[B-Greek] Mat 8:4
Mike Sangrey
MSangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Mon Jun 20 08:49:13 EDT 2005
I'm primarily interested in the last three words, but the text is:
LEGEI AUTWi hO IHSOUS, hORA MHDENI EIPHiS
hORA MHDENI EIPHiS is typically understood as Jesus telling the now
healed leper that the leper is not to tell anyone that Jesus did the
healing. I find that odd since Matthew doesn't develop it at all. That
is, as far as the discourse goes, it's extraneous information.
So, I'm wondering if a better way of understanding the text is:
"Understand this: you don't have to speak to anyone." It's softer than
what is normally understood to be said.
In Mat. 26:63 there is a similar use of the second person singular
subjunctive of LEGW:
EXORKIZW SE KATA TOU QEOU TOU ZWNTOS hINA hHMIN EIPHiS EI SU EI
hO CRISTOS hO hUIOS TOU QEOU.
I charge you with an oath under the living God that you have to
tell us if you are the Christ, the son of God.
This is obviously much stronger since EXORKIZW is there and the whole
context is quite intense. However, recognizing the sense of 'potential'
within the subjunctive idea by using 'have to' or 'should' helps with
this text, too.
Some quick observations and background:
* The parallel Markan text is similar but with a rather striking
difference: KAI EMBRIMHSAMENOS AUTWi EUQUS EXEBALEN AUTON, KAI
LEGEI AUTWi, hORA MHDENI MHDEN EIPHiS. Mark appears to
substantially strengthen the prohibition to speak to anyone by
using the word EMBRIMAOMAI which sometimes even has a harsh
connotation. Might Mark be making sure the phrase I'm studying
is not misunderstood by his audience--that is, he is turning off
another interpretation? Also, Jesus uses MHDEIS twice, one
dative and the other accusative. It's like he is saying,
"Understand this: to no one, you should speak to no one."
That's MUCH stronger than the Matthean account. While this
differently worded text fits the Markan account quite nicely, I
question the validity of reading the Markan intent into the
Matthean account where it doesn't fit (not that they aren't the
same event). Interestingly, the ambiguity of the subjunctive
lends itself to both these accounts.
* Leviticus 13 dictates the rules for infectious skin diseases.
Lev. 13:45-46 instructs the diseased person they have to call
out "Unclean! Unclean!". So, a leper HAD to speak to people;
in deed, they had to call out to the community he or she was
prohibited from being part of. Jesus appears to say this
prohibition is no longer necessary.
So, isn't Jesus simply saying that the now non-leper doesn't have to cry
out anymore? In fact, he doesn't even have to talk about it?
As an aside, this fits so well with the Sermon on the Mount that was
just given to the same crowd of people, that I'm surprised this hasn't
been noticed before (at least that I know of). It also fits quite well
with where Matthew is heading--the quote from Isa. 53:4 depicting the
suffering servant who takes on the pain of his people.
--
Mike Sangrey
msangrey AT BlueFeltHat.org
Landisburg, Pa.
"The first one last wins."
"A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list