[B-Greek] Fwd: Matt 4:3//Lk. 4:3

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Apr 30 21:19:50 EDT 2008


I hadn't realized that Jeffrey had sent his message to the list as  
well as to me, so I'll now send my reply on to the list.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
> Date: April 30, 2008 7:35:50 PM EDT
> To: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Matt 4:3//Lk. 4:3
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>
>> Carl Conrad wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>>>
>>>> What evidence may be put forward to support the claim that  
>>>> GENWNTAI in
>>>> Matt. 4:3//Lk. 4:3 means 'be made', not 'become', and  that the  
>>>> hINA
>>>> found there  is "ecbatic" or eventual?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Has any commentator/grammarian ever argued that these words are  
>>>> to be
>>>> taken this way in Matt. 4:3//Lk. 4:3?
>>>
>>> I can't tell you a thing about what commentators say, but it seems  
>>> to me that this is really pretty straightforward:
>>>
>>> Mt 4:3 καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ πειράζων  
>>> εἶπεν αὐτῷ· εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ,  
>>> εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι  
>>> γένωνται. [KAI PROSELQWN hO PEIRAZWN EIPEN AUTWi: EI hUIOS  
>>> EI TOU QEOU, EIPE hINA hOI LIQOI hOUTOI ARTOI GENWNTAI]
>>> Lk 4:3 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ διάβολος· εἰ  
>>> υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὲ τῷ λίθῳ  
>>> τούτῳ ἵνα γένηται ἄρτος. [EIPEN DE AUTWi  
>>> hO DIABOLOS: EI hUIOS EI TOU QEOU, EIPE TWI LIQWi TOUTWi hINA  
>>> GENHTAI ARTOS]
>>>
>>> I'd argue that the imperative EIPE in both sentences has the sense  
>>> of "give the order" and that the hINA clauses are in both  
>>> sentences to be understood as substantive clauses with hINA  
>>> GENWNTAI/GENHTAI more or less equivalent to infinitive: "Tell  
>>> these stones to turn into loaves of bread" and "Tell this stone to  
>>> turn into a loaf of bread."
>
>>> Hmm.  I wonder if that makes sense in the context, given Jesus'  
>>> quotation of Deut. 8:3 as his answer, what with its conjuring up  
>>> the ideas expounded in that text of the Son's absolute covenantal  
>>> right to have God produce 'bread' him.and the question of whether  
>>> or not it is correct for the Son/Israel, when under hardship,  
>>> especially the hardship of 'hunger', to then demand that God  
>>> fulfill his obligations in this matter . Why would Jesus use a  
>>> text which speaks, even if only by implication, of the necessity  
>>> of not acting as Israel had acted in demanding a miraculous  
>>> dispensation of bread from God unless he had been petitioned to do  
>>> so?
>
> Quite frankly, I think you're looking at the text which Jesus cites  
> here as a modern exegete does in terms of its own original context.  
> I really don't think that's particularly common with NT citations,  
> especially in the gospels, but rather that the cited snippets are  
> taken as meaningful in and of themselves. Do you think that the  
> prophetic texts which Matthew claims were fulfilled are being  
> interpreted in terms of their original OT contexts?
>
>>
>> I also note some interesting evidence in Matt. 20:21, Lk. 9:45, and  
>> Matt. 27:39-43
>>
>> In Matt. 20:21 is Jesus is petitioned, just as he is in Matt. 4:3// 
>> Lk. 4:3 (but this time by the mother of James and John, the sons of  
>> Zebedee, cf. v. 20) to utter a command (EIPE) which, once uttered,  
>> is expected to result in something happening and that here.  Note  
>> not only that, as in Matt. 4:3//Lk. 4:3, the description of what is  
>> to be brought about as a result of the command (in this case, James  
>> and John granted pride of place in the kingdom Jesus is expected to  
>> inherit) is also couched in an analytical construction with  hINA,  
>> but that  the presupposition behind the petition in Matt 20:21 is  
>> not that Jesus has powers of his own to grant what is asked of him,  
>> but that, given his status as 'Son of the Living God' (cf. Matt  
>> 16:16), he can give a command that will (must?) be honoured by God.
>>
>> Luke 9:45 also contains a petition to Jesus from the sons of  
>> Zebedee to be allowed to make the command that would allow 'fire  
>> from heaven' to come down on certain villages of Samaria and this  
>> petition is, like Matt 20:21, not only cast in a construction  
>> similar to that of Satan's/the devil's petition in Matt. 4:3//Lk.  
>> 4:3 (though without hINA and it also carries with it the idea 'that  
>> the command requested could only be accomplished though the power  
>> of God' .
>
> The original of the Mt and Lk passages to which you refer is Mk  
> 10:35-40, where James and John ask Jesus for these positions as  
> something he should "give" them. He answers that it is not his to  
> give -- but it's pretty clear that the request is put to Jesus by  
> James and John with the view that it does lie within his authority.
> In Mt 20:21 the Marcan text has clearly been adapted, but not very  
> carefully: the mother puts the request: εἰπὲ ἵνα  
> καθίσωσιν οὗτοι οἱ δύο υἱοί μου  
> εἷς ἐκ δεξιῶν σου καὶ εἷς ἐξ  
> εὐωνύμων σου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου.  
> [EIPE hINA KAQISWSIN hOUTOI hOI DUO hUIOI MOU hEIS EK DEXIWN SOU KAI  
> hEIS EX EUWNUMWN SOU EN THi BASILEIAi SOU] In verse 22 Jesus  
> questions James and John as if they themselves had put this request,  
> whereupon Mark's format is repeated. So I would understand this  
> text: "Give orders for my two sons to sit one on your right and one  
> on your left in your kingdom."
>
>> Matt 27:39-43 contains a challenge to the crucified Jesus made by  
>> those who 'pass by' and deride him (cf. v. 39) to come down from  
>> his cross which,  given the form and wording of its preface, is  
>> obviously cast and intended by Matthew (cp. Mark 15:29)  
>> specifically to recall the words of the Devil at Matt 4:3.   
>> Notably, as v. 43 (a clear allusion to Wis 2:16-20) reveals, what  
>> the mockers wish to see is not Jesus himself working a miracle of  
>> rescue, but God working one on his behalf:
>>
>>  He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him.
>>
>> So I guess the question I have is while the text of Matt. 4:3//Lk.  
>> 4:3 may certainly be construed as you have done, is there  
>> syntactical or grammatical reason that it could not also bear the  
>> meaning "Give the command (to God) in order that these stones might  
>> be made (by God into) bread"?
>
> I don't think there's any indication of that.
>
>> I note that in his new commentary on Matthew, R.T. France thinks  
>> this is possible if not likely.
>
> I doubt that it is even possible. I think EIPE (often enough with a  
> dative) + hINA clause = "tell him/her to do X"
> Cf. Lk 10:40 (Martha about Mary): εἰπὲ οὖν αὐτῇ  
> ἵνα μοι συναντιλάβηται [EIPE OUN AUTHi hINA MOI  
> SUNANTILABHTAI]. "So tell her to get up and help me!"
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list