Re: EIPE LOGWi Matt. and Luke (English?)

Daniel Ria得 (danielrr@mad.servicom.es)
Fri, 28 Nov 1997 03:05:27 +0100

John M. Moe wrote:
>I am still wondering why the Dative LOGWi is used in both Mat. and Luke,
>where we would expect the accusative
....
>In the account of the healing of the centurion's servant, the centurion
>requests "EIPE LOGWi" (Mat. 8:8, Luke 7:7). Mary Grosvenor calls this
>a "cognate dative" and directs the reader to Max Zerwick's grammar where
>he says. "This <<internal>> or <<cognate>> dative (so called because the
>noun has the same root as the verb), although it is not entirely foreign
>to classical usage, e.g. FUGH FEUGEIN, GAMWi GAMEIN, nevertheless
>clearly rests in the NT on a Semitic basis." (Zerwick, p. 21)"
>
>If this is influenced by the Hebrew absolute infinitive as Zerwick
>indicates I would think that so common a notion as speaking a speech
>would show up in LXX translation. The only occurrence which I can find
>of a form of LEGW with LOGWi OR LOGOIS in Biblical literature is in this
>one account of the words of the centurion in his request for healing of
>the servant. This, along with the context, leads me to ask if this is
>not a dative of means, highlighting the point of the centurion's
>illustration of the authority of his own word. I.e. it is by
>Jesus' word, that he expects his servant to be healed. EIPE LOGWi KAI
>hIAQHSETAI (hIAQHTW Luke) "Say by word?" "Say with a word?" I'm afraid
>I can't put in clear, normal English what I think is being said here.

>2. Any comments on what use of the dative this is, or how I have
>massacred it?

This use of the dative case seems to me very interesting, specially
when (you think that) the passage is not dealt with neither in Fitzmyer or
Lagrange commentaries, nor in Blass& Debrunner&Funk, Hoffmann &Siebenthal
grammars or in Turner's Syntax.
In my opinion, the label "dative internus seu cognatus" (used by
Zerwick) is particularly unfortunate: IMHO "internus" is a label that
should be properly used only with direct complement constructions. Among
the different "internal direct complements" it is very common the "figura
etymologica" or "*sch=ma e)tumologiko/n*". Such "figura etymologica"
appears as well in not CD-constructions, like for instance: *ga/mw|
gehamhkw\s th\n e)mh\n mhte/ra* Demosth.39.26; or external CD constructions
(cf. Kieckers, E. (1912): "Zum Accusativus limitationis in Griechischen."
IF 30, p. 361), but in such cases it is better to retain the term "figure",
that preserves the idea of a figure of style, not a grammatical construction
The function of *lo/gw|* with the imperative mood (in the sense
"ordering") in "Eu.Luc."7.7 is clearly an instrumental one (dative of
"modo" says Eseverri Hualde, Crisstomo. 1963. "El griego de San Lucas."
Pamplona. ad loc). But the construction does not seem to belong to
Classical Greek, unless I am mistaken. The "semitist" interpretation is a
possible one, but the explanation that relates it to Latin is not to be
abandoned:

Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>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.

The expression, (ablative) is effectively Latin, cf.:
"quin tu uno verbo dic quid est quod me velis" Terenc."And." 45.
If one wants to translate this expression (with the ablative) in Greek one
should employ the dative with instrumental force. Is it possible that the
centurio expressed himself in Latin, and his words be translated this way?
The comments of an expert in the sociology of the roman army will be of
great help.
Valete.

___________________________________________________________________
Daniel Rian~o Rufilanchas
c. Santa Engracia 52, 7 dcha.
28010-Madrid
Espan~a
e-mail: danielrr@mad.servicom.es