[B-Greek] Matthew 26:64 συ ειπας THREAD CLOSED

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Oct 24 10:19:13 EDT 2009


On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cornell Machiavelli" <cornellmachiavelli at yahoo.com>
> To: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
> Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: 24. oktober 2009 01:50
> 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
>
> Why are you saying that "the usages" returns a "yes" answer?
>
> As far as I can see there are 3 cases where Jesus uses this kind of  
> response,
> and it may be helpful to look at them in some detail:
>
> 1. Jesus responds to Judas- Mat 26:25:
> ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς  
> αὐτὸν εἶπεν, Μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ῥαββί;  
> λέγει αὐτῷ,
> Σὺ εἶπας.
> APOKRIQEIS DE IOUDAS HO PARADIDOUS AUTON EIPEN: MHTI EGW EIMI,  
> RABBI? LEGEI
> AUTWi: SU EIPAS!
> (Then Judas, who was the one to betray him, responded and said:  
> Surely, it is
> not me, Teacher? He says to him: Now you have said it yourself!)
> Jesus indicates the deception of Judas by throwing his dishonest  
> question back
> to himself. It is somewhat like a yes, but with various overtones:  
> "Yes, and you
> know it despite your refusal to acknowledge it." Jesus often does  
> not respond
> directly, but in such a way as to make the person think for himself.
>
> This interchange is only in Matthew. Mark left it out when he  
> "edited" Matthew
> for
> his Gentile audience, and Luke has a different summary, possibly  
> from a
> different source. Or he is rephrasing Matt 26:22 at this point.

This judgment as well as those that follow are predicated upon  
hermeneutical and literary-critical assumptions that are not open to  
discussion on B-Greek; some list-members may share them, some may  
differ to a lesser or greater extent from them, but discussion of the  
question at hand on the basis of these assumptions oversteps the  
boundaries of appropriate list discussion.

Let's call a halt to this thread now, please.

Carl W. Conrad
Co-Chair, B-Greek List
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

> 2. Jesus responds to the High Priest:
> Mat 26:63-4: ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ,  
> Ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ  
> ζῶντος ἵνα
> ἡμῖν εἴπῃς εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ  
> υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.  λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ  
> Ἰησοῦς, Σὺ εἶπας·
> πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
> hO ARCIEREUS EIPEN AUTWi: EXORKIZW SE KATA TOU QEOU TOU ZWNTOS hINA  
> hHMIN EIPHiS
> EI SU EI hO CRISTOS hO hUIOS TOU QEOU. LEGEI AUTWi hO IHSOUS: SU  
> EIPAS, PLHN
> LEGW hUMIN...
> (The chief priest said to him: I adjure you by the living God that  
> you tell us
> if you are (what some people say about you): "the Anointed One, the  
> son of God".
> Jesus said to him: Now you have said it yourself, however, I am  
> telling you...
>
> The Chief Priest did not believe that Jesus was truly the Messiah,  
> the Son of
> God. But now that he has said the words, Jesus says: Ok, yes I am in  
> a way, even
> if you don't believe it or acknowledge it, however, not the way you  
> think of the
> Messiah, so let me say some more about myself, the Son of Man...
>
> When Mark "edited" Matthew he simplified the answer to EGW EIMI  
> (14:62).
>
> Luke 23:67-70 has a somewhat different account.
> In v. 67 the Chief Priest asks: "If you are the Anointed One, tell  
> us!" Jesus
> then responds to indicate the unbelief and hypocrisy of the council:  
> "If I tell
> you, you will not believe, and if I ask you an honest question, you  
> will not
> answer." He then talks about being seated at the right hand of God.  
> This sounds
> like blasphemy (since they did not believe it to be true), but the  
> Chief Priest
> wants a more direct answer, so he asks: "So, are you the Son of  
> God?" To this,
> Jesus replies: "You people are the ones saying that I am."
> This is not a clear yes, partly because Jesus is the Messiah and Son  
> of God, but
> not in the way the council thinks of the Messiah. A simple and  
> direct "yes"
> might indicate that Jesus agreed with their perception of the  
> Messiah and their
> accusations.
>
> I see a slight difference between the aorist tense/perfective aspect  
> and the
> present tense/imperfective aspect. The imperfective indicates an  
> incomplete
> answer: "Yes, sort of, but more needs to be said". I would say that  
> aorist EIPON
> plus PLHN is equivalent to present LEGW alone. The fronted SU also  
> indicates a
> contrast between what YOU are saying and how I would frame it.
>
> 3. Jesus responds to Pilate:
>
> Mat 27:11 καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ  
> ἡγεμὼν λέγων, Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν  
> Ἰουδαίων; ὁ
> δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔφη, Σὺ λέγεις.
> KAI EPHRWTHSEN AUTON hO hHGEMWN LEGWN: SU EI hO BASILEUS TWN  
> IOUDAIWN? hO DE
> IHSOUS EFH: SU LEGEIS.
> (And the governor asked him saying: "Are you the king of the Jews?"  
> Jesus said:
> "You are the one saying it.")
> The imperfective aspect indicates a half-yes. In a certain way I am  
> that king
> but not the political king that I am accused of. It was not a clear  
> answer, but
> Pilate understood well enough that he was not claiming to be a  
> political king,
> but some kind of religious figure.
>
> Here Mark 15:2 and Luke 23:3 copy the same imperfective aspect: SU  
> LEGEIS.
>
> What is implicit in the accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke is  
> spelled out in
> great detail in John 18:34-37. I assume that John gives us a better  
> picture of
> what actually transpired, while the Synoptics shortened it a lot.
>
> Iver Larsen
>
> ---
> 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