[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