xli. 11. For ἀντίδικος cf. also 1 Pet. v. 8. xlv. 23. The difficulty of εἰ μήν, which is somewhat hastily dismissed
in my note, is that if ‘if,’ the meaning of the clause is the opposite
of what is wanted, and of what is given by εἰ μὴ or ἦ μήν. Moreover,
μὴν does not seem to be used with εἰ conditional (or interrogative) in
classical authors or in Ν.T. The MSS. often show disagreement. The
latest view is to consider εἷ μὴν a variety of ἦ μὴν; Blass, in his N.T.
Grammar (Mr ’s translation) prints εἴ μήν, and so does Prof.
Moulton, whose words (p. 46) are: “The complete establishment of
εἴ μὴν by the papyri is an interesting confirmation of the best uncials.
Despite Hort (p. 151) we must make the difference between εἶ μήν and
ἦ μήν strictly orthographical after all, if the alternative is to suppose
any connection with εἰ, if.” I should. upon this view, which
almost certainly the right one, have said that εἷ μὴν “is hardly possible’

 
(am-pt as an equivalent to ἦ μήν: and this, as written in the days of
our Mss. or their predecessors, and almost back to the days of the
Alexandrian translators, it apparently was. hii. 5. Α reads ἐμαλακίσθη, but on general principles the reading of
the great body of MSS., μεμαλάκισται, must be preferred. We then have
a perf. and an aorist in parallel clauses. Above, in ver. 2, there are
ἔστιν and εἶχον, then the perf. ἀπέστραπται (Cf. Josh. v. 5, ἀνέστραπται),
two presents in ver. 4, and the rest of the surrounding verbs are
aorists. The parallel aorist and perfect can also be seen at x. 7
ἐνεθυμήθη...λ.ελόγισται, where possibly each tense has something of its
own force, but contrast ἐλογίσθησαν, ν. 28, Χλ. [7; xxi. 9, πέπτωκεν...
συνετρίβησαν, cf. ἔπεσεν, Rev. xiv. 8, xviii. 2; xlv. 19, Λελάληκα...εἶπα
In xlviii. 16 the text has variants: lvii. 18, ἑὠρακα...ἰασάμην, lix. 14, 15
ἀπιστήαμεν...ἀφέστηκεν, ἦρται...μετέστησαν; lxi. I, ἔχρισεν...ἀπέσταλκεν.
Also with temporal or causal connecting particles, ix. 4
xiv. 8, xl. 2; cf. xxiii. 1, xxviii. 7, xlviii. 10. On this subject see Moulton, N.T. Grammar, Vol. 1. pp. 140146
Mozley, Psalter of the Church, p. 148. I return to the subject below,
Grammatical Note, § 6; meantime I venture on the provisional
opinion that, where each tense has not its own proper force, some
approximation or overlapping takes place: the perfect approaching the
aorist in meaning, but that aorist itself having in the Lxx. a somewhat
extended force, which renders the approach easier. In x. 7, λελόγισται
might be passive and impersonal (l have not however translated it so)
which seems to help the proper sense of the perfect. lvii. 15, 16. It seems to me (and l have endeavoured to punctuate
so as to make this sense not impossible) that here, according to the
won, the meaning is somewhat like Exod. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 5-7,
Lord proclaiming His own attributes, and His words beginning at
Ἄγιος ἐν ἁγίοις, or even at ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς.