The Feigned Ignorance of Judas: Rhetorical Question from the Category interrogatio/ἐρώτημα in Matt 26:25
The article analyzes the utterance made by Judas in the Cenacle (1) in the context of his efforts to hand Jesus over to the chief priests (Matt 26:14-25). The fact that his question (Matt 26:25) includes the particle μήτι which assumes a negative response from the interlocutor (1-2) suggests that th...
| Published in: | Verbum vitae |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
CEEOL
2022
|
| In: |
Verbum vitae
Year: 2022, Volume: 40, Issue: 4, Pages: 1035-1054 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Judas Iscariot
/ Betrayal
/ Deception
/ Bible. Matthäusevangelium 26
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | The article analyzes the utterance made by Judas in the Cenacle (1) in the context of his efforts to hand Jesus over to the chief priests (Matt 26:14-25). The fact that his question (Matt 26:25) includes the particle μήτι which assumes a negative response from the interlocutor (1-2) suggests that the disciple was unaware that he was betraying Jesus. Consequently, there is no shortage of positive opinions about Judas, expressed both in the past and today. Matthew’s narrative, however, says something different in this regard. The research problem is therefore seeking an answer to the question: how to interpret Judas’ words? The referenced various biblical translations (3.1) and claims of exegetes (3.2) quote the words of the apostles (Matt 26:22,25) and explain them in an ambiguous manner. The attempts to solve the problem shown in sections 2 and 3.1-2 do not provide a satisfactory conclusion. In the last section (4), the grammatical rules and narrative logic - which are clearly in contradiction - are supplemented with a rhetorical perspective, which leads to a definitive resolution of the dilemma. The synchronic approach applied to the pericope Matt 26:14-25 allows one to draw the conclusion that in Judas’ utterance one should identify a rhetorical question from the category interrogatio/ἐρώτημα whose function in Matt 26:25 is auferendae dissimulationis ("misleading pretense"). Many exegetes have decrypted Judas’ dishonest conduct, but it is only this article that precisely defines this rhetorical phenomenon. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2451-280X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Verbum vitae
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.31743/vv.14438 |