5

In Vulgate:

Dico autem vobis : non bibam amodo de hoc genimine vitis usque in diem illum, cum illud bibam vobiscum novum in regno Patris mei.
https://www.bible.com/bible/823/MAT.26.29

So, is "bibam" here future indicative or present subjunctive? It refers to future, but the New International Version translates it using present:

I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
https://www.bible.com/bible/111/MAT.26.29.NIV

Improve this question
5
  • 3
    This looks like a peculiarity of English grammar: the present tense has future meaning in the construction "until the time when subject verb."
    – Ben Kovitz
    Commented May 4 at 14:01
  • @BenKovitz OK, but does the same peculiarity exist in Latin?
    – FlatAssembler
    Commented May 4 at 14:25
  • 5
    In the Greek, the corresponding verbs for bibam are πίω (aorist subjunctive) and πίνω (present subjunctive). But I think it's really hard to read the first bibam as anything but future in the Latin.
    – brianpck
    Commented May 4 at 14:31
  • 1
    @brianpck What is aorist?
    – FlatAssembler
    Commented May 5 at 11:57
  • 2
    @FlatAssembler It doesn't correspond exactly to any Latin or English tense, but it's used for a discrete, complete action (as opposed to a habitual one). Here, for instance, the nuance might be "I do not drink (once)" until "I drink it with you (habitually)."
    – brianpck
    Commented May 5 at 12:33

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

It is future tense. The second clause is an independent clause.

In English, although it is translated just as "drink" it should be construed as action taking place in the future. In other words, you could just as well translate it as "... that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom." and it has exactly the same meaning. It just sounds redundant to render it that way in English.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    I think you're right, but it might be worth saying why. At this point it's just an assertion...and I'm not really sure why you say the "second clause" (the one beginning with cum?) is "independent." Aren't all cum clauses subordinate/dependent?
    – brianpck
    Commented May 7 at 15:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.