404 Andrew S. Malone evaluate the admissibility or inadmissibility of the future subjunctive but, if we do permit it, it is also incumbent upon textual critics to consider the extent to which a scribe might have embraced or avoided such in preference to other constructions. All things considered, it seems that there is something plausible about the future subjunctive, despite the dramatic claims against it and the subsequent movement towards “boast”. 3. Fresh Contributions on the Future Subjunctive On this point, New Testament scholars have found the work of Chrys Caragounis to be persuasive (18). It is important to recognize that his original 1995 SEÅ article has been revised, although it may be overlooked in its unannounced position in the closing stages of a thicker and more technical monograph (19). Of similar significance is the research of Nick Nicholas, an analyst with the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae project (20). It should be drawn to New Testament scholars’ attention for several reasons. First, it is even more recent and detailed than Caragounis’s study. Second, the titles of both article and journal (which emphasize Byzantine use) belie its relevance to the question at hand and it may not otherwise be investigated. Third, while Nicholas has worked independently of Caragounis and emphasizes a substantially different corpus, his conclusions closely and effectively corroborate the arguments Caragounis has developed. A précis here is appropriate for those without access to Byzantinische Zeitschrift or the opportunity to examine leisurely all 40 pages of Nicholas’s detailed analysis. Nicholas explores the idea that, semantically, the aorist subjunctive (and present subjunctive) already expressed a future sense, explaining why Classical Greek had never previously developed a formal future subjunctive. He also adds some morphological factors justifying this lacuna. Like Caragounis, Nicholas confirms the progressive displacement of the future indicative by the aorist subjunctive. Where Caragounis relies principally upon the insights of Jannaris’s grammar (1897), Nicholas adds support from many other nineteenth- and twentieth-century grammarians, along with the second- century observations of Apollonius Dyscolus. Both Caragounis and Nicholas (along with other works like BDF) are alert to the contribution and potential confusion of phonological similarities, as per the omai/wmai endings at stake in 1 Cor 13,3. These observations obviously remain important for the passage at hand. Nicholas confirms that “the existence of a future subjunctive is not the absurdity some commentators have claimed” (21). His concern is with the semantic and morphological factors that shaped its evolution prior to its prevalence in Byzantine times. Consequently, he affirms the same (18) E.g. R.F. COLLINS, First Corinthians (SP 7; Collegeville, PA 1999) 476-477; GARLAND, 1 Corinthians, 628. (19) CARAGOUNIS, Development of Greek, 547-564. Note also a 2006 corrected reprint. (20) N. NICHOLAS, “The Passive Future Subjunctive in Byzantine Texts”, ByzZ 101 (2008) 89-131. (21) NICHOLAS, “Passive Future Subjunctive”, 94.