Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent Mark & Mary Markham markhamm at topsurf.com
Wed Feb 11 17:24:59 EST 1998
None If I understand the meaning of the word slander as used in Greek– it can betrue info used negitively. Can anyone else confirm this understanding?MarkCBCHeidelberg, Germany—–Original Message—–From: WFWarren at aol.com <WFWarren at aol.com>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 8:06 PMSubject: Re: Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent> >In a message dated 2/10/99 9:29:47 PM, epe at phys.unsw.edu.au writes:> >>Luke 16:1 “There was a rich man who had an agent,>>and hOUTOS DIEBLHQH AUTW hWS DIASKORPIZWN>>TA hUPARCONTA AUTOU>>DoesnÕt DIEBLHQH suggest false information i.e. slander?>>Hence Òhe was slandered that he was squandering [the rich manÕs]>>goods.Ó>>Then v2 would mean the owner took it at face value and promptly>>dismissed him without seeing the evidence.> >I’ve usually used the presence of DIASKORPIZWN to make the link betweenthis>parable and that of Luke 15 in which the wayward son is said to have>“DIESKORPISEN” (15:13) his goods. It would seem that the context in 16:1>would lean against reading DIEBLHQH as slander or false information.Albeit>with a slight change of audience indicated in 16:1, no topic shift is>indicated so that 16:1ff would be a continuation of examples to justifyJesus’>acceptance of the “tax collectors and sinners” when they attempt to correct>their past ways.> >Paz,> >Bill Warren>Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek>Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies>New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary> > >—> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: markhamm at topsurf.com>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >
None
Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent Mark & Mary Markham markhamm at topsurf.com
Wed Feb 11 17:24:59 EST 1998
None If I understand the meaning of the word slander as used in Greek– it can betrue info used negitively. Can anyone else confirm this understanding?MarkCBCHeidelberg, Germany—–Original Message—–From: WFWarren at aol.com <WFWarren at aol.com>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 8:06 PMSubject: Re: Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent> >In a message dated 2/10/99 9:29:47 PM, epe at phys.unsw.edu.au writes:> >>Luke 16:1 “There was a rich man who had an agent,>>and hOUTOS DIEBLHQH AUTW hWS DIASKORPIZWN>>TA hUPARCONTA AUTOU>>DoesnÕt DIEBLHQH suggest false information i.e. slander?>>Hence Òhe was slandered that he was squandering [the rich manÕs]>>goods.Ó>>Then v2 would mean the owner took it at face value and promptly>>dismissed him without seeing the evidence.> >I’ve usually used the presence of DIASKORPIZWN to make the link betweenthis>parable and that of Luke 15 in which the wayward son is said to have>“DIESKORPISEN” (15:13) his goods. It would seem that the context in 16:1>would lean against reading DIEBLHQH as slander or false information.Albeit>with a slight change of audience indicated in 16:1, no topic shift is>indicated so that 16:1ff would be a continuation of examples to justifyJesus’>acceptance of the “tax collectors and sinners” when they attempt to correct>their past ways.> >Paz,> >Bill Warren>Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek>Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies>New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary> > >—> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: markhamm at topsurf.com>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >
None
Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent Peter Eyland epe at phys.unsw.edu.au
Wed Feb 10 22:27:03 EST 1999
None DIKAIOW in Rom 6:7 Luke 16:1 “There was a rich man who had an agent,and hOUTOS DIEBLHQH AUTW hWS DIASKORPIZWN TA hUPARCONTA AUTOU DoesnÕt DIEBLHQH suggest false information i.e. slander?Hence Òhe was slandered that he was squandering [the rich manÕs] goods.ÓThen v2 would mean the owner took it at face value and promptly dismissed him without seeing the evidence.Luke 16: 5, 6 POSON OFEILEIS TWi KURIWi MOU … DEXAI SOU TA GRAMMATA KAI KAQISAS TACEWS GRAYON …Does this necessarily imply that there was an old written IOU or could it be as it sounds that the agent had bad management accounting and genuinely did not know the amount? In this case he told them to take pen and paper and settled for what he could from an otherwise bad debt situation. Assuming both of these things, the agent was a bad financial manager who when faced with a crisis, was shocked into getting the best for the owner, himself and the debtors, i.e. a win-win-win situation!V9 POIHSATE FILOUS … HINA hOTAN EKLIPHi DEXWNTAI hUMAS EIS TAS AIWNIOUS SKHNASDoes this mean that there are _friends_ whom you can pay money to in this age and they will guarrantee your reception in the next age?Is not _eternal tents_ an oxymoron?Thanks for your commentsPeterPeter Eyland | phone: 61 2 9385 5662School of Physics | fax: 61 2 9385 6060Sydney NSW 2052 | mobile: 61 2 414 874 698Australia | room: 67A Old Main Building
NoneDIKAIOW in Rom 6:7
Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent Peter Eyland epe at phys.unsw.edu.au
Wed Feb 10 22:27:03 EST 1999
None DIKAIOW in Rom 6:7 Luke 16:1 “There was a rich man who had an agent,and hOUTOS DIEBLHQH AUTW hWS DIASKORPIZWN TA hUPARCONTA AUTOU DoesnÕt DIEBLHQH suggest false information i.e. slander?Hence Òhe was slandered that he was squandering [the rich manÕs] goods.ÓThen v2 would mean the owner took it at face value and promptly dismissed him without seeing the evidence.Luke 16: 5, 6 POSON OFEILEIS TWi KURIWi MOU … DEXAI SOU TA GRAMMATA KAI KAQISAS TACEWS GRAYON …Does this necessarily imply that there was an old written IOU or could it be as it sounds that the agent had bad management accounting and genuinely did not know the amount? In this case he told them to take pen and paper and settled for what he could from an otherwise bad debt situation. Assuming both of these things, the agent was a bad financial manager who when faced with a crisis, was shocked into getting the best for the owner, himself and the debtors, i.e. a win-win-win situation!V9 POIHSATE FILOUS … HINA hOTAN EKLIPHi DEXWNTAI hUMAS EIS TAS AIWNIOUS SKHNASDoes this mean that there are _friends_ whom you can pay money to in this age and they will guarrantee your reception in the next age?Is not _eternal tents_ an oxymoron?Thanks for your commentsPeterPeter Eyland | phone: 61 2 9385 5662School of Physics | fax: 61 2 9385 6060Sydney NSW 2052 | mobile: 61 2 414 874 698Australia | room: 67A Old Main Building
NoneDIKAIOW in Rom 6:7
Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Thu Feb 11 07:06:46 EST 1999
DIKAIW in Romans 6:7 666 Hi PeterWhy stop at Luke 16:1-7? If you expand the frame to 16:1-15 then theOIKONOMOS is identified:hUMEIS (plural) ESTE hOI DIKAIOUNTES hEAUTOUS ENWPION TWN ANQRWPWNi.e. “What are you Pharisees laughing for? It’s you I’m talking about!”.>Luke 16:1 “Doesnt DIEBLHQH suggest false information i.e. slander?Not necessarily : LSJ cites PTeb23.4 (c.BC 119 or 114) (which will be onDuke data bank at Perseus I expect) as an example where DIABALLW is used”without implied malice or falsehood” and this is reproduced in M-MAPEFAINEN HDIKHSQAI hUPO SOU KAI DEMETRIWI HNAGKASQAI DIABALEIN.>Luke 16: 5, 6 POSON OFEILEIS TWi KURIWi MOU … DEXAI SOU TA>GRAMMATA KAI KAQISAS TACEWS GRAYON …>Does this necessarily imply that there was an old written IOU or could>it be as it sounds that the agent had bad management accounting and>genuinely did not know the amount? In this case he told them to take>pen and paper and settled for what he could from an otherwise bad>debt situation.Not judging by the post-parable comments; In Luke 16:17 the written IOU isthe Law, and v18 may be intended exemplify the IOU-write-down practicesfurther. This did of course win influential friends among half thepopulation.V9 POIHSATE FILOUS … HINA hOTAN EKLIPHi DEXWNTAI hUMAS>EIS TAS AIWNIOUS SKHNAS>Does this mean that there are _friends_ whom you can pay money to in>this age and they will guarrantee your reception in the next age?>Is not _eternal tents_ an oxymoron?Exactly, Isn’t an oxymoron often employed to wink? One could equally ask whynot EIS PARADEISON if that’s what was implied? or where are these so-called”friends” are heading themselves? While AIWNIAI SKHNAI sounds like a gooddeal at first hearing, both AIWNIOS and SKHNH have a downside as well asupside in the NT and I wonder if Josephus’ use of SKHNH as a theatricaltrick (War2:21:2) is not pertinent here?The above recognises a degree of irony in the parable, and this may welloffend some people who believe that “sarcasm is the lowest form of humour”(who said that?). If so my apologies, but I’ve always read Luke16:1-7 asonly marginally less cutting than the concluding parable in the series whichfollows it.CheersSteven
DIKAIW in Romans 6:7666
Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent Steven Cox scox at Mail.Sparkice.COM.CN
Thu Feb 11 07:06:46 EST 1999
DIKAIW in Romans 6:7 666 Hi PeterWhy stop at Luke 16:1-7? If you expand the frame to 16:1-15 then theOIKONOMOS is identified:hUMEIS (plural) ESTE hOI DIKAIOUNTES hEAUTOUS ENWPION TWN ANQRWPWNi.e. “What are you Pharisees laughing for? It’s you I’m talking about!”.>Luke 16:1 “Doesnt DIEBLHQH suggest false information i.e. slander?Not necessarily : LSJ cites PTeb23.4 (c.BC 119 or 114) (which will be onDuke data bank at Perseus I expect) as an example where DIABALLW is used”without implied malice or falsehood” and this is reproduced in M-MAPEFAINEN HDIKHSQAI hUPO SOU KAI DEMETRIWI HNAGKASQAI DIABALEIN.>Luke 16: 5, 6 POSON OFEILEIS TWi KURIWi MOU … DEXAI SOU TA>GRAMMATA KAI KAQISAS TACEWS GRAYON …>Does this necessarily imply that there was an old written IOU or could>it be as it sounds that the agent had bad management accounting and>genuinely did not know the amount? In this case he told them to take>pen and paper and settled for what he could from an otherwise bad>debt situation.Not judging by the post-parable comments; In Luke 16:17 the written IOU isthe Law, and v18 may be intended exemplify the IOU-write-down practicesfurther. This did of course win influential friends among half thepopulation.V9 POIHSATE FILOUS … HINA hOTAN EKLIPHi DEXWNTAI hUMAS>EIS TAS AIWNIOUS SKHNAS>Does this mean that there are _friends_ whom you can pay money to in>this age and they will guarrantee your reception in the next age?>Is not _eternal tents_ an oxymoron?Exactly, Isn’t an oxymoron often employed to wink? One could equally ask whynot EIS PARADEISON if that’s what was implied? or where are these so-called”friends” are heading themselves? While AIWNIAI SKHNAI sounds like a gooddeal at first hearing, both AIWNIOS and SKHNH have a downside as well asupside in the NT and I wonder if Josephus’ use of SKHNH as a theatricaltrick (War2:21:2) is not pertinent here?The above recognises a degree of irony in the parable, and this may welloffend some people who believe that “sarcasm is the lowest form of humour”(who said that?). If so my apologies, but I’ve always read Luke16:1-7 asonly marginally less cutting than the concluding parable in the series whichfollows it.CheersSteven
DIKAIW in Romans 6:7666
Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent WFWarren at aol.com WFWarren at aol.com
Thu Feb 11 13:48:35 EST 1999
Books on Mark Web Sites I Have Known and Loved In a message dated 2/10/99 9:29:47 PM, epe at phys.unsw.edu.au writes:>Luke 16:1 “There was a rich man who had an agent,>and hOUTOS DIEBLHQH AUTW hWS DIASKORPIZWN >TA hUPARCONTA AUTOU >DoesnÕt DIEBLHQH suggest false information i.e. slander?>Hence Òhe was slandered that he was squandering [the rich manÕs] >goods.Ó>Then v2 would mean the owner took it at face value and promptly >dismissed him without seeing the evidence.I’ve usually used the presence of DIASKORPIZWN to make the link between thisparable and that of Luke 15 in which the wayward son is said to have”DIESKORPISEN” (15:13) his goods. It would seem that the context in 16:1would lean against reading DIEBLHQH as slander or false information. Albeitwith a slight change of audience indicated in 16:1, no topic shift isindicated so that 16:1ff would be a continuation of examples to justify Jesus’acceptance of the “tax collectors and sinners” when they attempt to correcttheir past ways. Paz,Bill WarrenLandrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and GreekDirector of the Center for New Testament Textual StudiesNew Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
Books on MarkWeb Sites I Have Known and Loved
Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent WFWarren at aol.com WFWarren at aol.com
Thu Feb 11 13:48:35 EST 1999
Books on Mark Web Sites I Have Known and Loved In a message dated 2/10/99 9:29:47 PM, epe at phys.unsw.edu.au writes:>Luke 16:1 “There was a rich man who had an agent,>and hOUTOS DIEBLHQH AUTW hWS DIASKORPIZWN >TA hUPARCONTA AUTOU >DoesnÕt DIEBLHQH suggest false information i.e. slander?>Hence Òhe was slandered that he was squandering [the rich manÕs] >goods.Ó>Then v2 would mean the owner took it at face value and promptly >dismissed him without seeing the evidence.I’ve usually used the presence of DIASKORPIZWN to make the link between thisparable and that of Luke 15 in which the wayward son is said to have”DIESKORPISEN” (15:13) his goods. It would seem that the context in 16:1would lean against reading DIEBLHQH as slander or false information. Albeitwith a slight change of audience indicated in 16:1, no topic shift isindicated so that 16:1ff would be a continuation of examples to justify Jesus’acceptance of the “tax collectors and sinners” when they attempt to correcttheir past ways. Paz,Bill WarrenLandrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and GreekDirector of the Center for New Testament Textual StudiesNew Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
Books on MarkWeb Sites I Have Known and Loved
Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu Feb 11 19:51:36 EST 1999
Books on Mark Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent At 23:24 11/02/98 +0100, Mark wrote:>If I understand the meaning of the word slander as used in Greek– it can be>true info used negitively. Can anyone else confirm this >understanding?According to BAGD, DIABALLW means to bring charges w. hostile intent, either falsely and slanderously (BGU 1040, 22; POxy. 900, 13; 4 Macc 4:1;Jos., Ant. 7, 267) or justly (Hdt. 8, 22, 3; Thu. 3, 4, 4; Aristoph., Thesm. 1169;Philostratus, Ep. 37; PTebt. 23, 4; Da 3:8; 2 Macc 3:11; Jos., Ant. 12, 176) and it helpfully points to the dative AUTWi as in:(dat. as Hdt. 5, 35; Pla., Rep. 8, 566b al.;BTW, the _unjust_ example from Josephus above relates to David, and thefact that >> Now he had been unjustly calumniated to the king by Ziba, his steward. <<whereas the _just_ use of the term is when:>> Joseph accused the bidders, as having agreed together to estimate thevalue of the taxes at too low a rate; and he promised that he would himselfgive twice as much for them;<<But to see _all_ the meanings of this verb, and their usage in context, whynot go to:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/setdisplay?prog=/cgi-bin/morphindex&display=SMK&lang=Greek&corpus=2.0&author=[ Watch that wrap — enter it all on one line ]Hope this helpsRegards,MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [Bray, Ireland]’Mythology is what never was but always is.’— Stephen of Byzantium.
Books on MarkLuke 16:1-7 The clever agent
Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu Feb 11 19:51:36 EST 1999
Books on Mark Luke 16:1-7 The clever agent At 23:24 11/02/98 +0100, Mark wrote:>If I understand the meaning of the word slander as used in Greek– it can be>true info used negitively. Can anyone else confirm this >understanding?According to BAGD, DIABALLW means to bring charges w. hostile intent, either falsely and slanderously (BGU 1040, 22; POxy. 900, 13; 4 Macc 4:1;Jos., Ant. 7, 267) or justly (Hdt. 8, 22, 3; Thu. 3, 4, 4; Aristoph., Thesm. 1169;Philostratus, Ep. 37; PTebt. 23, 4; Da 3:8; 2 Macc 3:11; Jos., Ant. 12, 176) and it helpfully points to the dative AUTWi as in:(dat. as Hdt. 5, 35; Pla., Rep. 8, 566b al.;BTW, the _unjust_ example from Josephus above relates to David, and thefact that >> Now he had been unjustly calumniated to the king by Ziba, his steward. <<whereas the _just_ use of the term is when:>> Joseph accused the bidders, as having agreed together to estimate thevalue of the taxes at too low a rate; and he promised that he would himselfgive twice as much for them;<<But to see _all_ the meanings of this verb, and their usage in context, whynot go to:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/setdisplay?prog=/cgi-bin/morphindex&display=SMK&lang=Greek&corpus=2.0&author=[ Watch that wrap — enter it all on one line ]Hope this helpsRegards,MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [Bray, Ireland]’Mythology is what never was but always is.’— Stephen of Byzantium.
Books on MarkLuke 16:1-7 The clever agent