[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