[B-Greek] Matthew 26:64 συ ειπας
cornellmachiavelli at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 23 18:50:52 EDT 2009
"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."
But the expression SU + LEGW/EIPAS means "yes" in all its usages, not just the passion section. I would say the translation of this unusual idiom might be open for refinement, but all the usages in the GNT (all, if my Accordance is working) of SU + LEGW, when used in a question, returns a "yes" answer. What I'm trying to determine is the 'origin' of this expression. Can anyone do an LXX search or pre-CE Greek literary (or Latin) search? Is the TLG search engine open to the public?
C. Q. Machiavelli
From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: Cornell Machiavelli <cornellmachiavelli at yahoo.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, October 23, 2009 5:15:29 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Matthew 26:64 συ ειπας
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.
 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