Re: Matt 17:18 EPETIMHSEN AUTWi

From: Revcraigh (Revcraigh@aol.com)
Date: Wed Jan 28 1998 - 18:29:19 EST


In a message dated 1/25/98 3:31:30 PM, you wrote:

<< I think this an old chestnut so if it is in the b-greek
        archives my apologies (I don't have Internet access at
        home).

16 KAI OUK HDUNHQHSAN AUTON QERAPEUSAI.
17 APOKRIQEIS DE hO IHSOUS EIPEN hW GENEA APISTOS KAI DIESTRAMMENH, hEWS
POTE MEQ hUMWN ESOMAI hEWS POTE ANEXOMAI hUMWN : FERETE MOI AUTON hWDE.
18 KAI EPETIMHSEN AUTWi hO IHSOUS KAI EXHLQEN AP AUTOU TO DAIMONION KAI
EQERAPEUQH hO PAIS APO THS hWRAS EKEINHS.

        Noting that there is some confusion in the Vulgate readings
        for EPETIMHSEN AUTWi (increpavit eum/illum/ei) what is the
        antecedent of AUTWi here? On the one hand both AUTON before
        and AUTOU after mean the moonstruck boy. Yet the verb sounds
        very odd "rebuking" the victim of the demon (and without NT
        precedent that I can see). What rules for untangling pronoun
        antecedents can one apply here?>>

Smythe says: (#925, 3 & #1020) "An adjective agrees with its substantive in
gender, number, and case." Fine. But what if, as here, the gender of the
pronoun is ambiguous (AUTWi could be dat. masc. or dat. neut. sing.)? We have
two possibilities: the boy (masc. sing.) or the demon (neut. sing.), although
it seems unusual that a pronoun should refer forward to the first mention of
its substantive.

I found a note in The Expositor's Greek New Testament (v.1, p. 232 at this
verse)"The AUTWi after EPETIMHSEN naturally refers to the demon. This
reference to an as yet unmentioned subject Weiss explains by the influence of
Mk." (although the author doesn't explain this further. I assume he is
referring to the parallel passage, Mk 9: 14-29, but I looked there and really
can't figure out what influence that passage would have upon Mt placing a
pronoun before its agreeing substantive).

Anyway, when an adj. may refer to more than one substantive, untangling them
can be quite a job. Sometimes only the context can really tell you which is
which. Of course, in order to rebuke (or reprove, censure, speak seriously or
warn) the demon, Jesus had to direct the rebuke to the boy whom the demon
inhabited, so perhaps it isn't necessary to decide whether AUTWi refers to the
boy or to the demon; at the point that Jesus rebukes, the two are, as it were,
indistinguishable.

        ----------------------------------------------------------

<< On a related subject (sneaking two questions into the same
        email!) it also strikes me as odd to use EPITAMAW in Luke
        4:39 (case of Peter's mother in law). This suggests one
        of two mutually exclusive conclusions:
        (a) fevers had ears in 1st Century Galilee
        (b) EPITAMAW means substantially less than English "rebuke">>

My BAG (sub EPITIMAW p. 303) gives the following alternative translations
reprove, censure, speak seriously, warn and punish, non of which seem
particularly apropriate actions to direct at a fever. One possibility presents
itself: namely, that fevers might have been thought to be caused by demons and
so Jesus was really rebuking the demon causing the fever. The problem with
this is that Luke makes no mention of a demon causing the fever, nor does he
mention a demon leaving the woman so that the fever left her. Another
concideration is that Jesus rebukes the wind and waves (using the same verb in
Lk 8: 24). Aparently, whether seen as demonic or not, Luke sees some power at
work within wind, waves, and even a fever which Jesus appropriately rebukes in
order to change the prevailing conditions.

Unfortunately, I'm just speculating here. Perhaps some others, more
knowledgeable will respond here.

God Bless,
Rev. Craig R. Harmon, pastor
Lutheran Church of the Apostles
5100 W. 115th Street
Alsip, IL 60803



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:00 EDT