[B-Greek] Narrative economy in Mt 1:18 hEUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Fri Feb 3 17:41:25 EST 2006


Let's start over on this matter, inasmuch as it appears that I've  
done an abysmal job of making clear what I think is important about  
understanding and also about conveying in a target language what is  
actually stated in Matthew's Greek formulation of 1:18. I am only  
concerned with the phrasing of 1:18, hEUREQH EN GASTRI ECOUSA EK  
PNEUMATOS hAGIOU, but I think that clause does indeed need to be set  
in the context of 1:18b and 1L19-20. So let me cite the whole sequence:

1:18 TOU DE IHSOU CRISTOU hH GENESIS hOUTWS HN. MNHSTEUQEISHS THS  
MHTROS AUTOU MARIAS TWi IWSHF, PRIN H SUNELQEIN AUTOUS hEUREQH EN  
GASTRI ECOUSA EK PNEUMATOS hAGIOU. 19 IWSHF DE hO ANHR AUTHS, DIKAIOS  
WN KAI MH QELWN AUTHN DEIGMATISAI, EBOULHQH LAQRAi APOLUSAI AUTHN. 20  
TAUTA DE AUTOU ENQUMHQENTOS IDOU AGGELOS KURIOU KAT' ONAR EFANH AUTWi  
LEGWN: IWSHF hUIOS DAUID, MH FOBHQHiS PARALABEIN MARIAN THN GUNAIKA  
SOU; TO GAR EN AUTHi GENNHQEN EK PNEUMATOS ESTIN hAGIOU.

Now the reason I originally raised the issue of the phrasing of Mt  
1:18 and in particular of the verb-form hEUREQH is (a) I am convinced  
that this is an instance of a -QH- aorist that is not really passive  
but rather the aorist form of the middle hEURISKOMAI, and (b) it  
seems reasonably clear that hEURISKOMAI is a distinct idiom in NT  
Greek, very like derivative from the Hebrew NiMTSa' and not unlikely  
to bear a meaning very close to French 'se trouver' and German 'sich  
finden', which verbs bear the sense "become." I don't fancy that I've  
won over all my readers to my point of view about this, but some seem  
to think I might be right about it. In particular, I've suggested  
that hEURISKOMAI is quite similar to GINOMAI when used with a  
predicate expression, the synonymous sense being something more or  
less like "get to be." But I've suggested that there's a nuance of  
difference between GINOMAI and hEURISKOMAI in that the latter seems  
in some instances, perhaps with regularity, to imply unexpected or  
extraordinary "getting to be" -- "turning out to be" or "showing up  
as" -- and there are probably other ways to convey this notion that  
may be even more appropriate. Moreover, although I was at first  
reluctant, I have come to agree that "find oneself" is a perfectly  
good English idiom and may very well do justice to NT usage of the  
Greek idiom hEURISKOMAI in most instances.

In later messages in the thread, however, another consideration has  
come to the fore that goes beyond anything that concerned me  
initially, and that is what is IMPLIED by this hEUREQH EN GASTRI  
ECOUSA EK PNEUMATOS hAGIOU with respect to hEUREQH in particular:  
does the verb mean that Mary's pregnancy became public knowledge?  If  
hEUREQH is understood as a real passive, "it was found out that she  
was pregnant ... " or "she was found out to be pregnant ... ," then  
precisely WHO found her out?

To that question, it seems to me, the answer really is a simple one:  
a passive is used commonly, especially when no agent is indicated,  
PRECISELY TO AVOID giving any hints about the agent. So if it's  
passive (or if hEUREQH is understood as impersonal) then the sense is  
"it became known."

And this is where I have objected to others -- specifically Webb  
Mealy -- wanting to spell out what the evangelist, in my judgment,  
has DELIBERATELY NOT spelled out: to WHOM did Mary's pregnancy by the  
Holy Spirit become known? It seems to me we can speculate at length  
here:

(1) Was the protruding belly a tell-tale sign for some who observed  
it? Matthew doesn't tell us, and it hardly seems likely (to me, at  
least) that any such observers would automatically draw the  
conclusion: "God must have done that!"

  (2) Did Mary come to realize it herself? From what the evangelist  
tells us, she'd had no sexual contact with her fiancé, so she must  
have had some sense that it was neither an accident nor a biological  
anomaly; we're not told that she'd had any prior revelation, so might  
it have been her surmise that "God must have done this?" That's  
certainly more plausible than speculation #1, BUT the evangelist  
doesn't tell us that this was Mary's realization -- at least,  not if  
we understand hEUREQH as a passive in the sense, "it became known."  
It makes much more sense if we understand hEUREQH not as a passive  
but as a middle, "she came to the realization that she was pregnant  
by the Holy Spirit."

(3) Another suggestion made is that Mary and Joseph BOTH came to the  
realization that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit, this being  
another way of understanding hEUREQH as a passive or impersonal verb.  
My objection to this suggestion is first and foremost that the  
evangelist doesn't make any such suggestion himself, but in addition,  
I find it hard to believe that Joseph, once having come to awareness  
that the Holy Spirit was the "efficient cause" of this pregnancy,  
would then require a special revelation to overcome his resolve to  
dissolve the engagement quietly.

(4) Others have sought to resolve the problems of the Greek verb and  
this whole narrative by comparing notes with Luke's birth-of-Jesus  
narrative; if one's concern is harmonization of the gospels, that's  
okay, but it's not, I think, appropriate here. I'm not concerned at  
all with what actually happened and whether Matthew's account of what  
happened can be squared with Luke's account, not because I'm  
particularly skeptical about the historicity of either account but  
rather because the issue that concerns me is HOW Matthew tells this  
story. I think there is a wonderful narrative economy in the text of  
Mt 1:18-20: the evangelist tells the reader/listener (remember that  
this was meant to be heard, not scanned by a silent reader!) exactly  
what he wants the listener to hear and no more. Here's my English  
paraphrase wherein I endeavor to add nothing that is not clearly set  
forth in the Greek text:

	"This is how Jesus Christ was born. His mother Mary and Joseph were  
engaged to be married but had not yet consummated their marriage when  
it came to light (or "she realized")  that she was pregnant by the  
Holy Spirit. And Joseph, her husband-to-be, since he was a Law- 
observant man and didn't intend to subject her to scandal, decided he  
would quietly dissolve the marriage arrangement. That's what he had  
in mind, but in a dream the angel of the Lord appeared to him and  
said, 'Joseph ben David, don't be afraid to accept Mary as your wife:  
what she's conceived comes from the Holy Spirit.' "

I really would prefer "she realized" for hEUREQH here, on grounds  
that she's the only one who could reasonably suspect that the seed  
sown in her came from the Holy Spirit. Clearly she must have told  
Joseph, probably even told him that SHE was sure that this was the  
Holy Spirit's doing, but from the sparse narrative of the evangelist  
it would appear that he surely had his doubts about that and only a  
special revelation could overcome them.

What really impresses me is the economy of Matthew's narrative. It is  
sparse in details, but the details it offers are quite sufficient.  
They don't require supplementation by speculation about what the  
evangelist DID NOT SAY but MIGHT HAVE MEANT OR IMPLIED.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list