[B-Greek] Mat 8:4
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Jun 20 14:22:58 EDT 2005
Mike, I suggest you look at BDAG hORAW B.2. to be alert or on guard,
pay attention see to it that foll. by MH and the aor. subj. It really
is a standard usage: "Be careful not to ..." or "See to it that X not
happen."
On Jun 20, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Mike Sangrey wrote:
> 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."
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at ioa.com or cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list