[B-Greek] Mat 8:4
Mike Sangrey
MSangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Mon Jun 20 13:03:32 EDT 2005
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 09:46 -0400, BARRY HOFSTETTER wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Sangrey" <MSangrey at BlueFeltHat.org>
>
> > 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.
>
> Mike, I think you are making this more complicated than it has to be.
Well, I suppose that's possible; however, I'm asking a very simple
question. The complexity has more to do with the assumptions that are
popularly brought to the text. As I'm sure you're aware, getting those
assumptions off the table is frequently quite difficult. Those
assumptions can't really be talked about here. So, I'm trying to focus
on the Greek.
> What you
> have is the imperative hORA followed by a noun clause in the subjunctive.
Yes, that's true. In fact, that is what generated the question.
> The
> action is "see to it..." the object of the action is "not telling anyone." This
> is simply a way of expressing the negative imperative, and may be translated as
> "See to it that you tell no one" or "Make sure you don't tell anybody..."
I'm not convinced it's typical in the way you say it's typical. Let's
review the other Matthean occurrences of hORAW as imperative followed by
a clause that completes the action.
Mat. 9:30:
ENEBRIMHQH AUTOIS O IHSOUS LEGWN, hORATE MHDEIS GINWSKETW
Very similar expression, but note two significant differences:
1. There's that EMBRIMAOMAI word again which constrains the
interpretation to a stern, almost harsh, tone.
2. GINWSKW is an imperative in this case. It is NOT a
subjunctive. That makes sense to me in this context since Jesus
is not only giving the command, "see that" or "understand this",
but is ALSO issuing the object of the action which is ITSELF a
command. This is not quite what we have in Mat. 8.
Mat. 18:10:
hORATE MH KATAFRONHSHTE hENOS TWN MIKRWN TOUTWN
Again, this is a similar expression. hORAW is imperative and
the completing clause is in the subjunctive. However, this can
very easily be translated with some subjunctive potentiality.
Something like: "Understand that you should not look down on
one of these little ones." Or even, "Understand you do not have
to look down on one of these little ones." I'm not here, nor in
Mat. 8, completely ruling out the voluntative intent of the
speaker, but I am suggesting there's a potentiality to the
subjunctive that needs to be considered. [FWIW: ISTM, the
second suggested translation has a much better rhetorical fit
with the question in vs 12. The force of the paragraph is
something like: "You don't have to be like that; your heavenly
Father isn't."]
Mat. 24:6
hORATE, MH QROEISQE
Again, the clause that completes the hORAW command is ALSO in
the imperative. "Understand this: Don't be alarmed!" And in
Mat. 24:4, immediately before, there's BLEPETE MH TIS hUMAS
PLANHSHi. If this were an imperative, it would have to be in
the passive, wouldn't it? The idea is that we TRY to make sure
this doesn't happen--there's a softened potentiality to it that
the imperative doesn't quite have.
> Your suggestion won't work, I think, because it implies that reporting the
> incident is an option on the part of the leper, and the language just doesn't
> imply that.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Perhaps that's because I
don't see the second verb as imperative. From the perspective of the
leper, not needing to "call out" anymore would have been quite
astounding. Note in this regard, that Jesus brings into the linguistic
frame the Mosaic law, the Torah, in the Mat. 8 account. So, Leviticus
is in scope for the interpretation.
Thanks!
--
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