[B-Greek] Matthew 26:64 συ ειπας

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Fri Oct 23 17:15:29 EDT 2009


On Oct 22, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Cornell Machiavelli wrote:

> How would we understand συ ειπας here? Does the use of  
> πλην shortly thereafter help us determine the contrast between  
> the answer (first clause) and the following clause? In fact, why the  
> use of PLHN here?

the text again

Matt. 26:63 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐσιώπα. καὶ ὁ  
ἀρχιερεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἐξορκίζω σε  
κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἵνα ἡμῖν  
εἴπῃς εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς  
τοῦ θεοῦ.  64 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς·  
σὺ εἶπας. πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν· ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι  
ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου  
καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως  
καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ  
οὐρανοῦ.  65 τότε ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς  
διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ λέγων·  
ἐβλασφήμησεν· τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν  
μαρτύρων; ἴδε νῦν ἠκούσατε τὴν  
βλασφημίαν·  66 τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; οἱ δὲ  
ἀποκριθέντες εἶπαν· ἔνοχος θανάτου  
ἐστίν..
.
MATT. 26:63 hO DE IHSOUS ESIWPA. KAI hO ARCIEREUS EIPEN AUTWi·  
EXORKIZW SE KATA TOU QEOU TOU ZWNTOS hINA hHMIN EIPHiS EI SU EI hO  
CRISTOS hO hUIOS TOU QEOU. 64 LEGEI AUTWi hO IHSOUS· SU EIPAS. PLHN  
LEGW hUMIN· AP᾿ ARTI OYESQE TON hUION TOU ANQRWPOU KAQHMENON EK  
DEXIWN THS DUNAMEWS KAI ERCOMENON EPI TWN NEFELWN TOU OURANOU. 65 TOTE  
hO ARCIEREUS DIERRHXEN TA hIMATIA AUTOU LEGWN· EBLASFHMHSEN· TI ETI  
CREIAN ECOMEN MARTURWN; IDE NUN HKOUSATE THN BLASFHMIAN· 66 TI hUMIN  
DOKEI; hOI DE APOKRIQENTES EIPAN· ENOCOS QANATOU ESTIN.
.

The search of TLG-E seems to indicate that SU EIPAS in answer to a  
question was NOT an established greek idiom. I appears to function in  
the passion narratives as a means for throwing a question back at  
questioner without giving a definite answer. The particle PLHN is used  
to sweep aside the question without further comment on it and refocus  
on some other issue. It probably implies here that the framing of the  
question and assumptions of hO ARCIEREUS made either a yes or no  
response unacceptable because the question itself was imbedded a  
complex set of assumptions (cognitive framework) which Jesus didn't  
accept. The particle PLHN does not always imply a simple negation of  
previous statement.
.
65 TOTE hO ARCIEREUS DIERRHXEN TA hIMATIA AUTOU LEGWN· EBLASFHMHSEN·  
TI ETI CREIAN ECOMEN MARTURWN; IDE NUN HKOUSATE THN BLASFHMIAN
.
The response of hO ARCIEREUS to Jesus answer does not tell us at what  
point in Jesus reply the EBLASFHMHSEN occurred. It seems highly  
probable that the EBLASFHMHSEN charge was focused on the words after  
PLHN, specifically KAQHMENON EK DEXIWN THS DUNAMEWS KAI ERCOMENON EPI  
TWN NEFELWN TOU OURANOU. For a detailed discussion of this see D.Bock  
[2000 p200].

The commentaries I checked, R.T.France (Matt, 2007),  A.Plummer (Matt.  
1909?), L.Morris (Matt. 1992) all agreed that SU EIPAS is ambiguous.

Elizabeth Kline

[1] Bock, Darrell L. Blasphemy and exaltation in Judaism and the final  
examination of Jesus : a philological-historical study of the key  
Jewish themes impacting Mark 14:61-64 / Darrell L. Bock. Tübingen :  
Mohr Siebeck, c1998. xiv, 285 p. ; 24 cm. ISBN 3-16-147052-4 [Baker  
Academic  2000 reprint]





More information about the B-Greek mailing list