently and absolutely; not depending on any condition expressed or implied. (a) ouchi, a strengthened form, often used in questions. II- me = no, not; expressing conditional negation, depending on feeling, or on some idea, conception, or hypothesis. Hence, ou is objective. me is subjective. ou denies a matter of fact. me denies a matter of feeling. ou denies absolutely. me denies conditionally. ou negatives an affirmation. me negatives a supposition, and prohibits or forbids. ou is generally used with the Indicative Mood. me with the other moods of the verb. For the difference, see John 3:18 : "He that believeth on Him is not (ou) condemned : but he that believeth not (me, supposing such a case) is condemned already, because he hath not (me) believed (according to the supposition made)". See also Matthew 22:29 : "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures". Had the negative here been "ou" it would imply the fact that they did not know, because of not possessing them. But it is "me", implying the feeling; they did not wish to know. The same distinctions apply to all the compounds of ou and me respectively. III- ou me. The two negatives when combined lose their distinctive meanings, and form the strongest and most emphatic asseveration; but, solemn and strong as it is, whenever it was used by a human being the result always belied it, and the speaker never made it good :- Matthew 16:22. Peter said, "This shall not be unto Thee". (But it was) Matthew 26:35. Peter said, "I will not deny Thee". (But he did) John 11:56. Some said, "What think ye, that He will not come to the feast?" (But He did) John 13:8. Peter said, "Thou shalt never wash my feet". (But He did) John 20:25. Thomas said, "Except I shall see ... I will not believe". (But he did) 2. On the other hand, when the Lord used this solemn asservation it was always absolutely true, and was, or will yet be made good. It is variously rendered, as a simple negative (as above); no, not, by no means, in no wise, or in no case, &c. This expression was used by our Lord on forty-six separate occasions (omitting the parallel passages, which are placed within brackets), adding three (Matthew 25:9. Luke 8:17, and John 16:7), and omitting two (Matthew 24:2 and Luke 22:34), with the critical texts. They are as follows, and are all worthy of the closest attention (see Matthew 5:18; 16:28; 24:34. John 6:37; &c.). Matthew 5:18, 20, 26; 10:23, 42; 13:14, 14; 15:6; 16:28 (Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27); 18:3 (Luke 18:17); 23:39; 24:2, 2 (omitted by all, but retained in Mark 13:2), 21, 34 (Mark 13:30. Luke 21:32), 35 (Mark 13:31. Luke 21:33); 25:9 (added by all); 26:29 (Mark 14:25. Luke 22:18). Mark 9:41; 13:2, 2 (omitted in Matthew 24:2, retained here); 16:18. Luke 6:37, 37; 8:-17 (added by most); 10:19; 12:59; 13:35; 18:7, 30; 21:18; 22:16, 34 (omitted by all, retained in John 13:38), 67, 68. John 4:14, 48; 6:35, 35, 37; 8:12, 51, 52; 10:5, 28; 11:26; 13:38 (omitted in Luke 22:34, but retained here); 16:7 (added by some). 3. The expression ou me is used once by an angel (Luke 1:15). 4. Fourteen times by Paul : three in Acts (13:41; 28:26, 26), and eleven times in his Epistles (Romans 4:8. 1 Corinthians 8:13. Galatians 4:30; 5:16. 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 5:3. Hebrews 8:11, 12; 10:17; 13:5, 5). 5. Twice by Peter (1 Peter 2:6. 2 Peter 1:10). 6. Sixteen times in the Apocalypse (one being added in all the critical texts, 9:6) : Revelation 2:11; 3:3, 5, 12; 9:6; 15:4; 18:7, 14, 21, 22, 22, 22, 23, 23; 21:25, 27. The occurrences are thus eighty-four in all (twelve sevens). See Appendix 10.

sermonindex Jul 12, 2003

See also Matthew 22:29 : "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures". Had the negative here been "ou" it would imply the fact that they did not know, because of not possessing them. But it is "me", implying the feeling; they did not wish to know. I think this is an profound and very simple example of the use of negatives in the scriptures. ou - matter of factme - matter of feelingMatthew 22:29 (NIV)"Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not(me) know the scriptures or the power of God."So the Sadducees Jesus was talking to knew the scriptures as words that were obvious. Obvious to the unspiritual and non-believing scholar. But he was stating that they did really not know the scriptures and had unwilligness to know the TRUE spiritual interpretation.as bullinger says: "Had the negative here been "ou" it would imply the fact that they did not know, because of not possessing them. But it is "me", implying the feeling; they did not wish to know."do you really want to know the scriptures? to become more like Jesus and grow in the grace of God or are you seeking knoweldge and knoweldge alone. It's like what Jesus said: "You diligently study the scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life"

J
Jason Jul 12, 2003

generally, mh (or "me"; it's an eta not an epsilon) is used with the Subjunctive or Optative moods, which reflect "would," "may," or "might." Here it is used with the active participle, but I would think it suggests the same kind of meaning.It could then be taken as "you go astray [because] you [would] not know the writings or the power of God." If it were an optative participle, it would be a slam dunk. Since it is active, it is a bit less emphatic in that direction, but the possibility to take it that way seems to be there.

P
philologos Jul 25, 2003

Hi AllThought I might just pass on a cautionary word regarding E W Bullinger and the Companion Bible. Bullinger was an amazing man with an encyclopaedic knowledge on all kinds of subjects but he had a tendency to be super-precise and rigid in his interpretations. I don't think any modern scholars would agree with the precision with which he distinguishes 'ou' and 'mE'. It would be safer to see the use of both negatives as the NT Greek idiomatic way of emphasis. In English a double negative results in a positive; 'we do not have no bananas', would technically mean 'we have some bananas'. In NT Greek the effect is to concentrate the force of the negative. Modern translations often use the form 'by no means' or that wonderful modern phrase 'no way'. (Heb does a similar thing with "Holy of Holies, King of kings, Songs of songs.." meaning the ultimate one)The famous Heb 13:5 has 5 negatives built into the sentence. Literally it reads something like "no, never, thee I will leave, neither no, never, thee I will forsake." The hymnwriter captured the sense ..that soul, though all hell should endeavour to shake, I'll never, no, never, no, never, forsake. (5x) Makes you feel pretty safe, doesn't it?His/YoursRon Bailey

sermonindex Jul 25, 2003

Thought I might just pass on a cautionary word regarding E W Bullinger and the Companion Bible. Thanks for you comments and guidance Ron! :-D I am just finding it benefical to go through alot of the scripture parrels he sets up. But I do understand that he is not perfect on all of his interpretations. I am going to God willing post more of his appendixs and helps to stimulate some wholesome conversations about the scriptures. Please feel free to help out and benefit!

P
philologos Jul 28, 2003

Thanks GregI am taking up your invite to visit the forums as frequently as possible. If you ever feel it is too frequent!! please let me know. ;-)His/YoursRon

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 6 posts