Matt. 23:39 ἕως ἂν εἴπητε

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Matt. 23:39 ἕως ἂν εἴπητε

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Matt. 23:39 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μή με ἴδητε ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι ἕως ἂν εἴπητε· εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου.

R.T. France (NICNT Matthew 2007 p885, n11, n12) thinks the grammar here gives no grounds for wishful thinking about the prospect of conditional ἕως ἂν εἴπητε … ever being fulfilled. I don't understand how the syntax would lead him to conclude that the condition is improbable. The negation in the previous clause οὐ μή με ἴδητε doesn't impact the probability of ἕως ἂν εἴπητε … does it? France seems to suggest it does without making it perfectly clear. It would seem that the probability is simply left open.

Matt. 10:11 εἰς ἣν δ᾿ ἂν πόλιν ἢ κώμην εἰσέλθητε, ἐξετάσατε τίς ἐν αὐτῇ ἄξιός ἐστιν· κἀκεῖ μείνατε ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθητε.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Matt. 23:39 ἕως ἂν εἴπητε

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I don't have France's commentary available and it's hard to evaluate what he's saying without an exact quote. (In fact, your second sentence doesn't follow logically from the first, so something is missing.) Can you quote him if it's not too long?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: Matt. 23:39 ἕως ἂν εἴπητε

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

Stephen Carlson wrote:I don't have France's commentary available and it's hard to evaluate what he's saying without an exact quote. (In fact, your second sentence doesn't follow logically from the first, so something is missing.) Can you quote him if it's not too long?
R.T. France wrote wrote:They will not see him again until they welcome him, but the indefinite phrasing of the second clause(11) gives no assurance that such a welcome will ever be forthcoming.(12) Jesus will tell the Sanhedrin that "from now on" they will "see" the Son of Man vindicated and enthroned (26:64), but there is no sug-gestion there that they will welcome him even then as the one who comes in the Lord's name. The discussion as to whether Matthew, like Paul in Rom 11:1-32, holds out any hope for the future repentance and return of Israel thus finds no material in this saying.(13) Its spells out the condition on which Jerusalem may be restored to a relationship with its Messiah, but it gives no indication as to whether or not that condition will ever be met.(14) For the present, the dissociation is final.(15)
…..
11. ἕως ἄν with the subjunctive makes this in effect what grammarians call an un-real condition: if you were to do this, you would see me, but whether you will do so re-mains unknown. For the grammatical point see D. C. Allison, JSNT 18 (1983) 78-79. It is remarkable that so many interpreters can find a positive prediction in what is in fact an emphatically negative prediction (06 IA with subjunctive) with only an indefinite possibil-ity Mac av) set against it.

12. This point seems to have been missed by G. R. Beasley-Murray, Kingdom, 305-7, and by many other commentators, who argue rightly that the acclamation indicates a real welcome but assume wrongly that the saying predicts that such an acclamation will in fact be forthcoming. Cf. G. N. Stanton, Gospel, 248-50, who finds here, following the OT prophetic pattern of sin—exile—return, "a declaration of a 'return' and salvation." Sadly, it "declares" nothing of the sort.
[ R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, pg 885]

13. So D. E. Garland, Intention, 204-9. I would take issue, however, with his as-sumptions ( 1) that the saying refers to the parousia (see n. 15) and (2) that the acclama-tion (which Garland, like those mentioned in the previous note, apparently takes to be firmly predicted) is of Jesus as judge by an unrepentant Israel, not as saving Messiah (see n. 10).

14. See my Matthew: Evangelist, 237-38, in agreement with D. C. Allison, JSNT 18 (1983) 75-84. Similarly J. A. Gibbs, Jerusalem, 124-25.

15. Interpreters sometimes take this saying as referring to Jesus' parousia, when, It is supposed, Israel will repent and welcome him as Lord when they see him returning. But there is nothing in either the wording or the context to suggest a parousia reference. Some would connect this saying with the prediction in 24:30 that Israel will mourn when they "see the Son of Man coming," but I shall argue there that that prediction relates not to the parousia but to the destruction of the temple. The messianic welcome (not mourning) poken of here is the condition for "seeing" him, not the result of it.
885
How do you do superscript in BBCode?
γράφω μαθεῖν
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: Matt. 23:39 ἕως ἂν εἴπητε

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

..oops, missed a couple of Greek words in footnote 11 ...
France / fn 11 wrote:11. ἕως ἄν with the subjunctive makes this in effect what grammarians call an un-real condition: if you were to do this, you would see me, but whether you will do so re-mains unknown. For the grammatical point see D. C. Allison, JSNT 18 (1983) 78-79. It is remarkable that so many interpreters can find a positive prediction in what is in fact an emphatically negative prediction (οὐ μή with subjunctive) with only an indefinite possibility ἕως ἄν) set against it.
γράφω μαθεῖν
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Matt. 23:39 ἕως ἂν εἴπητε

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Thomas Dolhanty wrote:
R.T. France wrote wrote:They will not see him again until they welcome him, but the indefinite phrasing of the second clause(11) gives no assurance that such a welcome will ever be forthcoming.(12) Jesus will tell the Sanhedrin that "from now on" they will "see" the Son of Man vindicated and enthroned (26:64), but there is no suggestion there that they will welcome him even then as the one who comes in the Lord's name. The discussion as to whether Matthew, like Paul in Rom 11:1-32, holds out any hope for the future repentance and return of Israel thus finds no material in this saying.(13) Its spells out the condition on which Jerusalem may be restored to a relationship with its Messiah, but it gives no indication as to whether or not that condition will ever be met.(14) For the present, the dissociation is final.(15)
…..
11. ἕως ἄν with the subjunctive makes this in effect what grammarians call an un-real condition: if you were to do this, you would see me, but whether you will do so re-mains unknown. For the grammatical point see D. C. Allison, JSNT 18 (1983) 78-79. It is remarkable that so many interpreters can find a positive prediction in what is in fact an emphatically negative prediction (06 IA with subjunctive) with only an indefinite possibility Mac av) set against it.

12. This point seems to have been missed by G. R. Beasley-Murray, Kingdom, 305-7, and by many other commentators, who argue rightly that the acclamation indicates a real welcome but assume wrongly that the saying predicts that such an acclamation will in fact be forthcoming. Cf. G. N. Stanton, Gospel, 248-50, who finds here, following the OT prophetic pattern of sin—exile—return, "a declaration of a 'return' and salvation." Sadly, it "declares" nothing of the sort.
[ R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, pg 885]

13. So D. E. Garland, Intention, 204-9. I would take issue, however, with his assumptions ( 1) that the saying refers to the parousia (see n. 15) and (2) that the acclamation (which Garland, like those mentioned in the previous note, apparently takes to be firmly predicted) is of Jesus as judge by an unrepentant Israel, not as saving Messiah (see n. 10).

14. See my Matthew: Evangelist, 237-38, in agreement with D. C. Allison, JSNT 18 (1983) 75-84. Similarly J. A. Gibbs, Jerusalem, 124-25.

15. Interpreters sometimes take this saying as referring to Jesus' parousia, when, It is supposed, Israel will repent and welcome him as Lord when they see him returning. But there is nothing in either the wording or the context to suggest a parousia reference. Some would connect this saying with the prediction in 24:30 that Israel will mourn when they "see the Son of Man coming," but I shall argue there that that prediction relates not to the parousia but to the destruction of the temple. The messianic welcome (not mourning) spoken of here is the condition for "seeing" him, not the result of it.
885

Thank you Thomas,

I highlighted the statement that confuses me. It sounds like France is making a dubious exegetical move here but I am not sure. Why would the emphatic negative have any bearing on the probability of the conditional statement? I don't understand that.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Matt. 23:39 ἕως ἂν εἴπητε

Post by Stephen Carlson »

R.T. France wrote wrote:11. ἕως ἄν with the subjunctive makes this in effect what grammarians call an un-real condition: if you were to do this, you would see me, but whether you will do so re-mains unknown. For the grammatical point see D. C. Allison, JSNT 18 (1983) 78-79. It is remarkable that so many interpreters can find a positive prediction in what is in fact an emphatically negative prediction (06 IA with subjunctive) with only an indefinite possibility Mac av) set against it.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:I highlighted the statement that confuses me. It sounds like France is making a dubious exegetical move here but I am not sure. Why would the emphatic negative have any bearing on the probability of the conditional statement? I don't understand that.
I think he's confounding semantics and syntax. He doesn't think that the positive prediction that other commentators infers follows from the syntax of the negative one, but it sounds as if he thinks the prediction itself means that it won't happen. I don't think he really meant that though.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: Matt. 23:39 ἕως ἂν εἴπητε

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

R.T. France wrote:11. ἕως ἄν with the subjunctive makes this in effect what grammarians call an un-real condition: if you were to do this, you would see me, but whether you will do so re-mains unknown. For the grammatical point see D. C. Allison, JSNT 18 (1983) 78-79. It is remarkable that so many interpreters can find a positive prediction in what is in fact an emphatically negative prediction (ἕως ἄν with subjunctive) with only an indefinite possibility οὐ μη) set against it.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:I highlighted the statement that confuses me. It sounds like France is making a dubious exegetical move here but I am not sure. Why would the emphatic negative have any bearing on the probability of the conditional statement? I don't understand that.
I agree with you. The whole comment seems ill-considered. Firstly, he seems to suggest that "ἕως ἄν" implies 'if it happens, but whether it happens or not is unknown (unlikely?)'. However, that is not consistent with either the typical NT or LXX use of that phrase with the subjunctive. At least not as far as I can tell. It has a way more positive force in most instances than France is suggesting.

Secondly, and I agree with you again, what difference does it make how strong the negative is? I think one could as easily argue that a strong negative increases the possibility that the event will happen (in the sense of a solemn warning), but arguing from the 'οὐ μη' either way makes it look like one is reaching way too far.
γράφω μαθεῖν
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”