At the mountain of Galilee (Mt. 28:16-17)

[Vladimir]

What does really the Greek text tell us about those who were with Christ at the mountain of Galilee? Was there anybody else besides the Eleven?

οἱ δὲ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν εἰς τò ὄρος οὑ̃ ἐτάξατο αὐτοι̃ς ὁ ’Ιησου̃ς καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτòν προσεκύνησαν οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν.

Who was doubtful about whether or not it was Jesus? How is ιτ more correct to translate οἱ δέ: "some" (of them) as many translators did, or "they" i.e. the Eleven themselves (all of them)? Thus, according to the New American Bible:

The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.

What is οἱ here grammatically? May it be a relative pronoun? So far as I understand, most of the translators regard οἱ δέ as if it were preceded by οἱ μέν. Is it really implied in the text?

P.S. According to Theophylact of Ohrid οἱ δέ may mean here just the same as τινές δέ. Is it possible?

[C. S. Bartholomew]

What does really the Greek text tell us about those who were with Christ at the mountain of Galilee? Was there anybody else besides the Eleven?

οἱ δὲ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν εἰς τò ὄρος οὑ̃ ἐτάξατο αὐτοι̃ς ὁ ’Ιησου̃ς καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτòν προσεκύνησαν οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν.

Who was doubtful about whether or not it was Jesus? How is ιτ more correct to translate οἱ δέ: "some" (of them) as many translators did, or "they" i.e. the Eleven themselves (all of them)? Thus, according to the New American Bible:

The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.

What is οἱ here grammatically? May it be a relative pronoun? So far as I understand, most of the translators regard οἱ δέ as if it were preceded by οἱ μέν. Is it really implied in the text?

P.S. According to Theophylact of Ohrid οἱ δέ may mean here just the same as τινές δέ. Is it possible?

RE: οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν Mt. 28:17b


The NT reference grammars are not particularly lucid nor are they speaking with one voice on this. ATR p694 (bottom) calls οἱ δέ in Mt. 28:17b a demonstrative pure and simple without any contrast. ATR doesn't directly address change of subject from preceding sentence leaving the question hanging. On the other hand N.Turner p37 says that in classical greek one would expect a change of subject from the preceding sentence but it isn't perfectly clear if Turner considers Mt. 28:17 an example.

R.T. France[1] suggests οἱ δέ marks a subgroup within the group of disciples citing BDF §250 "what was said first did not apply to all" cf. Matt. 26:67.

Matt. 26:66 τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; οἱ δὲ ἀποκριθέντες εἶπαν· ἔνοχος θανάτου ἐστίν. 67 Τότε ἐνέπτυσαν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκολάφισαν αὐτόν, οἱ δὲ ἐράπισαν 68 λέγοντες· προφήτευσον ἡμῖν, χριστέ, τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε;

France[1] notes further that some scholars read οἱ δέ in Mt. 28:17 as referring to either the previous subject οἱ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ (no contrast) or a separate group apart from οἱ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ.


[1] Matthew NICNT 2007 page 1111, n. 14.

POSTSCRIPT

it appears that BDF §250 considers οἱ δέ in Mt. 28:17 Matt. 26:67 an abbreviated (defective ?) form of what we see in Acts 28:24. ATR p694 (bottom) appears to disagree with this.

Acts 28:24 καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐπείθοντο τοῖς λεγομένοις, οἱ δὲ ἠπίστουν

The standard NT reference grammars are old and written for previous generations. It is not uncommon to have more trouble with exegesis of the grammars than exegesis of the greek text.

[jeidsath]

I think that the contrast is internal to verse 17. Athanasius and Chrysostomus both seem to agree: "οἱ μὲν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν." Also, it would seem to me that the αὐτοῖς in verse 18 couldn't make sense unless all eleven were at the mountain.

Off-topic: Why does the NAB translate ἐτάξατο as "ordered?" Isn't it a reference to the mountain where he "appointed" them apostles? Note that Matthew has forgotten that he trimmed the mountain reference from his retelling of Mark 3:13-19.

[Vladimir]

In his book "Truth in Translation", J. BeDhun, dealing with the meaning of the verb προσκυνέω, cites several translations of the fragment we are talking about:

NAB: The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.
NW: . . . they did obeisance, but some doubted.
NASB: . . . they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
NIV: . . . they worshiped him; but some doubted.
NRSV: . . . they worshiped him; but some doubted.
TEV: . . . they worshiped him, even though some of them doubted.
AB: they fell down and worshiped Him; but some doubted.
LB: . .. worshiped him -- but some of them weren't sure it really was Jesus!
KJV: . . . they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Here all translations except the NW have recourse to "worship" - a rendering which makes no sense in this context. How can someone worship and doubt at the same time? Notice how all eleven disciples prostrate themselves, but not all believe what they are experiencing (actually, the NAB is the only version to correctly translate the Greek "but they doubted"; there is nothing in the Greek from which you could get "some").

How can he be so sure about the meaning of οἱ δέ?

By the way, if the Greek text is somewhat ambiguous here, is it possible to keep that ambiguity in a translation? In that case, the translation would be more adequate, wouldn't it?

[jeidsath]

I imagine that BeDuhn's certainty has the same source as Samuel Johnson's definition of "pastern."

οἱ δἐ as a contrast without οἱ μέν is a very common idiom, and it means "some of them." You see it all the time in Xenophon.

Of course, if Athanasius and Chrysostomus are right (and why wouldn't they be?), it would be "some prostrated themselves, and some hesitated" which is why Jesus was προσελθὼν towards them. Matthew is trying to say that they all stopped still in their tracks, and that Jesus came to them.

[Vladimir]

I imagine that BeDuhn's certainty has the same source as Samuel Johnson's definition of "pastern."

Ignorance, pure ignorance?

οἱ δἐ as a contrast without οἱ μέν is a very common idiom, and it means "some of them." You see it all the time in Xenophon.

Could you cite some examples?

[jeidsath]

Smyth 2838 (b):

οἱ δέ, when opposed to a larger number of persons or things, is often used without οἱ μέν, as προεληλυθότες ἐπὶ χιλόν, οἱ δ’ ἐπι ξύλα having gone for fodder, and some for fuel X. C. 6.3.9.

Although to be fair, apparently it's not as frequent as I thought. I just did a quick scan through the Anabasis, and didn't see any instances of the above. There always seems to be a μέν hanging around.

[Paul Derouda]

Not that I can cite any source, but I have the impression that μέν is comparatively rare in the NT and the pair ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ in the NT belongs to a more elevated, Atticizing style. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Not that I can cite any source, but I have the impression that μέν is comparatively rare in the NT and the pair ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ in the NT belongs to a more elevated, Atticizing style. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Paul,

According to N. Turner (Syntax, p. 331) the pattern ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ is less common in NT than classical but it isn't rare. John doesn't use it. Here are a few samples.

Matt. 25:33 καὶ στήσει τὰ μὲν πρόβατα ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ, τὰ δὲ ἐρίφια ἐξ εὐωνύμων.

Acts 14:4 ἐσχίσθη δὲ τὸ πλῆθος τῆς πόλεως, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἦσαν σὺν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις, οἱ δὲ σὺν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις.

Acts 17:32 Ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν οἱ μὲν ἐχλεύαζον, οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· ἀκουσόμεθά σου περὶ τούτου καὶ πάλιν.

Acts 27:41 περιπεσόντες δὲ εἰς τόπον διθάλασσον ἐπέκειλαν τὴν ναῦν καὶ ἡ μὲν πρῷρα ἐρείσασα ἔμεινεν ἀσάλευτος, ἡ δὲ πρύμνα ἐλύετο ὑπὸ τῆς βίας [τῶν κυμάτων].

Acts 28:24 καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐπείθοντο τοῖς λεγομένοις, οἱ δὲ ἠπίστουν·

Rom. 5:16 καὶ οὐχ ὡς δι᾿ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος τὸ δώρημα· τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα, τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα.

Rom. 8:10 εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην.

1Cor. 1:18 Ὁ λόγος γὰρ ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστίν, τοῖς δὲ σῳζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν.

1Cor. 7:7 θέλω δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν· ἀλλὰ ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα ἐκ θεοῦ, ὁ μὲν οὕτως, ὁ δὲ οὕτως.

Gal. 4:23 ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας.

Eph. 4:11 Καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους,

[Markos]

As Vladimir and Joel have already shown by quoting some Greek paraphrases of the Church Fathers, προσεκύνησαν οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν is ambiguous. It can mean at least three things.

1. οἱ ἕνδεκα προσεκύνησαν μέν, ἐδίστασαν δέ.

2. οἱ ἕνδεκα προσεκύνησαν. ἀλλά τινες δὲ τούτων ἐδίστασαν. (compare the Modern Greek: Bambas: προσεκύνησαν αὐτόν. τινὲς δὲ ἐδίστασαν. ABS: τὸν προσκύνησαν, μερικοὶ ὅμως ἦσαν διστακτικοί.)

3. οἱ μὲν ἕνδεκα προσεκύνησαν, ἄλλοι δὲ ἐδίστασαν.

Combining the grammar and the context, I think #1 and #2 are equally possible. #3, by which there were others at the mountain besides the eleven, seems to me unlikely due to the context. The 11 are a special group receiving a special revelation and special instructions.

Off-topic: Why does the NAB translate ἐτάξατο as "ordered?" Isn't it a reference to the mountain where he "appointed" them apostles? Note that Matthew has forgotten that he trimmed the mountain reference from his retelling of Mark 3:13-19.

No, I don't think any allusion to that story is meant. Rather ἐτάξατο refers back to v. 10 b, the instructions to the 11 through the women: ὑπάγετε ἀπαγγείλατε τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου ἵνα ἀπέλθωσιν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, κἀκεῖ με ὄψονται.

Not that I can cite any source, but I have the impression that μέν is comparatively rare in the NT and the pair ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ in the NT belongs to a more elevated, Atticizing style. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

As Clayton has already pointed out, you are wrong. μέν, δέ in its basic sense is very common in NT Greek.

According to N. Turner (Syntax, p. 331) the pattern ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ is less common in NT than classical but it isn't rare. John doesn't use it.

Wow, that's new to me. I'll have to check this out. If it's true that John never uses μέν, δέ, that does say something striking about his style. Stock/Conybeare allege that μέν δέ is very rare in the LXX, even in places where you would expect it, but I have seen it several times. "Rare" is hard to quantify.

It is not uncommon to have more trouble with exegesis of the grammars than exegesis of the greek text.

This is even more true of the newer linguistic meta-jargon. My view is that when you need a map to read the map, you might as well forget about the map and just explore the territory directly.

By the way, if the Greek text is somewhat ambiguous here, is it possible to keep that ambiguity in a translation? In that case, the translation would be more adequate, wouldn't it?

That's an interesting thought. The Greek text is routinely more ambiguous than the English, so an argument can be made that one translational goal could be to preserve the ambiguity. I'm not aware of anyone who has tried this. But I like the concept.

Mt. 28:17: καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν.

So they see Jesus, and there was adoration, and there was doubt.

Here all translations except the NW have recourse to "worship" - a rendering which makes no sense in this context. How can someone worship and doubt at the same time?

I do it every day.

Mk 9:24: πιστεύω: βοήθει μου τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

As Clayton has already pointed out, you are wrong. μέν, δέ in its basic sense is very common in NT Greek.
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
According to N. Turner (Syntax, p. 331) the pattern ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ is less common in NT than classical but it isn't rare. John doesn't use it.

Wow, that's new to me. I'll have to check this out. If it's true that John never uses μέν, δέ, that does say something striking about his style. Stock/Conybeare allege that μέν δέ is very rare in the LXX, even in places where you would expect it, but I have seen it several times. "Rare" is hard to quantify.

μέν … δέ is relatively rare in NT compared to 3600 passages in Xenophon but please note ...

… the pattern we were discussing is ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ.. The article + μέν|δἐ is an idiom, see C.F.D. Moule Idiom Book NT 1959 p. 107. In John I found οἱ μὲν … ἄλλοι [δὲ] which is a dubious reading.

John 7:12 καὶ γογγυσμὸς περὶ αὐτοῦ ἦν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς ὄχλοις· οἱ μὲν ἔλεγον ὅτι ἀγαθός ἐστιν, ἄλλοι [δὲ] ἔλεγον· οὔ, ἀλλὰ πλανᾷ τὸν ὄχλον.

EDIT: The search pattern article + μὲν … article + δὲ finds more than one idiom so some of the samples I posted before may not be relevant to the text under consideration.

μὲν οὖν is a different animal.

John 19:24 εἶπαν οὖν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λάχωμεν περὶ αὐτοῦ τίνος ἔσται· ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ [ἡ λέγουσα]· διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. Οἱ μὲν οὖν στρατιῶται ταῦτα ἐποίησαν. 25 Εἱστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή.

μέν … δέ John uses a few times see examples.

John 10:41 καὶ πολλοὶ ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι Ἰωάννης μὲν σημεῖον ἐποίησεν οὐδέν, πάντα δὲ ὅσα εἶπεν Ἰωάννης περὶ τούτου ἀληθῆ ἦν.

John 16:9 περὶ ἁμαρτίας μέν, ὅτι οὐ πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ· 10 περὶ δικαιοσύνης δέ, ὅτι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὑπάγω καὶ οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με·

John 16:22 καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν νῦν μὲν λύπην ἔχετε· πάλιν δὲ ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς, καὶ χαρήσεται ὑμῶν ἡ καρδία, καὶ τὴν χαρὰν ὑμῶν οὐδεὶς αἴρει ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν.

John 19:32 ἦλθον οὖν οἱ στρατιῶται καὶ τοῦ μὲν πρώτου κατέαξαν τὰ σκέλη καὶ τοῦ ἄλλου τοῦ συσταυρωθέντος αὐτῷ· 33 ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐλθόντες, ὡς εἶδον ἤδη αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα, οὐ κατέαξαν αὐτοῦ τὰ σκέλη,

John 20:30 Πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐνώπιον τῶν μαθητῶν [αὐτοῦ], ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ· 31 ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύ[σ]ητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.

[mwh]

οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν: if the meaning were simply “but they doubted,” οἱ would be absent. The οἱ makes all the difference. In principle the words could mean “but others [others than the 11, that is] doubted," οἱ δέ switching subject, but in context it has to mean “but some [of them] hesitated, felt doubt, wavered.”

The eleven did proskunesis. That’s what the Greek says, plainly and unequivocally. The meaning can’t be that only some of them did, while others felt doubt or were in two minds about it. That would require οι μεν (as e.g. at Acts 28:24). Any such interpretation is impossibly forced, and presumably due to the felt difficulty in reconciling proskunesis with doubt.

So there’s no ambiguity, so far as I can see. But οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν does make a rather odd appendage to the main sentence. It hooks up with the scepticism of the different accounts in Luke and John, and I suspect it’s a subsequent addition.

[Paul Derouda]

Paul Derouda wrote:
Not that I can cite any source, but I have the impression that μέν is comparatively rare in the NT and the pair ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ in the NT belongs to a more elevated, Atticizing style. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

As Clayton has already pointed out, you are wrong. μέν, δέ in its basic sense is very common in NT Greek.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:
According to N. Turner (Syntax, p. 331) the pattern ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ is less common in NT than classical but it isn't rare. John doesn't use it.

Wow, that's new to me. I'll have to check this out. If it's true that John never uses μέν, δέ, that does say something striking about his style. Stock/Conybeare allege that μέν δέ is very rare in the LXX, even in places where you would expect it, but I have seen it several times. "Rare" is hard to quantify.

I'm not contesting, I can't really pretend that I've become an experienced reader of the NT all of a sudden I probably read it somewhere like a decade ago, and probably remember it half incorrectly. Anyway, I meant precisely the ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ construction with the article. A funny thing is that the first text in real, actual Greek I read was the Gospel of John, which in turn might explain why I had a sort of faint recollection that there's something up with ὁ μέν...ὁ δἐ in the NT. After that, I soon turned to Homer...

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Matt. 28:16 Οἱ δὲ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν εἰς τὸ ὄρος οὗ ἐτάξατο αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, 17 καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν.

There seems to be general agreement that οἱ δὲ should mark a change in the subject. However, a few scholars decades ago proposed a reading where οἱ δὲ is coextensive and coreferential with Οἱ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ. R. T. France (Matt NICNT 2007 p1111 n14) cites K. Grayston JSNT 21 (1984)105-106, supported by D. Hagner, (Matt. WBC 1993 v2 p844).

I checked this out in Guy Cooper[1] who lists three exceptions to this rule in Attic where Cooper suggests that ὁ δέ reiterates the subject:

Sophocles Electra 711 (οἱ ἁρματηλάται referent)

Κεῖνος γὰρ ἄλλης ἡμέρας, ὅθ' ἱππικῶν
ἦν ἡλίου τέλλοντος ὠκύπους ἀγών,
700
εἰσῆλθε πολλῶν ἁρματηλατῶν μέτα.
Εἷς ἦν Ἀχαιός, εἷς ἀπὸ Σπάρτης, δύο
Λίβυες, ζυγωτῶν ἁρμάτων ἐπιστάται·
κἀκεῖνος ἐν τούτοισι θεσσαλὰς ἔχων
ἵππους, ὁ πέμπτος· ἕκτος ἐξ Αἰτωλίας
705
ξανθαῖσι πώλοις· ἕβδομος Μάγνης ἀνήρ·
ὁ δ' ὄγδοος λεύκιππος, Αἰνιὰν γένος·
ἔνατος Ἀθηνῶν τῶν θεοδμήτων ἄπο·
Βοιωτὸς ἄλλος, δέκατον ἐκπληρῶν ὄχον.
Στάντες δ' ὅθ' αὐτοὺς οἱ τεταγμένοι βραβῆς
710
κλήροις ἔπηλαν καὶ κατέστησαν δίφρους,
χαλκῆς ὑπαὶ σάλπιγγος ᾖξαν· οἱ δ' ἅμα
ἵπποις ὁμοκλήσαντες ἡνίας χεροῖν
ἔσεισαν· ἐν δὲ πᾶς ἐμεστώθη δρόμος
κτύπου κροτητῶν ἁρμάτων·


Thucyd. 1.87.1.1 (sc. Σθενελαίδας referent) **For Thucydides scholars only!**
Τοιαῦτα λέξας ἐπεψήφιζεν αὐτὸς ἔφορος ὢν ἐς τὴν ἐκ-
1.87.2.1
κλησίαν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων. ὁ δέ (κρίνουσι γὰρ βοῇ καὶ
οὐ ψήφῳ) οὐκ ἔφη διαγιγνώσκειν τὴν βοὴν ὁποτέρα μείζων,
ἀλλὰ βουλόμενος αὐτοὺς φανερῶς ἀποδεικνυμένους τὴν γνώ-

Xenophon Anabasis 4.2.6.1 (οἱ δ' ἔχοντες τὸν ἡγεμόνα referent)

ἐπειρῶντο· καὶ ταῦτα ἐποίουν μέχρι σκότος ἐγένετο· ἐπεὶ δὲ
ᾤοντο ἀφανεῖς εἶναι ἀπιόντες, τότε ἀπῆλθον ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον·
ἐτύγχανον δὲ καὶ ἀνάριστοι ὄντες αὐτῶν οἱ ὀπισθοφυλακή-
σαντες. οἱ μέντοι πολέμιοι οὐδὲν ἐπαύσαντο δι' ὅλης τῆς
νυκτὸς κυλίνδοντες τοὺς λίθους· τεκμαίρεσθαι δ' ἦν τῷ ψόφῳ.
οἱ δ' ἔχοντες τὸν ἡγεμόνα κύκλῳ περιιόντες καταλαμβάνουσι
τοὺς φύλακας ἀμφὶ πῦρ καθημένους· καὶ τοὺς μὲν κατα-
καίνοντες τοὺς δὲ καταδιώξαντες αὐτοὶ ἐνταῦθ' ἔμενον ὡς τὸ
ἄκρον κατέχοντες. οἱ δ' οὐ κατεῖχον, ἀλλὰ μαστὸς ἦν ὑπὲρ
αὐτῶν παρ' ὃν ἦν ἡ στενὴ αὕτη ὁδὸς ἐφ' ᾗ ἐκάθηντο οἱ
φύλακες. ἔφοδος μέντοι αὐτόθεν ἐπὶ τοὺς πολεμίους ἦν



[1] Guy Cooper Attic Gk Syntax v1 50.1.4 p355-56

[jeidsath]

That would require οι μεν (as e.g. at Acts 28:24).

I thought that Smyth 2838b, quoted above, speaks directly to this. But that's Attic, I suppose.

[Vladimir]

Wallace seems to say nothing about this. It is a bit strange.

[Markos]

Thanks for that quote from the Anabasis 4,2,6, Clayton. It is a very clear parallel and it establishes that οἱ δέ doesn't ALWAYS mark a change in subject. If you put a gun to my head, I guess I would agree with the majority who see the οἱ δέ here as something like τινες δε, but, as I said, it is possible that προσεκύνησαν. οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν means something like προσκυνήσαντες, ἐδίστασαν.

That would require οι μεν (as e.g. at Acts 28:24).

I thought that Smyth 2838b, quoted above, speaks directly to this. But that's Attic, I suppose.

Yes, it does, for me, more or less. I guess προσεκύνησαν. οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν can mean four things, including οἱ μὲν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

… quote from the Anabasis 4,2,6 ... establishes that οἱ δέ doesn't ALWAYS mark a change in subject.

Mark,

μὲν … οἱ δέ (and variations) which reiterates the subject of the previous sentence is not rare in Homer and Herodotus. Cooper's treatment[1] of this cites about thirty examples[2]. All the examples include μὲν. Cooper[3] claims that οἱ δέ (and variations) without reference to μὲν may be strongly adversative and in many places indicates the subject is changing from the previous sentence. He gives about twenty five examples.


μὲν … οἱ δέ (and variations) reiterates the subject of the previous sentence:

Homer Il. 1 191

ὅσσον φέρτερός εἰμι σέθεν, στυγέῃ δὲ καὶ ἄλλος
ἶσον ἐμοὶ φάσθαι καὶ ὁμοιωθήμεναι ἄντην.
Ὣς φάτο· Πηλεΐωνι δ' ἄχος γένετ', ἐν δέ οἱ ἦτορ
> στήθεσσιν λασίοισι διάνδιχα μερμήριξεν,
ἢ ὅ γε φάσγανον ὀξὺ ἐρυσσάμενος παρὰ μηροῦ
τοὺς μὲν ἀναστήσειεν, ὃ δ' Ἀτρεΐδην ἐναρίζοι,
— ἦε χόλον παύσειεν ἐρητύσειέ τε θυμόν.

Homer Il. 4.491
Πριαμίδης καθ' ὅμιλον ἀκόντισεν ὀξέϊ δουρί.
> τοῦ μὲν ἅμαρθ', ὃ δὲ Λεῦκον Ὀδυσσέος ἐσθλὸν ἑταῖρον
βεβλήκει βουβῶνα, νέκυν ἑτέρωσ' ἐρύοντα·

Homer Il. 15.136
αὐτίκα γὰρ Τρῶας μὲν ὑπερθύμους καὶ Ἀχαιοὺς
λείψει, ὃ δ' ἡμέας εἶσι κυδοιμήσων ἐς Ὄλυμπον,
μάρψει δ' ἑξείης ὅς τ' αἴτιος ὅς τε καὶ οὐκί.

Herodotus 3.147

Ὀτάνης δὲ ὁ στρατηγὸς ἰδὼν πάθος μέγα Πέρσας
πεπονθότας <τὰς> ἐντολὰς [τε] τὰς Δαρεῖός οἱ ἀπο-
στέλλων ἐνετέλλετο, μήτε κτείνειν μηδένα Σαμίων μήτε
ἀνδραποδίζεσθαι ἀπαθέα τε κακῶν ἀποδοῦναι τὴν νῆσον
Συλοσῶντι, τουτέων μὲν τῶν ἐντολέων μεμνημένος ἐπελαν-
θάνετο, ὁ δὲ παρήγγειλε τῇ στρατιῇ πάντα τὸν ἂν λάβωσι,
καὶ ἄνδρα καὶ παῖδα, ὁμοίως κτείνειν.

Herodotus 5.33

Συνέπιπτε γὰρ καὶ τὸν ἐστιγμένον
τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀπῖχθαι ἐκ Σούσων παρὰ Ἱστιαίου, σημαί-
νοντα ἀπίστασθαι Ἀρισταγόρην ἀπὸ βασιλέος. Ὁ γὰρ
Ἱστιαῖος βουλόμενος τῷ Ἀρισταγόρῃ σημῆναι ἀποστῆναι
ἄλλως μὲν οὐδαμῶς εἶχε ἀσφαλέως σημῆναι ὥστε φυλασσο-
μένων τῶν ὁδῶν, ὁ δὲ τῶν δούλων τὸν πιστότατον ἀπο-
ξυρώσας τὴν κεφαλὴν ἔστιξε καὶ ἀνέμεινε ἀναφῦναι τὰς
τρίχας· ὡς δὲ ἀνέφυσαν τάχιστα, ἀπέπεμπε ἐς Μίλητον
ἐντειλάμενος αὐτῷ ἄλλο μὲν οὐδέν, ἐπεὰν δὲ ἀπίκηται ἐς
Μίλητον, κελεύειν Ἀρισταγόρην ξυρώσαντά μιν τὰς τρίχας
κατιδέσθαι ἐς τὴν κεφαλήν· τὰ δὲ στίγματα ἐσήμαινε, ὡς



[1] Greek Syntax vol 3, [2.]50.1.10.C p.2202-03

[2] Unfortunately he seems to be using a different citation system for Herodotus which makes finding the examples a pain. The book and sections numbers are generally correct but the line numbers aren't even close.

[3] Greek Syntax vol 3, [2.]50.1.10.B p.2202-03

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Wallace seems to say nothing about this. It is a bit strange.

Wallace has several books. Assume you are talking about GGBB which is an intermediate grammar not a reference grammar. Someone said a while back you need to discount the white space in GGBB, it isn't really a heavy book just looks like one.

The standard reference grammars on New Testament all assume that you will be very familiar with classical authors and Attic syntax. They are written for people who studied Latin and Greek in "grammar school" (k-12). This makes them hard to read for 21st century students.

[mwh]

That would require οι μεν (as e.g. at Acts 28:24).

I thought that Smyth 2838b, quoted above, speaks directly to this. But that's Attic, I suppose.

That is the best comparandum on offer for "The eleven prosekunhsan" = "Only some of the eleven prosekunhsan,” but it doesn’t hold. The passage in question goes οἱ δὲ καταδραμόντες εἰς τὸ πεδίον συλλαβόντες ἀνθρώπους ἤγαγον· οἱ δὲ ληφθέντες ἀνερωτώμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ Κύρου ἔλεγον ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ στρατοπέδου εἶεν προεληλυθότες ἐπὶ χιλόν, οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ ξύλα, παρελθόντες τὰς προφυλακάς·
“They said they’d gone out from the camp for fodder, and others for firewood, passing beyond their forward guards.”
“They said they’d gone out from the camp for fodder—others for firewood—, passing beyond their forward guards.”
That's hardly analogous.

I guess προσεκύνησαν. οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν can mean four things, including οἱ μὲν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν.

I disagree with this guess. I continue to hold that the Greek by itself could mean one of two things. Ordinarily it would mean (1) “The eleven prosekunhsan. Others edistasan,” and we are free to imagine that these unidentified others are also on the scene along with the eleven. (Cf. Vladimir’s original post.) Since that is contextually uninviting, it will mean (2) “The eleven prosekunhsan, but some [of them] edistasan,” as nearly all English translations have taken it. It can’t mean (pace some ancient commentators) (3) “Some of the eleven prosekunhsan, but some of them edistasan” (standing for των δε ενδεκα οι μεν …), and it can't mean (pace the U.S. Catholics’ NAB and BeDhun) (4) “The eleven prosekunhsan but edistasan” (the Anabasis passage certainly doesn’t justify that). So I think there's only one viable reading, namely the traditional one.

Even so, the Greek is a little awkward, and so is the sense (for proskunesis is not naturally compatible with doubt). That's accounted for if οι δε εδιστασαν is intrusive, added to lessen the embarrassing distance between this account and those in the other gospels.

Most of the passages quoted in posts above seem to me quite irrelevant.

[jeidsath]

I'm convinced by mwh. But I thought I would include Athanasius and Chrysostomus in full in case any one reads this thread later. I do note that their alternate wording agrees exactly. Do we have a textual variant?

Τολμῶ γὰρ λέγειν, ὅτι οὐδὲ αὐτοὶ οἱ μακάριοι αὐτοῦ μαθηταὶ τὸ τέλειον περὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος εἶχον φρόνημα, ἕως τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῖς τῇ Πεντηκοστῇ ἐπεφοίτησεν. Ἐπεὶ καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἰδόντες αὐτὸν, οἱ μὲν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν· ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐκ τούτου κατεκρίθησαν.

ATHANASIUS Theol. Testimonia e scriptura [Sp.] (de communi essentia patris et filii et spiritus sancti) {2035.064} Volume 28 page 76 line 48

Εἶδες πάλιν τῶν μαθητῶν τὸ φιλάληθες; πῶς οὐδὲ τοῦτο αἰσχύνονται λέγοντες, ὅτι τοιοῦτος ἐκράτησε λόγος κατ’ αὐτῶν; Οἱ δὲ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν· καὶ οἱ μὲν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐδίστασαν. Αὕτη μοι δοκεῖ ἐσχάτη ὄψις εἶναι ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ, ὅτε αὐτοὺς ἐξέπεμπε βαπτίσοντας. Εἰ δὲ ἐδίστασάν τινες, κἀντεῦθεν πάλιν θαύμασον αὐτῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, πῶς οὐδὲ τὰ μέχρις ἐσχάτης ἡμέρας ἐλαττώματα αὐτῶν ἀποκρύπτονται. Ἀλλ’ ὅμως καὶ οὗτοι διὰ τῆς ὄψεως ἐβεβαιώθησαν.

JOANNES CHRYSOSTOMUS Scr. Eccl. In Matthaeum (homiliae 1-90) {2062.152} Volume 58 page 789 line 31

I found some other examples (I think) of Smyth 2838b in the Anabasis. Neither of them are actually parallel.

Anabasis 7.4.18:

οἱ δὲ Θρᾷκες φεύγουσιν, ὥσπερ δὴ τρόπος ἦν αὐτοῖς, ὄπισθεν περιβαλλόμενοι τὰς πέλτας· καὶ αὐτῶν ὑπεραλλομένων τοὺς σταυροὺς ἐλήφθησάν τινες κρεμασθέντες ἐνεχομένων τῶν πελτῶν τοῖς σταυροῖς· οἱ δὲ καὶ ἀπέθανον ἁμαρτόντες τῶν ἐξόδων· οἱ δὲ Ἕλληνες ἐδίωκον ἔξω τῆς κώμης.

Anabasis 7.1.17

ἄλλοι δὲ ἔθεον ἐπὶ θάλατταν καὶ παρὰ τὴν χηλὴν τοῦ τείχους ὑπερβαίνουσιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, ἄλλοι δὲ οἳ ἐτύγχανον ἔνδον ὄντες τῶν στρατιωτῶν, ὡς ὁρῶσι τὰ ἐπὶ ταῖς πύλαις πράγματα, διακόπτοντες ταῖς ἀξίναις τὰ κλεῖθρα ἀναπεταννύασι τὰς πύλας, οἱ δ’ εἰσπίπτουσιν.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Funk's grammar:

635.1 In narrative and especially in dialogue, δέ is used with the article (without other substantive) to indicate a change in subject or speaker. In (7) such a shift is twice indicated by this device:

Mk 12:15b-17a
(7) [Ἰησοῦς] φέρετέ μοι δηνάριον ἵνα ἴδω.
οἱ δὲ ἤνεγκαν.
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, τίνος ἡ εἰκὼν αὕτη καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφή;
οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, Καίσαρος.
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῦς, ...
[Jesus:] "Bring me a denarius that I may see."
They brought [one] And he says to them, "Whose likeness and inscription
is this?"
They said to him, "Caesar's." Then Jesus said to them, ...

[mwh]

@jeidsath
Thanks for providing the passages, which show both Athanasius and John Chrysostom trying to dig themselves out of the theological hole created by doubting disciples. I don’t think this points to a variant reading in the gospel text, rather they’re paraphrasing what was evidently their common understanding of the passage, an understanding premised on the mutual incompatibility of proskunesis and doubt. I don’t know enough about the intricacies of the 3rd-4th cent. theology wars to properly contextualize it.

@C. S. Bartholomew
This is extremely common, there are thousands of instances, probably hundreds of thousands. You have two parties, here Jesus and those he’s addressing, and the responses of the latter to what he says (a command and a question) are introduced by οι δε. The situation in the Matthew passage is quite different. To be sure, οι δε marks a subject switch (and accordingly I reject the NAB’s translation endorsed by BeDuhn, my #4), but to whom? Another bunch of people altogether (as in my #1), or a subset of the preceding subject (my #2, which I uphold)?

And how I wish that people would not describe perfectly ordinary Greek usage as a “device”!

[C. S. Bartholomew]

οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν can mean four things, including οἱ μὲν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν.

Three options according Stanley E. Porter (Idioms 2nd Ed. 1994). οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν indicates some doubted (partitive) or all of the eleven doubted (reiteration) or others doubted (switched subject). Porter like the majority of other NT scholars prefers the partitive reading and cites a now three decades old review of the topic by P. W. van der Horst, Once More: The Translation of οἱ δὲ in Mt. 28.17, JSNT, 29 (1986) pp. 27-30. Grayston and Hagner[1] prefer the reiteration view.

A very recent discussion which is critical of the Grayston-Hagner reading can be found at

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q ... sive-sense


See also, Stephanie Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: kai, de, tote, gar, oun and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse, 2002 pages, pp. 160-162. Who objects to Grayston's approach observing that οἱ δὲ signals discontinuity and would be highly unlikely if there were continuity of subject with the previous sentence.

[1] the reiteration view. K. Grayston JSNT 21 (1984)105-106, supported by D. Hagner, (Matt. WBC 1993 v2 p844.

[Markos]

On that forum Clayton links to, one Grayson mentions Xen, Hel 1:2:14 as establishing a "partitive" use of οἱ δέ (= τινες δε.) But, unless I am missing something, this seems to be a clear example of Smyth 2838 (b), which would again support the interpretation of Athanasius and John Chrysostom that Joel quoted.

Xen, Hel 1:2:14 ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἅπασα ἡ στρατιὰ διέβη εἰς Λάμψακον. καὶ χειμὼν ἐπῄει, ἐν ᾧ οἱ αἰχμάλωτοι Συρακόσιοι, εἰργμένοι τοῦ Πειραιῶς ἐν λιθοτομίαις, διορύξαντες τὴν πέτραν, ἀποδράντες νυκτὸς ᾤχοντο εἰς Δεκέλειαν, οἱ δ᾽ εἰς Μέγαρα.

Xen, Hel 1:2:14...and from Sestus the entire force crossed over to Lampsacus. And now the winter came on. During the course of it the Syracusan prisoners, who were immured in stone quarries in Piraeus, dug through the rock and made their escape by night, most of them to Decelea and the rest to Megara.

Not knowing the geography/context, it's not possible, is it, that the the prisoners went en mass to Decelea and then a sub-group subsequently went off to Megara?

I guess a lingering question I have is, how common is the partitive οἱ δέ. Mt. 26:67-68:

Mt. 26:67-68: τότε ἐνέπτυσαν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκολάφισαν αὐτόν, οἱ δὲ ἐράπισαν λέγοντες· Προφήτευσον ἡμῖν, χριστέ, τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε;

which Clayton mentioned above, seems to me to be equally ambiguous, where the οἱ δὲ can be taken in the same four ways.

...on the mutual incompatibility of proskunesis and doubt.

I thought Mk 9:24, quoted above, speaks directly to that.

Mk 9:24: πιστεύω: βοήθει μου τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ.

And how I wish that people would not describe perfectly ordinary Greek usage as a “device”!

ὡς μάλιστα! πάνυ γε! ἀμήν!

[mwh]

Thanks to C.S.B. for the refs and the link. I wasn’t familiar with any of the predictably vast literature, but have now looked briefly at the webpage link, and am gratified to see that van der Horst (a true scholar and a man worthy of great respect) concludes:

“All this implies that in Mt. 28.17 oi δέ cannot mean all of the disciples, can mean (from a strictly grammatical point of view) other persons than the disciples, but, since no other persons are involved here at all, must be part of the disciples.”

That’s precisely what I’ve been saying. Of course, since NT scholars have to keep themselves in business, not everyone has assented, but it remains the case. Done and dusted.

[Andrew Chapman]

If we say 'they worshipped, but some doubted', does this mean that they all worshipped, but some of these also doubted; or does it mean that as a group (ie the majority), they worshipped, but that there some who didn't worship but rather doubted? This latter possibility is proposed by Meyer:

οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν] It was previously said in a general way that the eleven fell prostrate before Him, though all did not do so: some doubted whether He, whom they saw before them, could really be Jesus. This particular is added by means of οἱ δέ, which, however, is not preceded by a corresponding οἱ μέν before προσεκύνησαν, because this latter applied to the majority, whereas the doubters, who did not prostrate themselves, were only the exception. Had Matthew’s words been: οἱ μὲν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν, he would thus have represented the eleven as divided into two co-ordinate parts, into as nearly as possible two halves, and so have stated something different from what was intended. This is a case precisely similar to that of the οἱ δὲ ἐῤῥάπισαν of Mat 26:67, where, in like manner, the preceding ἐκολάφισαν αὐτόν (without οἱ μέν) represents what was done by the majority. “Quibus in locis primum universa res ponitur, deinde partitio nascitur, quae ostendit, priora quoque verba non de universa causa jam accipi posse,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 358. Comp. Xen. Hell. i. 2. 14 : ᾤχοντο ἐς Δεκέλειαν, οἱ δʼ ἐς Μέγαρα; Cyrop. iv. 5. 46: ὁρᾶτε ἵππους, ὅσοι ἡμῖν πάρεισιν, οἱ δὲ προσάγονται, and the passages in Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 1160; Kühner, II. 2, p. 808.

Here is the first passage from Xenophon:

Xenophon, Hellenica 1.2.14

καὶ χειμὼν ἐπῄει, ἐν ᾧ οἱ αἰχμάλωτοι Συρακόσιοι, εἰργμένοι τοῦ Πειραιῶς ἐν λιθοτομίαις, διορύξαντες τὴν πέτραν, ἀποδράντες νυκτὸς ᾤχοντο εἰς Δεκέλειαν, οἱ δ᾽ εἰς Μέγαρα.

And now the winter came on. During the course of it the Syracusan prisoners, who were immured in stone quarries in Piraeus, dug through the rock and made their escape by night, most of them to Decelea and the rest to Megara. [Loeb, Brownson]

I don't know the geography, but I guess that those that went to Megara did not go to Decelea. But it is not that the grammar splits them into two groups. They went to Decelea (most of them) - but there were some who went to Megara - perhaps this was added almost as an afterthought(?).

Henry Alford cites another passage from Xenophon:

Xenophon, Anabasis 1.5.13

ὁ δὲ καταφεύγει εἰς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ στράτευμα, καὶ εὐθὺς παραγγέλλει εἰς τὰ ὅπλα: καὶ τοὺς μὲν ὁπλίτας αὐτοῦ ἐκέλευσε μεῖναι τὰς ἀσπίδας πρὸς τὰ γόνατα θέντας, αὐτὸς δὲ λαβὼν τοὺς Θρᾷκας καὶ τοὺς ἱππέας οἳ ἦσαν αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ στρατεύματι πλείους ἢ τετταράκοντα, τούτων δὲ οἱ πλεῖστοι Θρᾷκες, ἤλαυνεν ἐπὶ τοὺς Μένωνος, ὥστ᾽ ἐκείνους ἐκπεπλῆχθαι καὶ αὐτὸν Μένωνα, καὶ τρέχειν ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα: οἱ δὲ καὶ ἕστασαν ἀποροῦντες τῷ πράγματι.

Clearchus escaped to his own army and at once called his troops to arms; he ordered his hoplites to remain where they were, resting their shields against their knees, while he himself with the Thracians and the horsemen, of which he had in his army more than forty, most of them Thracians, advanced upon Menon's troops; the result was that these and Menon himself were thoroughly frightened and ran to their arms, though there were some who stood stock-still, nonplussed by the situation.

Clearly, the ones who stood still did not run to their arms. But one can still say that the troops (conceived as a group) ran to their arms.

Andrew

[mwh]

If we say 'they worshipped, but some doubted', does this mean that they all worshipped, but some of these also doubted; or does it mean that as a group (ie the majority), they worshipped, but that there some who didn't worship but rather doubted?

Andrew, This is not a question that admits of an answer.
Michael

[jeidsath]

In verse 16, the twelve ἐπορεύθησαν and Matthew has some of them ἐδίστασαν so that Jesus can προσελθὼν.

This makes perfect sense as narrative. They're on their way to see Jesus, and Matthew needs them to halt their forward momentum so that Jesus can be the one to come to them. It's a great illustration of Creative Writing 101, if someone closes a door, you can't just make him leave the room without letting the reader know that the door has been opened again.

The juxtaposition of προσεκύνησαν and ἐδίστασαν is not so strange to me. Recall that this is a God to φοβεῖσθαι and λατεύειν and ἀγαπᾶν (Deut. 10:12, and repeated in many places).

The doubt and hesitation is obviously not important beyond this, because Matthew doesn't refer back to it. Jesus doesn't pick out the doubters and reassure them, zap them, etc.