[B-Greek] Matthew 26:64 συ ειπας

Vasile STANCU stancu at mail.dnttm.ro
Sat Oct 24 02:58:31 EDT 2009


It seems to me that we make efforts defining the meaning of certain Greek idioms particularly when there is no immediate equivalent in English or when a similar construction in English conveys meanings/conotations that do not fit the Greek context. But how about other languages? There happens to be similar idioms in Romanian language, therefore I had personally never felt any difficulty with σὺ εἶπας before  the question was raised here. We say in Romanian something like „It is you who said it”, „You’ve just said it”, or „As you say” meaning something like „You’ve just said it: there is no need for me to explain it to you or add anything to it; having said it, it is clear that you fully understand the matter”. Of course, the need to define the idiom in English still remains, but similar idioms in languages that are still currently spoken may be useful witnesses in this respect.

 

Vasile Stancu

 

-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Cornell Machiavelli
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:51 AM
To: Elizabeth Kline
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Matthew 26:64 συ ειπας

 

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. 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?

 

 Sincerely,

 

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.

 

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]

 

 

      

---

B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek

B-Greek mailing list

B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org

http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek




More information about the B-Greek mailing list