Ben C Smith

What?!

I think all cards were on the table several posts ago.

Cheers.

Ben.

spin

Ben C, I think your cards were on the table before you joined the thread.


spin

Ben C Smith

Maybe, but they were still face down.

Ben.

spin

Forget about the delimiting prepositional phrase... no?

The "and" must mean that 4:13 must be after 4:12... no?

The aorists mean that it must be as I said at the beginning... no?

Explanations must follow as I say they should be... no?

Face down? ...Mixing your own metaphor.


spin

ynquirer

spin’s theory on the interpretation of καὶ at the beginning of Mt 4:13 asserts that καὶ - which usually means ‘and’ or ‘then’ – in that particular spot must be interpreted as a colon ( : ). Accordingly, Mt 4:12-13 would not be

• Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee, and leaving Nazara he went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali,

as the Revised Standard Version says, but

• Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee: leaving Nazara he went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali,

In the first sentence, Jesus leaves Nazara subsequently to arriving in Galilee; in the second, leaving Nazara and moving to Capernaum is local detail for the withdrawal into Galilee. The first sentence is translation according to the general usage; the second, according to an epexegetical, that is, explanatory use of καὶ. If the first translation is accurate, Nazara is inside Galilee; if the second holds, Nazara is outside Galilee. That is the topic of this thread, isn’t it?

The sole problem for an explanatory καὶ rests with two aorists ruling the sentences in v.12 and v.13. Aorist is a special tense in Greek. Its normal use is in narrative speech, like “he awoke, got up, took a shower and (=καὶ) had breakfast.” This is how the tense usually works. Nevertheless, spin has instanced an example from the gospel of Matthew that allegedly supports his theory. The RSV says:

According to the alleged epexegetical use of καὶ the text would say:

• And he was transfigured before them: his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light.

This makes sense in English, truth to be told. Yet, the issue is not whether or not it makes sense in English, but whether or not it makes sense in Greek. There are a lot more instances of καὶ in Matthew, and many of them are in reference to connecting two aorist tenses, much like 4:12-13 and 17:2. And yet 17:2 is the sole one in which spin has found epexegesis to sound plausible in English. I think the linguistic debate has reached a deadlock. Still, there is another approach to the issue.

The word for ‘transfigured’ in Mat 17:2 is μετεμορφώθη, from the verb μεταμορφόομαι, ‘to go through a transformation’. The verb, however, is not a common one. Actually, there is no occurrence of μεταμορφόομαι in the whole Septuagint. Furthermore, it occurs only four times in the NT. These are Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:2, Romans 12:2, and 2 Corinthians 3:18.

Mk 9:2 is part of the same transfiguration pericope as Mt 17:2: it belongs in the Marcan material admittedly quoted by Matthew. Thus, Mark is scarcely useful to understand the meaning of μεταμορφόομαι. The clue is in Paul, whom Mark admittedly used as a source.

Obviously enough, both from Romans and Second Corinthians μεταμορφόομαι is to endure a spiritual transformation. More specifically, it is a transformation caused by “the renewal of one’s mind,” one that changes somebody “into the Lord’s likeness.”

Therefore, μεταμορφόομαι in Mt 17:2 cannot be fully explained by depicting Jesus’ face turned radiant like the sun and his garments looking white like the light. For a narrow-minded materialist such sensual manifestations are the complete metamorphosis. Yet, both the writer of Mark and that of Matthew were strong spiritualists. Neither one might accept that such visual effects were the whole content of the so-called transfiguration. Those effects were a limited, minor part of the transfiguration that the disciples witnessing the scene could perceive through their senses.

The only reading of Mt 17:2 according to the context in which it was written therefore is that Jesus first endures a spiritual change into the Lord’s likeness. A spiritual change of this description is not necessarily perceived through the senses. Although this change is said to have occurred before two disciples, there is certainly no indication that they perceived it. Then, the spiritual change enables Jesus’ face to become radiant like the sun, and this begins the series of effects of transfiguration perceivable by the disciples. Next, it is Jesus’ whole body that throws light so that his garments look white as light itself. Finally, Jesus in his Lord-like, spiritual majesty summons Moses and Elijah to come from the dead to attend a meeting witnessed by the disciples (Mt 17:3).

All this makes a standard case of narrative use of aorist. No epexegesis, I’m afraid. Spin’s theory remains – how does he say? – fact free.