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.
What is the force of ἐκράτησαν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς in this verse?
Most English translations seem to go with "they kept the matter to themselves". Others say things like "they seized upon that statement" (NASB), "they obeyed that order" (Good News), "they treasured this remark" (Phillips), one idiomatic German translation says something like "they couldn't let go of what Jesus said".
What is the force of ἐκράτησαν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς in this verse?
Most English translations seem to go with "they kept the matter to themselves". Others say things like "they seized upon that statement" (NASB), "they obeyed that order" (Good News), "they treasured this remark" (Phillips), one idiomatic German translation says something like "they couldn't let go of what Jesus said".
What is the meaning of κρατέω in this phrase?
Good question. The verb means essentially "get a grip on, seize control of." BDAG s.v. κρατέω:
6. to adhere strongly to, hold
c. keep to oneself a saying, in order to occupy oneself w. it later Mk 9:10.
I don't much like any of the versions you've cited; it seems to me that the fundamental content here is that "they clung to" this saying of Jesus; perhaps there is a negative overtone: "They did NOT forget what Jesus said." The phrase πρὸς ἑαυτούς clearly links with their inquiry about resurrection, so there's a sense that Jesus' statement was provocative to them, raised serious questions in their minds. Maybe that German version comes closest, after all.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Jonathan Robie wrote:What is the meaning of κρατέω in this phrase?
Jonathan,
The Greek text is ambiguous as reflected by the different translations, some of which relate τὸν λόγον to Jesus' command not to relate the matter to anyone and some to the saying of Jesus about his rising from the dead. Do you think it better for a translation to leave the meaning ambiguous rather than interpret it? I have a translation that renders it "they took the word to heart." This seems to me to reflect the ambiguity of the text.
Thanks for the interesting question. I hope my comments add to the discussion rather than detract.
Jonathan Robie wrote:... one idiomatic German translation says something like "they couldn't let go of what Jesus said".
What is the meaning of κρατέω in this phrase?
The phrase πρὸς ἑαυτούς clearly links with their inquiry about resurrection, so there's a sense that Jesus' statement was provocative to them, raised serious questions in their minds. Maybe that German version comes closest, after all.
That certainly fits the context, since it leads directly to this συζητοῦντες τί ἐστιν τὸ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι.
Scott Lawson wrote:I have a translation that renders it "they took the word to heart." This seems to me to reflect the ambiguity of the text.
Thanks for the interesting question. I hope my comments add to the discussion rather than detract.
Thats good, thanks!
I would suggest that τὸν λόγον refers back to ἃ εἶδον, what they saw. Logos does not have to mean "word" but can refer to what happened, so a word like "matter" is fine with me. They retained the information about what had happened among themselves, they held onto it, at least until after Jesus had been resurrected. The idea is shortened by GNB: "They obeyed his order", but is essentially correct in terms of conveying the meaning. They obeyed him by not telling anyone. Instead they discussed the other part of his statement. What did Jesus mean by saying that he was going to be resurrected from the dead? Like other devout Jews they expected a resurrection for all at the end of the age, but was this what Jesus meant? Or maybe another and imminent resurrection? If he was going to die, how could he then be the Messiah? Maybe he was not the Messiah after all, since Elijah had not come back?