Re: EIPE LOGWi Matt. and Luke
Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:39:54 -0600
At 3:47 AM -0600 11/27/97, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>George Atlas wrote -
>
>>Brian Wilson stated:
>>If the official was a centurion, however, should we not also be
>>considering whether the phrase might be a Latinism? The Vulgate
>>rendering of EIPE LOGWi in both Mt 8:8 and Lk 7:7 is DIC VERBO
>
>>I thought I'd mention that the centurion was almost certainly not
>>speaking Latin. Latin soldiers from Italia proper were based in
>>Palestine only in Caesarea, and probably at a later date than this
>>event. The centurion, though he may have been a Latin himself, almost
>>definitely spoke in Greek, for his troops would have been Syrian
>>Greeks. And, if the centurion was around for long enough to build a >
>>synagogue, he would have spoken with the local Jewish populace in
>>Greek. I think, therefore, that we can dismiss the possiblity of a
>>Latinism here in this expression.
>
>The language in which the centurion himself actually spoke to Jesus is
>irrelevant, whether Aramaic, Greek, or Mishnaic Hebrew of the kind which
>Professor Flusser considers was the common language spoken by the
>residents of Capernaum at this time. The above SNIP totally cuts out,
>and completely misses the point I made and wrote. Here it is again -
>
>>It would seem, therefore, that in Mt 8:8 and Lk 7:7, LOGWi could be an
>>instrumental dative in Greek reflecting an instrumental ablative in
>>Latin. EIPE LOGWi may be Greek which has been given a deliberate Latin
>>turn of phrase to befit a centurion.
>
>My idea is that when eventually the story of the centurion was written
>in Greek, then, and only then, the writer gave a deliberate turn of
>phrase to befit a centurion. The writer Latinized the wording he
>received, whatever the language in which he received it.
>
>I would suggest that we cannot dismiss the possibility of a Latinism in
>EIPE LOGWi by supposing anything about centurions in Capernaum during
>the ministry of Jesus. Instead, what we need to do is look at the phrase
>itself, and think about that.
>
>In my view, the Greek EIPE LOGWi can be taken to mean the same as the
>Latin DIC VERBO. In this case, EIPE LOGWi could have been a deliberate
>Latin turn of phrase used by the person writing the story in Greek. It
>is just possible, therefore, that LOGWi is an instrumental dative
>reflecting the instrumental ablative VERBO. The phrase in Greek, as in
>Latin, could therefore mean **speak a word of command**. This is the
>translation of the Vulgate given by Monsignor Knox in both Mt 8:8 and Lk
>7:7, and would be my translation of the Greek EIPE LOGWi. I would be
>pleased to read anyone else's positive thinking on what the phrase
>itself means.
Upon checking a Latin dictionary, I do find a passage in Terence, _Andria_
1.1.18, "quin tu uno verbo dic, quid est quod me velis" -- "Tell me what
you want in one word", i.e. don't give me a long-winded explanation. I do
not find any indication that this is an ordinary idiom or that it is a
special usage in military units or among officers of the Roman army. In
sum, I just don't believe that the explanation of EIPE LOGWi via a Latin
locution is viable.
I would quite expect the Greek EIPE LOGWi to be translated into Latin with
DIC VERBO, but I really doubt that the Greek is to be explained by Latin
idiom appropriate to a centurion. I still think that a Semitism is the most
likely explanation for the construction; would it not, if the phrase EIPE
LOGWi KAI IAQHTW in Lk 7:7 and its parallel in Mt were a
construct-infinitive construction originally in Hebrew (I know very little
Hebrew, I'll confess, and less Aramaic, which is to say none at all, but I
can speculate as well as any of 'em!) mean something like "Say it loud and
clear and (the child) must be healed"? That is to say, the Semitic
construction would be adequate to indicate that the utterance requested of
Jesus by the centurion is authoritative.
It appears to me that every explanation that has been offered for the
phrase EIPE LOGWi is speculative, so that if we are to go any further we
could only seek to determine which speculation is more probable. I'm not
sure just how profitable a game that is!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/