[B-Greek] Matthew 26:64 συ ειπας

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Oct 23 19:13:34 EDT 2009


On Oct 23, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Cornell Machiavelli wrote:

> Elizabeth,
>
> You wrote:
>
> "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.

Are we talking about SU LEGEIS/EIPAS in response to a question? You  
say, "not just in the passion section," but where else -- outside the  
passion narratives -- do you find it in response to a question? I  
haven't seen it anywhere at all other than in the passion narratives.

> 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?

I was under the impression that this is exactly what Elizabeth was  
doing.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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.
>
> 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