“`html
An Exegetical Analysis of Luke 9:13: The Interrogative Force of εἰ μήτι
The present exegetical inquiry focuses on the nuanced interpretation of the clause “εἰ μήτι πορευθέντες ἡμεῖς ἀγοράσωμεν εἰς πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον βρώματα” in Luke 9:13. Specifically, it addresses whether this clause, particularly the particle construction εἰ μήτι coupled with the aorist subjunctive, can legitimately bear an interrogative force, thereby functioning as a rhetorical question within the disciples’ response to Jesus’ command to feed the multitude. This analysis will explore the grammatical, lexical, and rhetorical dimensions to ascertain the most accurate understanding of the disciples’ statement.
Luke 9:13 (Nestle 1904):
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς, Δότε αὐτοῖς ὑμεῖς φαγεῖν. οἱ δὲ εἶπαν, Οὐκ εἰσὶν ἡμῖν πλεῖον ἢ πέντε ἄρτοι καὶ δύο ἰχθύες, εἰ μήτι πορευθέντες ἡμεῖς ἀγοράσωμεν εἰς πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον βρώματα.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The reading of the clause “εἰ μήτι πορευθέντες ἡμεῖς ἀγοράσωμεν εἰς πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον βρώματα” in Luke 9:13 is identical in both the Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT (2010) editions. No significant textual variants affect the interpretation of this specific phrase.
Textual Criticism (NA28): The critical apparatus of the Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) for Luke 9:13 shows no significant variants affecting the specific construction εἰ μήτι πορευθέντες ἡμεῖς ἀγοράσωμεν. The textual evidence strongly supports the inclusion and form of these words in the earliest manuscripts, indicating a stable textual tradition for this phrase.
Lexical Notes:
- εἰ μήτι (ei mēti): This particle construction is a key focus. According to BDAG (3rd ed., s.v. εἰ, p. 280), εἰ μήτι can introduce a condition (“unless perchance, unless perhaps”), but importantly, it can also function to express a rhetorical question or a challenge. Its usage often implies an improbable or undesirable alternative, thus lending itself to an interrogative sense, especially when expressing incredulity or the perceived impossibility of a situation. In contexts where an obvious lack of resources is stated, εἰ μήτι can heighten the sense of helplessness or the absurdity of an alternative.
- πορευθέντες (poreuthentes): Aorist participle (masculine nominative plural) from πορεύομαι (“to go, to travel”). It describes an action logically prior to or concurrent with the main verb, indicating the means by which the subsequent action might occur.
- ἀγοράσωμεν (agorasōmen): Aorist subjunctive (first person plural) from ἀγοράζω (“to buy”). The aorist subjunctive can function in various ways, including in deliberative questions (e.g., “Should we buy?”), or as the apodosis of a conditional clause, or in clauses dependent on a preceding particle like εἰ μήτι, where its force can range from a hypothetical action to a rhetorical question about that action.
- βρώματα (brōmata): Nominative/accusative plural of βρῶμα (“food, something eaten”). BDAG (s.v. βρῶμα, p. 182) confirms its general meaning as foodstuff. Kittel (TDNT, vol. I, p. 642) notes its general use for food, sometimes contrasted with spiritual food, but in this context, it simply denotes physical sustenance.
Translation Variants: Grammatical and Rhetorical Analysis
The core of the exegetical question lies in the precise nuance of εἰ μήτι followed by the aorist subjunctive ἀγοράσωμεν. Grammatically, the construction εἰ μήτι + subjunctive typically introduces an ‘exceptive’ or ‘challenging’ condition, meaning “unless perhaps X happens.” However, the rhetorical context is crucial for its precise interpretation.
In Luke 9:13, the disciples have just stated their profound lack of resources (“We have no more than five loaves and two fish”). Jesus has commanded them to feed the multitude. Their subsequent statement, introduced by εἰ μήτι, serves as a rhetorical device to emphasize the impossibility or extreme impracticality of fulfilling the command on their own.
Analysis of Interrogative Force:
- Many grammarians and lexica (e.g., BDAG) recognize that εἰ μήτι can introduce a rhetorical question, especially when expressing surprise, incredulity, or the perceived absurdity of an alternative. The question often implies a negative answer. For instance, in Acts 27:31, Paul says, “unless these remain in the ship, you cannot be saved,” which is clearly a condition. However, in other contexts, the interrogative force of εἰ (or compounds) is clear, as in 1 Corinthians 14:36, where the questions express incredulity (“Or was it from you that the word of God came forth? Or are you the only ones it reached?”). While not identical, the principle of εἰ introducing questions is established.
- In Luke 9:13, the disciples are not proposing a viable solution but highlighting the scale of the problem. If interpreted conditionally (“unless perhaps we go and buy…”), it still implies the impossibility of such an action given the crowd’s size and the disciples’ likely lack of funds to feed such a multitude (compare John 6:7, where Philip calculates 200 denarii would not be enough).
- However, interpreting it as a rhetorical question (“…are we to go and buy food for all these people?”) amplifies the sense of exasperation and emphasizes the sheer unfeasibility. It transforms a statement of conditional possibility into an expression of incredulous challenge, perfectly fitting the disciples’ situation of being overwhelmed by the task. The question itself expects a negative or an ‘obviously impossible’ answer.
- The aorist subjunctive ἀγοράσωμεν can indeed function as a deliberative subjunctive (“should we buy?”), further supporting an interrogative reading. This suggests the disciples are not merely stating a condition but actively questioning the means by which Jesus expects them to achieve this.
Rhetorical Impact: The interrogative rendering enhances the dramatic tension and highlights the disciples’ initial struggle to comprehend Jesus’ command in light of their limitations. It is not a genuine inquiry about buying food, but an exasperated expression of their perceived inability to do so.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the lexical possibilities of εἰ μήτι, the deliberative potential of the aorist subjunctive, and the rhetorical context of the disciples’ response to Jesus’ command, it is indeed legitimate to translate the clause in Luke 9:13 with an interrogative force. This rendering best captures the disciples’ sense of incredulity and the perceived impossibility of the task.
The disciples are not offering a genuine conditional alternative (“unless we buy…”) but rather expressing their bewilderment and highlighting the colossal challenge. The rhetorical question emphasizes that buying food for such a vast crowd is not a realistic option for them.
- “Unless we go, can we buy food for all these people?”
This translation directly incorporates the interrogative force into the conditional framework, reflecting the disciples’ challenge to the situation. - “Unless we ourselves go and buy food for all these people, how else can we feed them?”
This option explicitly renders it as a rhetorical question, underscoring the perceived absurdity and impossibility of the alternative. - “We only have five loaves and two fish—are we supposed to go and buy food for all these people?”
This variant separates the rhetorical question more clearly, allowing the initial statement of lack to stand and the subsequent clause to serve as an exasperated question, which fits the context of their desperate situation.
“`