Junya wrote:
I saw in the dictionary me^pote has a meaning as a conjunction, lest ever, then I wondered how this kind of accumulation of negatives (me^pote oude as lest...not) should work. (I think, after the words meaning lest, oude would be just pleonastic.)
How do you think about that ?
Junya,
This is not an easy task. μήποτε οὐδὲ appears to be an idiom of later greek. μήποτε alone or followed by other negative particles, for example μήποτε οὐ μὴ can be understood as suggesting contingency "perhaps" which we can see in Matthew 25:9
Matt. 25:9 ἀπεκρίθησαν δὲ αἱ φρόνιμοι λέγουσαι· μήποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν· πορεύεσθε μᾶλλον πρὸς τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράσατε ἑαυταῖς.
Matt. 25:9 But the wise replied, ‘Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’
Another example from Origen's Commentary on Matthew
Origenes Theol., Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei (lib. 10–11) (2042: 029)
“Origène. Commentaire sur l'évangile selon Matthieu, vol. 1”, Ed. Girod, R.
Paris: Cerf, 1970; Sources chrétiennes 162.
Book 10, section 4, line 9
Τὰς μὲν προτέρας παραβολὰς τοῖς ὄχλοις εἶπε· ταύτην
δὲ καὶ τὰς ἑξῆς αὐτῆς δύο, οὐ παραβολὰς ἀλλ' ὁμοιώσεις
πρὸς τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείαν τυγχανούσας, ἔοικεν ἐν τῇ
οἰκίᾳ γενόμενος πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἰρηκέναι· περὶ ἧς ὁ
προσέχων τῇ ἀναγνώσει
ἐξεταζέτω καὶ τῶν ἑξῆς δύο μήποτε
οὐδὲ παραβολαί εἰσιν· ἐπ' ἐκείνων μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὤκνησεν
ἡ γραφὴ καθ' ἑκάστην προτάσσειν τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παραβολῆς,
ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων τὸ αὐτὸ οὐ πεποίηκεν.
The former parables He spoke to the multitudes; but this and the two which follow it, which are not parables but similitudes in relation to the kingdom of heaven, He seems to have spoken to the disciples when in the house. In regard to this and the next two, let him who gives heed to reading 1 Timothy 4:13
inquire whether they are parables at all. In the case of the latter the Scripture does not hesitate to attach in each case the name of parable; but in the present case it has not done so;
Clearly we are not dealing with "double negatives" here and it appears to be something more subtle than empathic negation. Situating your text in the history of the language is a project somewhat beyond my scope. Thank you for raising an interesting question.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. Stirling Bartholomew