Luke 23:43

Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI Dan Parker stoixein at sdf.lonestar.org
Mon Jun 4 12:08:17 EDT 2001

 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Luke 4:40 Dear B-GREEKER’s,Please note all instances of “Truly I say to you” in the New AmericanStandard Bible where a _specific time_ is denoted in the same verse.Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you [hOTI] that _thisvery night, before a cock crows_, you shall deny Me three times.”EFH AUTW O IHSOUS AMHN LEGW SOI OTI EN TAUTH TH NUKTI PRIN ALEKTORAFWN HSAI TRIS APARNHSH ME (Date of prediction specified by isolationfrom AMHN with hOTI.)Mark 14:30 And Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, [hOTI] thatyou yourself _this very night, before a cock crows twice_, shall threetimes deny Me.” KAI LEGEI AUTW O IHSOUS AMHN LEGW SOI OTI SU SHMERONAUTH TH NUKTI PRI N H DIS ALEKTORA FWNHSAI TRIS ME APARNHSH (Date ofprediction specified by isolation from AMHN with hOTI.)John 5:25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, [hOTI] _an hour is coming andnow is_, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; andthose who hear shall live. [AMHN AMHN LEGW UMIN OTI ERXETAI WRA KAINUN ESTIN OTE OI NEKROI AKOUSOU SIN THS FWNHS TOU UIOU TOU QEOU KAI OIAKOUSANTES ZHSOUSIN ] (Date of prediction specified by isolation fromAMHN with hOTI)Luke 23:43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shallbe with Me in Paradise”. KAI EIPEN AUTW AMHN SOI LEGW SHMERONMET EMOU ESH EN TW PARADEISW In these four examples of Jesus’ expression “Truly I say to you” withrespect to a specific time, the three verses that unambiguously placethis phrase by Jesus in reference to the definite time period referencedin the same verse all separate the phrase with hOTI. The only one thatdoes not is Luke 23:43.To propose Luke 23:43 is an example where Jesus Christ used the phrase”Truly I tell you” with respect to a promise to be fulfilled “today”deviates from the normal usage of this phrase by him.Sincerely,Dan Parker

 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown CommentaryLuke 4:40

Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI Dan Parker stoixein at sdf.lonestar.org
Mon Jun 4 12:08:17 EDT 2001

 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Luke 4:40 Dear B-GREEKER’s,Please note all instances of “Truly I say to you” in the New AmericanStandard Bible where a _specific time_ is denoted in the same verse.Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you [hOTI] that _thisvery night, before a cock crows_, you shall deny Me three times.”EFH AUTW O IHSOUS AMHN LEGW SOI OTI EN TAUTH TH NUKTI PRIN ALEKTORAFWN HSAI TRIS APARNHSH ME (Date of prediction specified by isolationfrom AMHN with hOTI.)Mark 14:30 And Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, [hOTI] thatyou yourself _this very night, before a cock crows twice_, shall threetimes deny Me.” KAI LEGEI AUTW O IHSOUS AMHN LEGW SOI OTI SU SHMERONAUTH TH NUKTI PRI N H DIS ALEKTORA FWNHSAI TRIS ME APARNHSH (Date ofprediction specified by isolation from AMHN with hOTI.)John 5:25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, [hOTI] _an hour is coming andnow is_, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; andthose who hear shall live. [AMHN AMHN LEGW UMIN OTI ERXETAI WRA KAINUN ESTIN OTE OI NEKROI AKOUSOU SIN THS FWNHS TOU UIOU TOU QEOU KAI OIAKOUSANTES ZHSOUSIN ] (Date of prediction specified by isolation fromAMHN with hOTI)Luke 23:43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shallbe with Me in Paradise”. KAI EIPEN AUTW AMHN SOI LEGW SHMERONMET EMOU ESH EN TW PARADEISW In these four examples of Jesus’ expression “Truly I say to you” withrespect to a specific time, the three verses that unambiguously placethis phrase by Jesus in reference to the definite time period referencedin the same verse all separate the phrase with hOTI. The only one thatdoes not is Luke 23:43.To propose Luke 23:43 is an example where Jesus Christ used the phrase”Truly I tell you” with respect to a promise to be fulfilled “today”deviates from the normal usage of this phrase by him.Sincerely,Dan Parker

 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown CommentaryLuke 4:40

Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jun 4 12:46:57 EDT 2001

 

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI At 4:08 PM +0000 6/4/01, Dan Parker wrote:>Dear B-GREEKER’s,>Please note all instances of “Truly I say to you” in the New American>Standard Bible where a _specific time_ is denoted in the same verse.> >Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you [hOTI] that _this>very night, before a cock crows_, you shall deny Me three times.”>EFH AUTW O IHSOUS AMHN LEGW SOI OTI EN TAUTH TH NUKTI PRIN ALEKTORA>FWN HSAI TRIS APARNHSH ME (Date of prediction specified by isolation>from AMHN with hOTI.)> >Mark 14:30 And Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, [hOTI] that>you yourself _this very night, before a cock crows twice_, shall three>times deny Me.” KAI LEGEI AUTW O IHSOUS AMHN LEGW SOI OTI SU SHMERON>AUTH TH NUKTI PRI N H DIS ALEKTORA FWNHSAI TRIS ME APARNHSH (Date of>prediction specified by isolation from AMHN with hOTI.)> >John 5:25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, [hOTI] _an hour is coming and>now is_, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and>those who hear shall live. [AMHN AMHN LEGW UMIN OTI ERXETAI WRA KAI>NUN ESTIN OTE OI NEKROI AKOUSOU SIN THS FWNHS TOU UIOU TOU QEOU KAI OI>AKOUSANTES ZHSOUSIN ] (Date of prediction specified by isolation from>AMHN with hOTI)> >Luke 23:43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall>be with Me in Paradise”. KAI EIPEN AUTW AMHN SOI LEGW SHMERON>MET EMOU ESH EN TW PARADEISW> >In these four examples of Jesus’ expression “Truly I say to you” with>respect to a specific time, the three verses that unambiguously place>this phrase by Jesus in reference to the definite time period referenced>in the same verse all separate the phrase with hOTI. The only one that>does not is Luke 23:43.> >To propose Luke 23:43 is an example where Jesus Christ used the phrase>“Truly I tell you” with respect to a promise to be fulfilled “today”>deviates from the normal usage of this phrase by him.> >Sincerely,>Dan ParkerWhich is to say, the NT evidence for the phrasing AMHN LEGW SOI/hUMINdoesn’t resolve the question.Once again I would urge those really interested in this question to look atthe archives; I don’t think anything new has been adduced on this matter incurrent thread. Personally I find it getting tedious (but I speak only formyself).– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityHome: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verseJesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI

Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI Darrell Jachim-Moore dkmcto at ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Mon Jun 4 15:12:17 EDT 2001

 

Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI Which textbook & Greek exercises+consideration of real use G-Greekers,I’m doing a thesis on the use of the amhn phrases in Matthew and wouldcertainly be interested in searching the archives as suggested.Unfortunately, the I’m not able to get in through the website withmy current email address. If I’m signed on to the list serve am I not alsosigned on to the website or do I need to register in some other fashion?Finally, any information, etc. that anyone would like to share on thesephrases or research suggestions would be greatly appreciated. To date I’vedone quite a volume of work on them myself, but would appreciate otherperspectives as well. as always, thanx for all your insights!darrell>

 

Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOIWhich textbook & Greek exercises+consideration of real use

Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jun 4 12:46:57 EDT 2001

 

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI At 4:08 PM +0000 6/4/01, Dan Parker wrote:>Dear B-GREEKER’s,>Please note all instances of “Truly I say to you” in the New American>Standard Bible where a _specific time_ is denoted in the same verse.> >Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you [hOTI] that _this>very night, before a cock crows_, you shall deny Me three times.”>EFH AUTW O IHSOUS AMHN LEGW SOI OTI EN TAUTH TH NUKTI PRIN ALEKTORA>FWN HSAI TRIS APARNHSH ME (Date of prediction specified by isolation>from AMHN with hOTI.)> >Mark 14:30 And Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, [hOTI] that>you yourself _this very night, before a cock crows twice_, shall three>times deny Me.” KAI LEGEI AUTW O IHSOUS AMHN LEGW SOI OTI SU SHMERON>AUTH TH NUKTI PRI N H DIS ALEKTORA FWNHSAI TRIS ME APARNHSH (Date of>prediction specified by isolation from AMHN with hOTI.)> >John 5:25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, [hOTI] _an hour is coming and>now is_, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and>those who hear shall live. [AMHN AMHN LEGW UMIN OTI ERXETAI WRA KAI>NUN ESTIN OTE OI NEKROI AKOUSOU SIN THS FWNHS TOU UIOU TOU QEOU KAI OI>AKOUSANTES ZHSOUSIN ] (Date of prediction specified by isolation from>AMHN with hOTI)> >Luke 23:43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall>be with Me in Paradise”. KAI EIPEN AUTW AMHN SOI LEGW SHMERON>MET EMOU ESH EN TW PARADEISW> >In these four examples of Jesus’ expression “Truly I say to you” with>respect to a specific time, the three verses that unambiguously place>this phrase by Jesus in reference to the definite time period referenced>in the same verse all separate the phrase with hOTI. The only one that>does not is Luke 23:43.> >To propose Luke 23:43 is an example where Jesus Christ used the phrase>“Truly I tell you” with respect to a promise to be fulfilled “today”>deviates from the normal usage of this phrase by him.> >Sincerely,>Dan ParkerWhich is to say, the NT evidence for the phrasing AMHN LEGW SOI/hUMINdoesn’t resolve the question.Once again I would urge those really interested in this question to look atthe archives; I don’t think anything new has been adduced on this matter incurrent thread. Personally I find it getting tedious (but I speak only formyself).– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityHome: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verseJesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI

Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI Darrell Jachim-Moore dkmcto at ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Mon Jun 4 15:12:17 EDT 2001

 

Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI Which textbook & Greek exercises+consideration of real use G-Greekers,I’m doing a thesis on the use of the amhn phrases in Matthew and wouldcertainly be interested in searching the archives as suggested.Unfortunately, the I’m not able to get in through the website withmy current email address. If I’m signed on to the list serve am I not alsosigned on to the website or do I need to register in some other fashion?Finally, any information, etc. that anyone would like to share on thesephrases or research suggestions would be greatly appreciated. To date I’vedone quite a volume of work on them myself, but would appreciate otherperspectives as well. as always, thanx for all your insights!darrell>

 

Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOIWhich textbook & Greek exercises+consideration of real use

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Sylvia Schmitz Sylvia.Schmitz at t-online.de
Mon Jun 4 23:33:12 EDT 2001

 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI Dear ers,thank you for the responses. I supposed that it was that old. But here in Germany no one knew about it. Best regards,Sylvia SchmitzSylvia.Schmitz at t-online.deMainz, Germany

 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown CommentaryJesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Sylvia Schmitz Sylvia.Schmitz at t-online.de
Mon Jun 4 23:33:12 EDT 2001

 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI Dear ers,thank you for the responses. I supposed that it was that old. But here in Germany no one knew about it. Best regards,Sylvia SchmitzSylvia.Schmitz at t-online.deMainz, Germany

 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown CommentaryJesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI
Luke 23:43 Grant grant at cajun.net
Tue Dec 21 23:27:59 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 Matt. 22:14-Rhetorical Device? Luke 23:43 “KAI EIPEN AUTW AMHN SOI LEGO, SHMERON MET EMOU ESH EN TW PARADEISW”It places the “comma” before SHMERON which give a time that the evildoer would enjoy the paradise promised (regardless of the location or the inhabitants of that paradise).Yet, another translation that I once stumbled upon placed the “comma” after SHMERON which then gives a time of the statement and leaves the evild doer’s enjoyment of paradise indefinite–just a future promise.The footnote claimed that the original Greek had no comma placed here although the Westcott and Hort text does.My question is simple: “Does anyone have access to the oldest documents to check this?”Has anyone researched this before? It seems that the simple placement of the comma is very important. Does this translation have any merit in deviating from the majority based on this understanding?Sincerely,Grant PolleLouisiana, USA”It’s not the amount of Greek in your life, but it’s the amount of life in your Greek.”- anonymous quote by a compulsive Greeker (me)————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991221/d1515bd0/attachment.html

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4Matt. 22:14-Rhetorical Device?

Luke 23:43 – LEGW SOI SHMERON, (comma) Wes Williams WesWilliams at usa.net
Wed Dec 22 01:08:13 EST 1999

 

Matt. 22:14-Rhetorical Device? 1thes 4:3 Dear Grant,You asked about the placement of the comma after SHMERON:> > Luke 23:43 “KAI EIPEN AUTW AMHN SOI LEGO, SHMERON MET EMOU ESH EN TW => PARADEISW”> > Yet, another translation that I once stumbled upon placed the “comma” => after SHMERON which then gives a time of the statement and leaves the => evild doer’s enjoyment of paradise indefinite–just a future promise.> > My question is simple: “Does anyone have access to the oldest documents => to check this?”> Has anyone researched this before? It seems that the simple placement => of the comma is very important. Does this translation have any merit in => deviating from the majority based on this understanding?> > Sincerely,> Grant Polle> I believe that the translation does indeed have merit, not because of itsrelation to any alleged majority position, which may or may not be anarbiter of accuracy due to the influence of theology, but on its history. Iam not the author of the post I enclose, but I stored it from when thissubject was discussed some years ago.Sincerely,Wes Williams________________________For the punctuation marks in Luke 23:43, three possibilities have beenoffered: to put a comma before the word “today,” to put it after “today,” orto put a comma both before and after “today.”–See “Understanding andTranslating ‘Today’ in Luke 23.43,” by J. Hong, published in “The BibleTranslator,” Vol. 46, 1995, pp. 408-417.Early Greek manuscripts had no punctuation, but occasionally it is found insome MSS, and this is the case here, where B (the Vatican 1209) has a lowerpoint ((hypostigme) after semeron. Regarding the punctuation used by thisMS, it was noted that in general “B has the higher point as a period, thelower point for a shorter pause.” (A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the GreekNew Testament,” Nashville, 1934, p. 242) The ink of the uncial letters incodex B was at one time a faded brown color, and in a later century a scribetraced over many of the letters and punctuation marks.However, in Luke 23:43 the ink of the lower point is the same as the lettersof the text, and thus it can be traced back to the fourth century C.E.TheVatican 1209 uses punctuation marks also in other places. Thus, at Romans9:5, ABCL and 26 cursives have a point after sarka. Does anybody know any MSthat displays some kind of punctuation in Luke 23:43, beside the Vatican1209?The Curetonian Syriac (fifth century C.E.) renders Luke 23:43: “Amen, I sayto thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'”–F. C.Burkitt, “The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels,” Vol. I, Cambridge,1904.Below I am quoting from several Greek sources, in transliteration andproviding an English translation. I would appreciate if improvements wouldbe offered for the English renderings.Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai hypostizousin*eita epipherousin, hotiet’ emou ese e to paradeiso._ (“Some indeed read thisway: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ and put a comma; then they add: ‘You will bewith me in Paradise.'”–Hesychius of Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writerwho died about 434 C.E. Greek text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93,columns 432, 1433.Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin’ e tolegomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met’ emou ese en toparadeiso,>> epipherontes. (“But others press upon the saying, putting apunctuation mark after ‘today,’ so that it would be said this way: ‘Truly Itell you today’; and then they add the expression: ‘You will be with me inParadise.'”)–Theophylact, an ecclesiastical writer who died about 1112 C.E.Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, column 1104.alloi — to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas(254:hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith’ houtosepipherein to* met’ emou ese etc. (“Others press upon what is spoken; forthey say it must read by putting a comma thus: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ andthen adding the expression this way: ‘You will be with me’ etc.”)–Scholia237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava criticamaior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869,under Luke 23:43.kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met’ emou ese en toparad[eiso]. (“And immediately he said to me: ‘Most truly today I tell you,You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Descent into Hades, an apocryphalwriting of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece,editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, underLuke 23:43.ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis tonparad[eison] met’ emou. (“And he said to him: ‘Today I tell you the truth,that I should have you in Paradise with me.'”)–Gospel of Nicodemus (=Actsof Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E.Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C.Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the twelfthcentury C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as”Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” On that very day,when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in Paradise. (Psalms16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb until the third day andwas then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the resurrection. (Acts 10:40;1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18) Thus, the word “today” at Luke 23:43does not give the time of the evildoer’s being with Jesus in Paradise.The death of Jesus Christ on that day was a most important event in humanhistory. It opened to mankind the prospect of gaining everlasting life inParadise conditions. A few hours before on that very day, during a simpleceremony, Jesus used wine and unleavened bread as symbols of his lovinghuman sacrifice; then he told his disciples: “Keep doing this in remembranceof me.” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26) It was only as a result ofJesus’ impending sacrificial death on that day that such promise to theevildoer was possible.

 

Matt. 22:14-Rhetorical Device?1thes 4:3

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Mon Jun 4 12:28:16 EDT 2001

 

Luke 4:40 Greek software for quizzes Dear Greg:Lk 4:21 has SHMERON following the verb, LEGW, “(HRSXATO DE LEGEIN PROSAUTOUS HOTI SHMERON PEPLHRWTAI H GRAPHW AUTH EN TOIS WSIV HUMWN.” Since’hoti’ is an indicator of direct (and indirect) discourse, then here is aninstance of a phrase that is essentially the same as 4:24 & 23:43. It alsoseems from a quick perusal in the use of LEGW in Luke that Luke frequentlyuses HOTI, an adverb, or the quote itself, with a pause (punctuationunderstood by context) to follow the verb LEGW (3:8; 4:24-25; 7:26, 28;9:27; 10:12, 24; et al.) Thus, it is perfectly reasonable based on theevidence in Luke (and Acts ?) that one should translate, “Truly I say toyou, Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” It is also apparent from thegospel of John that Jesus used the phrase “Truly, Truly I say to you” or”Truly I say to you.” This would indicate that it was quite common for Jesusto use the above phrase with a pause (punctuation) understood from thecontext.I wonder if one should also look at the use of SHMERON in Acts 13:33, whichis a quote by Paul from the LXX of Ps 2:7, “UIOS MOU EI SU EGW SHMERONGENGHKA (GENNHKA) SE” (see also Heb 1:5; 5:5).Thanks,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —–From: <GregStffrd at aol.com>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Cc: <dwashbur at nyx.net>Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:33 PMSubject: [] Re: Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse> In a message dated 06/03/2001 8:10:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,> dwashbur at nyx.net writes:> > << ??? I thought the original hand of B didn’t use any punctuation or> diacritical marks (accents etc.)?> > Dave Washburn >>> > > Dear Dave:> > That is a common misunderstanding, but early papyri and some of the Uncial> codexes use both. Though many reference works do not seem to read theactual> manuscripts and therefore make themselves susceptible to these views, some> grammars, like Blass-Debrunner and others, are more reliable. Of course, I> have viewed numerous papyri and Codex B on microfilm, so I speak from> first-hand exposure to the texts in question.> > The original hand of B used punctuation, and so did the later copyist. The> color of the ink will tell you which is which, though the later copyistmay> have also traced over some of the original marks.> > Best regards,> > Greg Stafford> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [bjwvmw at com-pair.net]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

 

Luke 4:40Greek software for quizzes

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Mon Jun 4 12:28:16 EDT 2001

 

Luke 4:40 Greek software for quizzes Dear Greg:Lk 4:21 has SHMERON following the verb, LEGW, “(HRSXATO DE LEGEIN PROSAUTOUS HOTI SHMERON PEPLHRWTAI H GRAPHW AUTH EN TOIS WSIV HUMWN.” Since’hoti’ is an indicator of direct (and indirect) discourse, then here is aninstance of a phrase that is essentially the same as 4:24 & 23:43. It alsoseems from a quick perusal in the use of LEGW in Luke that Luke frequentlyuses HOTI, an adverb, or the quote itself, with a pause (punctuationunderstood by context) to follow the verb LEGW (3:8; 4:24-25; 7:26, 28;9:27; 10:12, 24; et al.) Thus, it is perfectly reasonable based on theevidence in Luke (and Acts ?) that one should translate, “Truly I say toyou, Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” It is also apparent from thegospel of John that Jesus used the phrase “Truly, Truly I say to you” or”Truly I say to you.” This would indicate that it was quite common for Jesusto use the above phrase with a pause (punctuation) understood from thecontext.I wonder if one should also look at the use of SHMERON in Acts 13:33, whichis a quote by Paul from the LXX of Ps 2:7, “UIOS MOU EI SU EGW SHMERONGENGHKA (GENNHKA) SE” (see also Heb 1:5; 5:5).Thanks,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —–From: <GregStffrd at aol.com>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Cc: <dwashbur at nyx.net>Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:33 PMSubject: [] Re: Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse> In a message dated 06/03/2001 8:10:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,> dwashbur at nyx.net writes:> > << ??? I thought the original hand of B didn’t use any punctuation or> diacritical marks (accents etc.)?> > Dave Washburn >>> > > Dear Dave:> > That is a common misunderstanding, but early papyri and some of the Uncial> codexes use both. Though many reference works do not seem to read theactual> manuscripts and therefore make themselves susceptible to these views, some> grammars, like Blass-Debrunner and others, are more reliable. Of course, I> have viewed numerous papyri and Codex B on microfilm, so I speak from> first-hand exposure to the texts in question.> > The original hand of B used punctuation, and so did the later copyist. The> color of the ink will tell you which is which, though the later copyistmay> have also traced over some of the original marks.> > Best regards,> > Greg Stafford> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [bjwvmw at com-pair.net]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

 

Luke 4:40Greek software for quizzes

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Mon Jun 4 12:37:50 EDT 2001

 

Greek software for quizzes Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI In a message dated 06/04/2001 9:28:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bjwvmw at com-pair.net writes:<< Dear Greg: Lk 4:21 has SHMERON following the verb, LEGW, “(HRSXATO DE LEGEIN PROS AUTOUS HOTI SHMERON PEPLHRWTAI H GRAPHW AUTH EN TOIS WSIV HUMWN.” Since ‘hoti’ is an indicator of direct (and indirect) discourse, then here is an instance of a phrase that is essentially the same as 4:24 & 23:43. It also seems from a quick perusal in the use of LEGW in Luke that Luke frequently uses HOTI, an adverb, or the quote itself, with a pause (punctuation understood by context) to follow the verb LEGW (3:8; 4:24-25; 7:26, 28; 9:27; 10:12, 24; et al.) Thus, it is perfectly reasonable based on the evidence in Luke (and Acts ?) that one should translate, “Truly I say to you, Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” It is also apparent from the gospel of John that Jesus used the phrase “Truly, Truly I say to you” or “Truly I say to you.” This would indicate that it was quite common for Jesus to use the above phrase with a pause (punctuation) understood from the context. I wonder if one should also look at the use of SHMERON in Acts 13:33, which is a quote by Paul from the LXX of Ps 2:7, “UIOS MOU EI SU EGW SHMERON GENGHKA (GENNHKA) SE” (see also Heb 1:5; 5:5). Thanks, Rev. Bryant J. Williams III >>Dear Bryant:That is my point: There is no such use of hOTI in Luke 23:43. Thus, it is not comparable to 4:21. 4:21 can only be construed one way; not so with 23:43. Acts 13:33 might be comparable in terms of an emphasis for an act, but not a speech-related event. There are plenty of parallels from the LXX and NT that show that “today” in Luke 23:43 is part of an idiom meat to convey solemn emphasis for what was said. The text should be translated, “Truly I tell you today, you will… ” Even if others prefer “Truly I say to you, today. . .” they should give the former as a viable alternative, but very few translations do that, and thus withhold from their readers important information that leads others to believe the former reading is a misreading, when in fact it is quite acceptable, if not preferable. Please consult the archives for these examples and other details. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

Greek software for quizzesJesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Mon Jun 4 12:37:50 EDT 2001

 

Greek software for quizzes Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI In a message dated 06/04/2001 9:28:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bjwvmw at com-pair.net writes:<< Dear Greg: Lk 4:21 has SHMERON following the verb, LEGW, “(HRSXATO DE LEGEIN PROS AUTOUS HOTI SHMERON PEPLHRWTAI H GRAPHW AUTH EN TOIS WSIV HUMWN.” Since ‘hoti’ is an indicator of direct (and indirect) discourse, then here is an instance of a phrase that is essentially the same as 4:24 & 23:43. It also seems from a quick perusal in the use of LEGW in Luke that Luke frequently uses HOTI, an adverb, or the quote itself, with a pause (punctuation understood by context) to follow the verb LEGW (3:8; 4:24-25; 7:26, 28; 9:27; 10:12, 24; et al.) Thus, it is perfectly reasonable based on the evidence in Luke (and Acts ?) that one should translate, “Truly I say to you, Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” It is also apparent from the gospel of John that Jesus used the phrase “Truly, Truly I say to you” or “Truly I say to you.” This would indicate that it was quite common for Jesus to use the above phrase with a pause (punctuation) understood from the context. I wonder if one should also look at the use of SHMERON in Acts 13:33, which is a quote by Paul from the LXX of Ps 2:7, “UIOS MOU EI SU EGW SHMERON GENGHKA (GENNHKA) SE” (see also Heb 1:5; 5:5). Thanks, Rev. Bryant J. Williams III >>Dear Bryant:That is my point: There is no such use of hOTI in Luke 23:43. Thus, it is not comparable to 4:21. 4:21 can only be construed one way; not so with 23:43. Acts 13:33 might be comparable in terms of an emphasis for an act, but not a speech-related event. There are plenty of parallels from the LXX and NT that show that “today” in Luke 23:43 is part of an idiom meat to convey solemn emphasis for what was said. The text should be translated, “Truly I tell you today, you will… ” Even if others prefer “Truly I say to you, today. . .” they should give the former as a viable alternative, but very few translations do that, and thus withhold from their readers important information that leads others to believe the former reading is a misreading, when in fact it is quite acceptable, if not preferable. Please consult the archives for these examples and other details. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

Greek software for quizzesJesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Mon Jun 4 21:51:37 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI MK 14:41 APECEI [snip]> Below I am quoting from several Greek sources, in transliteration and> providing an English translation. I would appreciate if improvements would> be offered for the English renderings.> > TINES MEN hOUTOS ANAGINWSKOUSIN _AMHN LEGW SOI SHMERON*_ kai> hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, hotiet’ emou ese e to paradeiso._> (“Some indeed read this way: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ and put a comma;> then they add: ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'”–Hesychius of> Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text> found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433.> > Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin’ e to> legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met’ emou ese> en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. (“But others press upon the saying,> putting a punctuation mark after ‘today,’ so that it would be said> this way: ‘Truly I tell you today’; and then they add the expression:> ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Theophylact, an ecclessistical> writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123,> column 1104.> > alloi — to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254:> hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith’ houtos> epipherein to* met’ emou ese etc. (“Others press upon what is spoken;> for they say it must read by putting a comma thus: ‘Truly I tell you> today,’ and then adding the expression this way: ‘You will be with me’> etc.”)–Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece,> editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869,> under Luke 23:43.These of course do not necessarily tell the whole story because they are badly out of context. We need to know whether the writer cited what these “others” do approvingly or disapprovingly, who they were and whether they had theological axes to grind, whether the church at large recognized them as qualified to make such comments, and a host of other questions. Did Theophylact accept this placement of the comma? Or was he discussing why he didn’t? We need the contexts of these quotes for them to be of any real use in discussing this topic. When we cite something like this out of its context we can make it say pretty much anything we want, but that may or may not be what the writer actually intended to say.> kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met’ emou ese en> to parad[eiso]. (“And immediately he said to me: ‘Most truly today> I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Descent into Hades,> an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum> Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol.> I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.This of course rearranges the words, moving SHMERON forward and adding another AMHN, so there are several ways this reading could have originated and it may or may not be useful.> ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton> parad[eison] met’ emou. (“And he said to him: ‘Today I tell you the> truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'”)–Gospel of> Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth> or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio> octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under> Luke 23:43.This also moves SHMERON. The question is, why? Paraphrase? Faulty memory? Support of a preconceived idea? Simply citing it tells us little or nothing about its value for the discussion.> Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the> twelfth century C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke> 23:43 as “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” Irrelevant. The question is, who were they and why did they understand it this way? What did the other fathers say about it? See the questions above. Unfortunately, at least for exegetical purposes, most of this information is fairly useless.On> that very day, when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in> Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb> until the third day and was then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the> resurrection. (Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18) Thus, the> word “today” at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer’s being> with Jesus in Paradise.The texts above do not establish this. We have gone far beyond the text at this point, and we’re building theology on a comma that is still questionable at best. At worst, these “other writers” may have been heretics for all we know, finagling the placement of the comma for their own purposes. So for all these extensive citations, we’ve really gotten nowhere, and with the above paragraph we have descended into the forbidden realm of theology.[snip]Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

MK 14:41 APECEIMK 14:41 APECEI

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Mon Jun 4 21:51:37 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI MK 14:41 APECEI [snip]> Below I am quoting from several Greek sources, in transliteration and> providing an English translation. I would appreciate if improvements would> be offered for the English renderings.> > TINES MEN hOUTOS ANAGINWSKOUSIN _AMHN LEGW SOI SHMERON*_ kai> hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, hotiet’ emou ese e to paradeiso._> (“Some indeed read this way: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ and put a comma;> then they add: ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'”–Hesychius of> Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text> found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433.> > Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin’ e to> legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met’ emou ese> en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. (“But others press upon the saying,> putting a punctuation mark after ‘today,’ so that it would be said> this way: ‘Truly I tell you today’; and then they add the expression:> ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Theophylact, an ecclessistical> writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123,> column 1104.> > alloi — to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254:> hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith’ houtos> epipherein to* met’ emou ese etc. (“Others press upon what is spoken;> for they say it must read by putting a comma thus: ‘Truly I tell you> today,’ and then adding the expression this way: ‘You will be with me’> etc.”)–Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece,> editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869,> under Luke 23:43.These of course do not necessarily tell the whole story because they are badly out of context. We need to know whether the writer cited what these “others” do approvingly or disapprovingly, who they were and whether they had theological axes to grind, whether the church at large recognized them as qualified to make such comments, and a host of other questions. Did Theophylact accept this placement of the comma? Or was he discussing why he didn’t? We need the contexts of these quotes for them to be of any real use in discussing this topic. When we cite something like this out of its context we can make it say pretty much anything we want, but that may or may not be what the writer actually intended to say.> kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met’ emou ese en> to parad[eiso]. (“And immediately he said to me: ‘Most truly today> I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Descent into Hades,> an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum> Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol.> I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.This of course rearranges the words, moving SHMERON forward and adding another AMHN, so there are several ways this reading could have originated and it may or may not be useful.> ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton> parad[eison] met’ emou. (“And he said to him: ‘Today I tell you the> truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'”)–Gospel of> Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth> or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio> octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under> Luke 23:43.This also moves SHMERON. The question is, why? Paraphrase? Faulty memory? Support of a preconceived idea? Simply citing it tells us little or nothing about its value for the discussion.> Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the> twelfth century C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke> 23:43 as “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” Irrelevant. The question is, who were they and why did they understand it this way? What did the other fathers say about it? See the questions above. Unfortunately, at least for exegetical purposes, most of this information is fairly useless.On> that very day, when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in> Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb> until the third day and was then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the> resurrection. (Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18) Thus, the> word “today” at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer’s being> with Jesus in Paradise.The texts above do not establish this. We have gone far beyond the text at this point, and we’re building theology on a comma that is still questionable at best. At worst, these “other writers” may have been heretics for all we know, finagling the placement of the comma for their own purposes. So for all these extensive citations, we’ve really gotten nowhere, and with the above paragraph we have descended into the forbidden realm of theology.[snip]Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

MK 14:41 APECEIMK 14:41 APECEI

Luke 23:43 in B Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 10:35:46 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI Luke 23:43 in B After I read the post about the suggested comma in Codex Vaticanus (B), I asked my friends on the Textual Criticism list about it. I received a response from a professional textual critic in Germany who spends more time with the manuscripts and their facsimiles than any of us here ever will. Here is his response:——-Dave Washburn wrote:> Someone on another list just said that the original hand of B (brown> ink) has a comma in the much-disputed passage Luke 23:43 (“I tell> you today,” vs. “I tell you, today”). I had always understood that> the original hand of B didn’t have any such marks, that the> accents, punctuation etc. were added by a later hand. Did I hear> wrong?I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is abrown dot there, butI would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.There is no extraspace between the letters which one would expect if this is a comma. Iwould not baseanything on this.

 

MK 14:41 APECEILuke 23:43 in B

Luke 23:43 in B Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 10:35:46 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI Luke 23:43 in B After I read the post about the suggested comma in Codex Vaticanus (B), I asked my friends on the Textual Criticism list about it. I received a response from a professional textual critic in Germany who spends more time with the manuscripts and their facsimiles than any of us here ever will. Here is his response:——-Dave Washburn wrote:> Someone on another list just said that the original hand of B (brown> ink) has a comma in the much-disputed passage Luke 23:43 (“I tell> you today,” vs. “I tell you, today”). I had always understood that> the original hand of B didn’t have any such marks, that the> accents, punctuation etc. were added by a later hand. Did I hear> wrong?I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is abrown dot there, butI would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.There is no extraspace between the letters which one would expect if this is a comma. Iwould not baseanything on this.

 

MK 14:41 APECEILuke 23:43 in B

Luke 23:43 in B Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 12:57:18 EDT 2001

 

Luke 23:43 in B Thayers Lexicon > In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dwashbur at nyx.net writes:> > << I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a> brown dot there, but> I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.> There is no extra> space between the letters which one would expect if this is a > comma. I> would not base> anything on this. >>> > > > I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of > me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like > other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate. > > Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request > through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript > Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this > fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own > *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no > blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand. Considering that he has done just that, and is much more familiar with the characteristics of this and hundreds of other manuscripts than the rest of us are – in addition to the fact that he has no theological stake in it one way or the other – I’d be much more inclined to take his word. YMMV.Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

Luke 23:43 in BThayers Lexicon

Luke 23:43 in B GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Tue Jun 5 11:30:06 EDT 2001

 

Luke 23:43 in B Luke 23:43 in B In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dwashbur at nyx.net writes:<< I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a brown dot there, but I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot. There is no extra space between the letters which one would expect if this is a comma. I would not base anything on this. >>I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate. Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

Luke 23:43 in BLuke 23:43 in B

Luke 23:43 in B GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Tue Jun 5 11:30:06 EDT 2001

 

Luke 23:43 in B Luke 23:43 in B In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dwashbur at nyx.net writes:<< I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a brown dot there, but I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot. There is no extra space between the letters which one would expect if this is a comma. I would not base anything on this. >>I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate. Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

Luke 23:43 in BLuke 23:43 in B

Luke 23:43 in B Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 12:57:18 EDT 2001

 

Luke 23:43 in B Thayers Lexicon > In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dwashbur at nyx.net writes:> > << I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a> brown dot there, but> I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.> There is no extra> space between the letters which one would expect if this is a > comma. I> would not base> anything on this. >>> > > > I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of > me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like > other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate. > > Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request > through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript > Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this > fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own > *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no > blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand. Considering that he has done just that, and is much more familiar with the characteristics of this and hundreds of other manuscripts than the rest of us are – in addition to the fact that he has no theological stake in it one way or the other – I’d be much more inclined to take his word. YMMV.Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

Luke 23:43 in BThayers Lexicon

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 5 15:17:05 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 At 9:57 AM -0700 6/5/01, Dave Washburn wrote:>> In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,>> dwashbur at nyx.net writes:>> >> << I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a>> brown dot there, but>> I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.>> There is no extra>> space between the letters which one would expect if this is a>> comma. I>> would not base>> anything on this. >>>> >> >> >> I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of>> me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like>> other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate.>> >> Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request>> through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript>> Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this>> fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own>> *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no>> blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand.> >Considering that he has done just that, and is much more familiar>with the characteristics of this and hundreds of other manuscripts>than the rest of us are – in addition to the fact that he has no>theological stake in it one way or the other – I’d be much more>inclined to take his word. YMMV.Please let’s call a halt to this now! Positions have been taken and arguedfor and now we’re arguing (so it appears to me) over what the MS itselfactually indicates; authority is being pitted against authority, and theunspoken assumption of the last paragraph above would seem to be that ifone disagrees with the opinion of a supposedly trustworthy expert, it mustbe because one has a theological agenda. Whether that may or may not betrue is beside the point: it is unacceptable in terms of listprotocol.I’m asking this thread on Luke 23:43 under any subject-header employedhitherto or to be devised be stopped immediately–rebuttals especiallyprohibited.– Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington Universitycwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

MK 14:41 APECEIENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 5 15:17:05 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 At 9:57 AM -0700 6/5/01, Dave Washburn wrote:>> In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,>> dwashbur at nyx.net writes:>> >> << I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a>> brown dot there, but>> I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.>> There is no extra>> space between the letters which one would expect if this is a>> comma. I>> would not base>> anything on this. >>>> >> >> >> I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of>> me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like>> other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate.>> >> Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request>> through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript>> Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this>> fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own>> *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no>> blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand.> >Considering that he has done just that, and is much more familiar>with the characteristics of this and hundreds of other manuscripts>than the rest of us are – in addition to the fact that he has no>theological stake in it one way or the other – I’d be much more>inclined to take his word. YMMV.Please let’s call a halt to this now! Positions have been taken and arguedfor and now we’re arguing (so it appears to me) over what the MS itselfactually indicates; authority is being pitted against authority, and theunspoken assumption of the last paragraph above would seem to be that ifone disagrees with the opinion of a supposedly trustworthy expert, it mustbe because one has a theological agenda. Whether that may or may not betrue is beside the point: it is unacceptable in terms of listprotocol.I’m asking this thread on Luke 23:43 under any subject-header employedhitherto or to be devised be stopped immediately–rebuttals especiallyprohibited.– Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington Universitycwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

MK 14:41 APECEIENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 16:21:30 EDT 2001

 

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony ……. and the> unspoken assumption of the last paragraph above would seem to be that if> one disagrees with the opinion of a supposedly trustworthy expert, it must> be because one has a theological agenda. It was not my intention to convey the idea that it must be one or the other. One person’s expertise and/or another’s theological agenda were not meant to be linked, and if my comment came across that way, it was not meant to. With that, I gladly bow out of this topic.Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 16:21:30 EDT 2001

 

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony ……. and the> unspoken assumption of the last paragraph above would seem to be that if> one disagrees with the opinion of a supposedly trustworthy expert, it must> be because one has a theological agenda. It was not my intention to convey the idea that it must be one or the other. One person’s expertise and/or another’s theological agenda were not meant to be linked, and if my comment came across that way, it was not meant to. With that, I gladly bow out of this topic.Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony

Luke 23:43 and my two cents Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Thu Nov 8 19:02:15 EST 2001

 

Frequency of hOS Didache (and MI imperatives) Some time in the past there was a thread that was cut before I got to give my two cents worth. So in this post I like to finally do so. Since an adverb needs to be adjacentto or very nearly so to the verb it modifies.I believe that the comma should be rightafter SHMERON. For example,…,AMHN SOILEGW SHMERON, MET’ EMOU ESHi entwi PARADEISWi. I just wanted to get my two cents in but not start up the thread again. So no replies will beappreciated.Best,Harry Jones

 

Frequency of hOSDidache (and MI imperatives)

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Kevin Buchs buchsk at charter.net
Thu Sep 19 07:39:33 EDT 2002

 

“incorrect” negative particles with moods RV: () Re:Condition in Acts 17:27 Is it possible to understand the phrase MET EMOU in Luke 23:43 asmodifying the verb ESH ? It seems the common understanding is totake it as a parallel direct object along with EN TW PARADEISW .Thank you.Kevin Buchs buchsk at charter.net Rochester, MN

 

“incorrect” negative particles with moodsRV: () Re:Condition in Acts 17:27
Luke 23:43 Grant grant at cajun.net
Tue Dec 21 23:27:59 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 Matt. 22:14-Rhetorical Device? Luke 23:43 “KAI EIPEN AUTW AMHN SOI LEGO, SHMERON MET EMOU ESH EN TW PARADEISW”It places the “comma” before SHMERON which give a time that the evildoer would enjoy the paradise promised (regardless of the location or the inhabitants of that paradise).Yet, another translation that I once stumbled upon placed the “comma” after SHMERON which then gives a time of the statement and leaves the evild doer’s enjoyment of paradise indefinite–just a future promise.The footnote claimed that the original Greek had no comma placed here although the Westcott and Hort text does.My question is simple: “Does anyone have access to the oldest documents to check this?”Has anyone researched this before? It seems that the simple placement of the comma is very important. Does this translation have any merit in deviating from the majority based on this understanding?Sincerely,Grant PolleLouisiana, USA”It’s not the amount of Greek in your life, but it’s the amount of life in your Greek.”- anonymous quote by a compulsive Greeker (me)————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991221/d1515bd0/attachment.html

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4Matt. 22:14-Rhetorical Device?

Luke 23:43 – LEGW SOI SHMERON, (comma) Wes Williams WesWilliams at usa.net
Wed Dec 22 01:08:13 EST 1999

 

Matt. 22:14-Rhetorical Device? 1thes 4:3 Dear Grant,You asked about the placement of the comma after SHMERON:> > Luke 23:43 “KAI EIPEN AUTW AMHN SOI LEGO, SHMERON MET EMOU ESH EN TW => PARADEISW”> > Yet, another translation that I once stumbled upon placed the “comma” => after SHMERON which then gives a time of the statement and leaves the => evild doer’s enjoyment of paradise indefinite–just a future promise.> > My question is simple: “Does anyone have access to the oldest documents => to check this?”> Has anyone researched this before? It seems that the simple placement => of the comma is very important. Does this translation have any merit in => deviating from the majority based on this understanding?> > Sincerely,> Grant Polle> I believe that the translation does indeed have merit, not because of itsrelation to any alleged majority position, which may or may not be anarbiter of accuracy due to the influence of theology, but on its history. Iam not the author of the post I enclose, but I stored it from when thissubject was discussed some years ago.Sincerely,Wes Williams________________________For the punctuation marks in Luke 23:43, three possibilities have beenoffered: to put a comma before the word “today,” to put it after “today,” orto put a comma both before and after “today.”–See “Understanding andTranslating ‘Today’ in Luke 23.43,” by J. Hong, published in “The BibleTranslator,” Vol. 46, 1995, pp. 408-417.Early Greek manuscripts had no punctuation, but occasionally it is found insome MSS, and this is the case here, where B (the Vatican 1209) has a lowerpoint ((hypostigme) after semeron. Regarding the punctuation used by thisMS, it was noted that in general “B has the higher point as a period, thelower point for a shorter pause.” (A. T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the GreekNew Testament,” Nashville, 1934, p. 242) The ink of the uncial letters incodex B was at one time a faded brown color, and in a later century a scribetraced over many of the letters and punctuation marks.However, in Luke 23:43 the ink of the lower point is the same as the lettersof the text, and thus it can be traced back to the fourth century C.E.TheVatican 1209 uses punctuation marks also in other places. Thus, at Romans9:5, ABCL and 26 cursives have a point after sarka. Does anybody know any MSthat displays some kind of punctuation in Luke 23:43, beside the Vatican1209?The Curetonian Syriac (fifth century C.E.) renders Luke 23:43: “Amen, I sayto thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'”–F. C.Burkitt, “The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels,” Vol. I, Cambridge,1904.Below I am quoting from several Greek sources, in transliteration andproviding an English translation. I would appreciate if improvements wouldbe offered for the English renderings.Tines men houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai hypostizousin*eita epipherousin, hotiet’ emou ese e to paradeiso._ (“Some indeed read thisway: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ and put a comma; then they add: ‘You will bewith me in Paradise.'”–Hesychius of Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writerwho died about 434 C.E. Greek text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93,columns 432, 1433.Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin’ e tolegomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met’ emou ese en toparadeiso,>> epipherontes. (“But others press upon the saying, putting apunctuation mark after ‘today,’ so that it would be said this way: ‘Truly Itell you today’; and then they add the expression: ‘You will be with me inParadise.'”)–Theophylact, an ecclesiastical writer who died about 1112 C.E.Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, column 1104.alloi — to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas(254:hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith’ houtosepipherein to* met’ emou ese etc. (“Others press upon what is spoken; forthey say it must read by putting a comma thus: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ andthen adding the expression this way: ‘You will be with me’ etc.”)–Scholia237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava criticamaior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869,under Luke 23:43.kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met’ emou ese en toparad[eiso]. (“And immediately he said to me: ‘Most truly today I tell you,You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Descent into Hades, an apocryphalwriting of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece,editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig,869, underLuke 23:43.ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis tonparad[eison] met’ emou. (“And he said to him: ‘Today I tell you the truth,that I should have you in Paradise with me.'”)–Gospel of Nicodemus (=Actsof Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth or fifth century C.E.Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C.Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the twelfthcentury C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as”Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” On that very day,when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in Paradise. (Psalms16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb until the third day andwas then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the resurrection. (Acts 10:40;1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18) Thus, the word “today” at Luke 23:43does not give the time of the evildoer’s being with Jesus in Paradise.The death of Jesus Christ on that day was a most important event in humanhistory. It opened to mankind the prospect of gaining everlasting life inParadise conditions. A few hours before on that very day, during a simpleceremony, Jesus used wine and unleavened bread as symbols of his lovinghuman sacrifice; then he told his disciples: “Keep doing this in remembranceof me.” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26) It was only as a result ofJesus’ impending sacrificial death on that day that such promise to theevildoer was possible.

 

Matt. 22:14-Rhetorical Device?1thes 4:3

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Mon Jun 4 12:28:16 EDT 2001

 

Luke 4:40 Greek software for quizzes Dear Greg:Lk 4:21 has SHMERON following the verb, LEGW, “(HRSXATO DE LEGEIN PROSAUTOUS HOTI SHMERON PEPLHRWTAI H GRAPHW AUTH EN TOIS WSIV HUMWN.” Since’hoti’ is an indicator of direct (and indirect) discourse, then here is aninstance of a phrase that is essentially the same as 4:24 & 23:43. It alsoseems from a quick perusal in the use of LEGW in Luke that Luke frequentlyuses HOTI, an adverb, or the quote itself, with a pause (punctuationunderstood by context) to follow the verb LEGW (3:8; 4:24-25; 7:26, 28;9:27; 10:12, 24; et al.) Thus, it is perfectly reasonable based on theevidence in Luke (and Acts ?) that one should translate, “Truly I say toyou, Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” It is also apparent from thegospel of John that Jesus used the phrase “Truly, Truly I say to you” or”Truly I say to you.” This would indicate that it was quite common for Jesusto use the above phrase with a pause (punctuation) understood from thecontext.I wonder if one should also look at the use of SHMERON in Acts 13:33, whichis a quote by Paul from the LXX of Ps 2:7, “UIOS MOU EI SU EGW SHMERONGENGHKA (GENNHKA) SE” (see also Heb 1:5; 5:5).Thanks,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —–From: <GregStffrd at aol.com>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Cc: <dwashbur at nyx.net>Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:33 PMSubject: [] Re: Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse> In a message dated 06/03/2001 8:10:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,> dwashbur at nyx.net writes:> > << ??? I thought the original hand of B didn’t use any punctuation or> diacritical marks (accents etc.)?> > Dave Washburn >>> > > Dear Dave:> > That is a common misunderstanding, but early papyri and some of the Uncial> codexes use both. Though many reference works do not seem to read theactual> manuscripts and therefore make themselves susceptible to these views, some> grammars, like Blass-Debrunner and others, are more reliable. Of course, I> have viewed numerous papyri and Codex B on microfilm, so I speak from> first-hand exposure to the texts in question.> > The original hand of B used punctuation, and so did the later copyist. The> color of the ink will tell you which is which, though the later copyistmay> have also traced over some of the original marks.> > Best regards,> > Greg Stafford> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [bjwvmw at com-pair.net]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

 

Luke 4:40Greek software for quizzes

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Mon Jun 4 12:28:16 EDT 2001

 

Luke 4:40 Greek software for quizzes Dear Greg:Lk 4:21 has SHMERON following the verb, LEGW, “(HRSXATO DE LEGEIN PROSAUTOUS HOTI SHMERON PEPLHRWTAI H GRAPHW AUTH EN TOIS WSIV HUMWN.” Since’hoti’ is an indicator of direct (and indirect) discourse, then here is aninstance of a phrase that is essentially the same as 4:24 & 23:43. It alsoseems from a quick perusal in the use of LEGW in Luke that Luke frequentlyuses HOTI, an adverb, or the quote itself, with a pause (punctuationunderstood by context) to follow the verb LEGW (3:8; 4:24-25; 7:26, 28;9:27; 10:12, 24; et al.) Thus, it is perfectly reasonable based on theevidence in Luke (and Acts ?) that one should translate, “Truly I say toyou, Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” It is also apparent from thegospel of John that Jesus used the phrase “Truly, Truly I say to you” or”Truly I say to you.” This would indicate that it was quite common for Jesusto use the above phrase with a pause (punctuation) understood from thecontext.I wonder if one should also look at the use of SHMERON in Acts 13:33, whichis a quote by Paul from the LXX of Ps 2:7, “UIOS MOU EI SU EGW SHMERONGENGHKA (GENNHKA) SE” (see also Heb 1:5; 5:5).Thanks,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —–From: <GregStffrd at aol.com>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Cc: <dwashbur at nyx.net>Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 10:33 PMSubject: [] Re: Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse> In a message dated 06/03/2001 8:10:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,> dwashbur at nyx.net writes:> > << ??? I thought the original hand of B didn’t use any punctuation or> diacritical marks (accents etc.)?> > Dave Washburn >>> > > Dear Dave:> > That is a common misunderstanding, but early papyri and some of the Uncial> codexes use both. Though many reference works do not seem to read theactual> manuscripts and therefore make themselves susceptible to these views, some> grammars, like Blass-Debrunner and others, are more reliable. Of course, I> have viewed numerous papyri and Codex B on microfilm, so I speak from> first-hand exposure to the texts in question.> > The original hand of B used punctuation, and so did the later copyist. The> color of the ink will tell you which is which, though the later copyistmay> have also traced over some of the original marks.> > Best regards,> > Greg Stafford> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [bjwvmw at com-pair.net]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

 

Luke 4:40Greek software for quizzes

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Mon Jun 4 12:37:50 EDT 2001

 

Greek software for quizzes Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI In a message dated 06/04/2001 9:28:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bjwvmw at com-pair.net writes:<< Dear Greg: Lk 4:21 has SHMERON following the verb, LEGW, “(HRSXATO DE LEGEIN PROS AUTOUS HOTI SHMERON PEPLHRWTAI H GRAPHW AUTH EN TOIS WSIV HUMWN.” Since ‘hoti’ is an indicator of direct (and indirect) discourse, then here is an instance of a phrase that is essentially the same as 4:24 & 23:43. It also seems from a quick perusal in the use of LEGW in Luke that Luke frequently uses HOTI, an adverb, or the quote itself, with a pause (punctuation understood by context) to follow the verb LEGW (3:8; 4:24-25; 7:26, 28; 9:27; 10:12, 24; et al.) Thus, it is perfectly reasonable based on the evidence in Luke (and Acts ?) that one should translate, “Truly I say to you, Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” It is also apparent from the gospel of John that Jesus used the phrase “Truly, Truly I say to you” or “Truly I say to you.” This would indicate that it was quite common for Jesus to use the above phrase with a pause (punctuation) understood from the context. I wonder if one should also look at the use of SHMERON in Acts 13:33, which is a quote by Paul from the LXX of Ps 2:7, “UIOS MOU EI SU EGW SHMERON GENGHKA (GENNHKA) SE” (see also Heb 1:5; 5:5). Thanks, Rev. Bryant J. Williams III >>Dear Bryant:That is my point: There is no such use of hOTI in Luke 23:43. Thus, it is not comparable to 4:21. 4:21 can only be construed one way; not so with 23:43. Acts 13:33 might be comparable in terms of an emphasis for an act, but not a speech-related event. There are plenty of parallels from the LXX and NT that show that “today” in Luke 23:43 is part of an idiom meat to convey solemn emphasis for what was said. The text should be translated, “Truly I tell you today, you will… ” Even if others prefer “Truly I say to you, today. . .” they should give the former as a viable alternative, but very few translations do that, and thus withhold from their readers important information that leads others to believe the former reading is a misreading, when in fact it is quite acceptable, if not preferable. Please consult the archives for these examples and other details. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

Greek software for quizzesJesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Mon Jun 4 12:37:50 EDT 2001

 

Greek software for quizzes Jesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI In a message dated 06/04/2001 9:28:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bjwvmw at com-pair.net writes:<< Dear Greg: Lk 4:21 has SHMERON following the verb, LEGW, “(HRSXATO DE LEGEIN PROS AUTOUS HOTI SHMERON PEPLHRWTAI H GRAPHW AUTH EN TOIS WSIV HUMWN.” Since ‘hoti’ is an indicator of direct (and indirect) discourse, then here is an instance of a phrase that is essentially the same as 4:24 & 23:43. It also seems from a quick perusal in the use of LEGW in Luke that Luke frequently uses HOTI, an adverb, or the quote itself, with a pause (punctuation understood by context) to follow the verb LEGW (3:8; 4:24-25; 7:26, 28; 9:27; 10:12, 24; et al.) Thus, it is perfectly reasonable based on the evidence in Luke (and Acts ?) that one should translate, “Truly I say to you, Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” It is also apparent from the gospel of John that Jesus used the phrase “Truly, Truly I say to you” or “Truly I say to you.” This would indicate that it was quite common for Jesus to use the above phrase with a pause (punctuation) understood from the context. I wonder if one should also look at the use of SHMERON in Acts 13:33, which is a quote by Paul from the LXX of Ps 2:7, “UIOS MOU EI SU EGW SHMERON GENGHKA (GENNHKA) SE” (see also Heb 1:5; 5:5). Thanks, Rev. Bryant J. Williams III >>Dear Bryant:That is my point: There is no such use of hOTI in Luke 23:43. Thus, it is not comparable to 4:21. 4:21 can only be construed one way; not so with 23:43. Acts 13:33 might be comparable in terms of an emphasis for an act, but not a speech-related event. There are plenty of parallels from the LXX and NT that show that “today” in Luke 23:43 is part of an idiom meat to convey solemn emphasis for what was said. The text should be translated, “Truly I tell you today, you will… ” Even if others prefer “Truly I say to you, today. . .” they should give the former as a viable alternative, but very few translations do that, and thus withhold from their readers important information that leads others to believe the former reading is a misreading, when in fact it is quite acceptable, if not preferable. Please consult the archives for these examples and other details. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

Greek software for quizzesJesus’ use of AMHN LEGW SOI

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Mon Jun 4 21:51:37 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI MK 14:41 APECEI [snip]> Below I am quoting from several Greek sources, in transliteration and> providing an English translation. I would appreciate if improvements would> be offered for the English renderings.> > TINES MEN hOUTOS ANAGINWSKOUSIN _AMHN LEGW SOI SHMERON*_ kai> hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, hotiet’ emou ese e to paradeiso._> (“Some indeed read this way: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ and put a comma;> then they add: ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'”–Hesychius of> Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text> found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433.> > Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin’ e to> legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met’ emou ese> en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. (“But others press upon the saying,> putting a punctuation mark after ‘today,’ so that it would be said> this way: ‘Truly I tell you today’; and then they add the expression:> ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Theophylact, an ecclessistical> writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123,> column 1104.> > alloi — to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254:> hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith’ houtos> epipherein to* met’ emou ese etc. (“Others press upon what is spoken;> for they say it must read by putting a comma thus: ‘Truly I tell you> today,’ and then adding the expression this way: ‘You will be with me’> etc.”)–Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece,> editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869,> under Luke 23:43.These of course do not necessarily tell the whole story because they are badly out of context. We need to know whether the writer cited what these “others” do approvingly or disapprovingly, who they were and whether they had theological axes to grind, whether the church at large recognized them as qualified to make such comments, and a host of other questions. Did Theophylact accept this placement of the comma? Or was he discussing why he didn’t? We need the contexts of these quotes for them to be of any real use in discussing this topic. When we cite something like this out of its context we can make it say pretty much anything we want, but that may or may not be what the writer actually intended to say.> kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met’ emou ese en> to parad[eiso]. (“And immediately he said to me: ‘Most truly today> I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Descent into Hades,> an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum> Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol.> I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.This of course rearranges the words, moving SHMERON forward and adding another AMHN, so there are several ways this reading could have originated and it may or may not be useful.> ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton> parad[eison] met’ emou. (“And he said to him: ‘Today I tell you the> truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'”)–Gospel of> Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth> or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio> octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under> Luke 23:43.This also moves SHMERON. The question is, why? Paraphrase? Faulty memory? Support of a preconceived idea? Simply citing it tells us little or nothing about its value for the discussion.> Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the> twelfth century C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke> 23:43 as “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” Irrelevant. The question is, who were they and why did they understand it this way? What did the other fathers say about it? See the questions above. Unfortunately, at least for exegetical purposes, most of this information is fairly useless.On> that very day, when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in> Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb> until the third day and was then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the> resurrection. (Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18) Thus, the> word “today” at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer’s being> with Jesus in Paradise.The texts above do not establish this. We have gone far beyond the text at this point, and we’re building theology on a comma that is still questionable at best. At worst, these “other writers” may have been heretics for all we know, finagling the placement of the comma for their own purposes. So for all these extensive citations, we’ve really gotten nowhere, and with the above paragraph we have descended into the forbidden realm of theology.[snip]Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

MK 14:41 APECEIMK 14:41 APECEI

Luke 23:43 – the punctuation of the verse Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Mon Jun 4 21:51:37 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI MK 14:41 APECEI [snip]> Below I am quoting from several Greek sources, in transliteration and> providing an English translation. I would appreciate if improvements would> be offered for the English renderings.> > TINES MEN hOUTOS ANAGINWSKOUSIN _AMHN LEGW SOI SHMERON*_ kai> hypostizousin* eita epipherousin, hotiet’ emou ese e to paradeiso._> (“Some indeed read this way: ‘Truly I tell you today,’ and put a comma;> then they add: ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'”–Hesychius of> Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek text> found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433.> > Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin’ e to> legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met’ emou ese> en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. (“But others press upon the saying,> putting a punctuation mark after ‘today,’ so that it would be said> this way: ‘Truly I tell you today’; and then they add the expression:> ‘You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Theophylact, an ecclessistical> writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123,> column 1104.> > alloi — to rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254:> hypostizantas) anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith’ houtos> epipherein to* met’ emou ese etc. (“Others press upon what is spoken;> for they say it must read by putting a comma thus: ‘Truly I tell you> today,’ and then adding the expression this way: ‘You will be with me’> etc.”)–Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece,> editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869,> under Luke 23:43.These of course do not necessarily tell the whole story because they are badly out of context. We need to know whether the writer cited what these “others” do approvingly or disapprovingly, who they were and whether they had theological axes to grind, whether the church at large recognized them as qualified to make such comments, and a host of other questions. Did Theophylact accept this placement of the comma? Or was he discussing why he didn’t? We need the contexts of these quotes for them to be of any real use in discussing this topic. When we cite something like this out of its context we can make it say pretty much anything we want, but that may or may not be what the writer actually intended to say.> kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met’ emou ese en> to parad[eiso]. (“And immediately he said to me: ‘Most truly today> I tell you, You will be with me in Paradise.'”)–Descent into Hades,> an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text found in Novum> Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol.> I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.This of course rearranges the words, moving SHMERON forward and adding another AMHN, so there are several ways this reading could have originated and it may or may not be useful.> ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton> parad[eison] met’ emou. (“And he said to him: ‘Today I tell you the> truth, that I should have you in Paradise with me.'”)–Gospel of> Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate)b287, an apocryphal writing of the fourth> or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio> octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under> Luke 23:43.This also moves SHMERON. The question is, why? Paraphrase? Faulty memory? Support of a preconceived idea? Simply citing it tells us little or nothing about its value for the discussion.> Therefore, at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the> twelfth century C.E. there were readers who understood the text at Luke> 23:43 as “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” Irrelevant. The question is, who were they and why did they understand it this way? What did the other fathers say about it? See the questions above. Unfortunately, at least for exegetical purposes, most of this information is fairly useless.On> that very day, when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in> Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb> until the third day and was then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the> resurrection. (Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18) Thus, the> word “today” at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the evildoer’s being> with Jesus in Paradise.The texts above do not establish this. We have gone far beyond the text at this point, and we’re building theology on a comma that is still questionable at best. At worst, these “other writers” may have been heretics for all we know, finagling the placement of the comma for their own purposes. So for all these extensive citations, we’ve really gotten nowhere, and with the above paragraph we have descended into the forbidden realm of theology.[snip]Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

MK 14:41 APECEIMK 14:41 APECEI

Luke 23:43 in B Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 10:35:46 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI Luke 23:43 in B After I read the post about the suggested comma in Codex Vaticanus (B), I asked my friends on the Textual Criticism list about it. I received a response from a professional textual critic in Germany who spends more time with the manuscripts and their facsimiles than any of us here ever will. Here is his response:——-Dave Washburn wrote:> Someone on another list just said that the original hand of B (brown> ink) has a comma in the much-disputed passage Luke 23:43 (“I tell> you today,” vs. “I tell you, today”). I had always understood that> the original hand of B didn’t have any such marks, that the> accents, punctuation etc. were added by a later hand. Did I hear> wrong?I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is abrown dot there, butI would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.There is no extraspace between the letters which one would expect if this is a comma. Iwould not baseanything on this.

 

MK 14:41 APECEILuke 23:43 in B

Luke 23:43 in B Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 10:35:46 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI Luke 23:43 in B After I read the post about the suggested comma in Codex Vaticanus (B), I asked my friends on the Textual Criticism list about it. I received a response from a professional textual critic in Germany who spends more time with the manuscripts and their facsimiles than any of us here ever will. Here is his response:——-Dave Washburn wrote:> Someone on another list just said that the original hand of B (brown> ink) has a comma in the much-disputed passage Luke 23:43 (“I tell> you today,” vs. “I tell you, today”). I had always understood that> the original hand of B didn’t have any such marks, that the> accents, punctuation etc. were added by a later hand. Did I hear> wrong?I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is abrown dot there, butI would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.There is no extraspace between the letters which one would expect if this is a comma. Iwould not baseanything on this.

 

MK 14:41 APECEILuke 23:43 in B

Luke 23:43 in B Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 12:57:18 EDT 2001

 

Luke 23:43 in B Thayers Lexicon > In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dwashbur at nyx.net writes:> > << I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a> brown dot there, but> I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.> There is no extra> space between the letters which one would expect if this is a > comma. I> would not base> anything on this. >>> > > > I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of > me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like > other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate. > > Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request > through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript > Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this > fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own > *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no > blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand. Considering that he has done just that, and is much more familiar with the characteristics of this and hundreds of other manuscripts than the rest of us are – in addition to the fact that he has no theological stake in it one way or the other – I’d be much more inclined to take his word. YMMV.Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

Luke 23:43 in BThayers Lexicon

Luke 23:43 in B GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Tue Jun 5 11:30:06 EDT 2001

 

Luke 23:43 in B Luke 23:43 in B In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dwashbur at nyx.net writes:<< I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a brown dot there, but I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot. There is no extra space between the letters which one would expect if this is a comma. I would not base anything on this. >>I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate. Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

Luke 23:43 in BLuke 23:43 in B

Luke 23:43 in B GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Tue Jun 5 11:30:06 EDT 2001

 

Luke 23:43 in B Luke 23:43 in B In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dwashbur at nyx.net writes:<< I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a brown dot there, but I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot. There is no extra space between the letters which one would expect if this is a comma. I would not base anything on this. >>I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate. Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand. Best regards,Greg Stafford

 

Luke 23:43 in BLuke 23:43 in B

Luke 23:43 in B Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 12:57:18 EDT 2001

 

Luke 23:43 in B Thayers Lexicon > In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dwashbur at nyx.net writes:> > << I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a> brown dot there, but> I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.> There is no extra> space between the letters which one would expect if this is a > comma. I> would not base> anything on this. >>> > > > I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of > me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like > other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate. > > Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request > through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript > Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this > fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own > *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no > blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand. Considering that he has done just that, and is much more familiar with the characteristics of this and hundreds of other manuscripts than the rest of us are – in addition to the fact that he has no theological stake in it one way or the other – I’d be much more inclined to take his word. YMMV.Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

Luke 23:43 in BThayers Lexicon

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 5 15:17:05 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 At 9:57 AM -0700 6/5/01, Dave Washburn wrote:>> In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,>> dwashbur at nyx.net writes:>> >> << I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a>> brown dot there, but>> I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.>> There is no extra>> space between the letters which one would expect if this is a>> comma. I>> would not base>> anything on this. >>>> >> >> >> I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of>> me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like>> other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate.>> >> Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request>> through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript>> Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this>> fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own>> *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no>> blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand.> >Considering that he has done just that, and is much more familiar>with the characteristics of this and hundreds of other manuscripts>than the rest of us are – in addition to the fact that he has no>theological stake in it one way or the other – I’d be much more>inclined to take his word. YMMV.Please let’s call a halt to this now! Positions have been taken and arguedfor and now we’re arguing (so it appears to me) over what the MS itselfactually indicates; authority is being pitted against authority, and theunspoken assumption of the last paragraph above would seem to be that ifone disagrees with the opinion of a supposedly trustworthy expert, it mustbe because one has a theological agenda. Whether that may or may not betrue is beside the point: it is unacceptable in terms of listprotocol.I’m asking this thread on Luke 23:43 under any subject-header employedhitherto or to be devised be stopped immediately–rebuttals especiallyprohibited.– Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington Universitycwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

MK 14:41 APECEIENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 5 15:17:05 EDT 2001

 

MK 14:41 APECEI ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 At 9:57 AM -0700 6/5/01, Dave Washburn wrote:>> In a message dated 06/05/2001 7:50:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,>> dwashbur at nyx.net writes:>> >> << I have looked at it in the facsimile and it’s correct that there is a>> brown dot there, but>> I would term it “of unknown origin”. It is most probably only a blot.>> There is no extra>> space between the letters which one would expect if this is a>> comma. I>> would not base>> anything on this. >>>> >> >> >> I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I have a copy of the text right in front of>> me, and it is very clearly NOT a “blot.” It is a well-placed point just like>> other marks in B. The spacing is not tight, but free and deliberate.>> >> Anyone who wants to check it for his- or herself can and should request>> through interlibrary loan the microfilm from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript>> Center, in Claremont. Leaning on my opinion or someone else’s, like this>> fellow from TC, would be a mistake. Look at the microfilm and draw your own>> *informed* conclusion. I think you will see quite plainly that the dot is no>> blot at all, is not faded at all, and is from the original hand.> >Considering that he has done just that, and is much more familiar>with the characteristics of this and hundreds of other manuscripts>than the rest of us are – in addition to the fact that he has no>theological stake in it one way or the other – I’d be much more>inclined to take his word. YMMV.Please let’s call a halt to this now! Positions have been taken and arguedfor and now we’re arguing (so it appears to me) over what the MS itselfactually indicates; authority is being pitted against authority, and theunspoken assumption of the last paragraph above would seem to be that ifone disagrees with the opinion of a supposedly trustworthy expert, it mustbe because one has a theological agenda. Whether that may or may not betrue is beside the point: it is unacceptable in terms of listprotocol.I’m asking this thread on Luke 23:43 under any subject-header employedhitherto or to be devised be stopped immediately–rebuttals especiallyprohibited.– Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington Universitycwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

MK 14:41 APECEIENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 16:21:30 EDT 2001

 

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony ……. and the> unspoken assumption of the last paragraph above would seem to be that if> one disagrees with the opinion of a supposedly trustworthy expert, it must> be because one has a theological agenda. It was not my intention to convey the idea that it must be one or the other. One person’s expertise and/or another’s theological agenda were not meant to be linked, and if my comment came across that way, it was not meant to. With that, I gladly bow out of this topic.Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Jun 5 16:21:30 EDT 2001

 

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43 Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony ……. and the> unspoken assumption of the last paragraph above would seem to be that if> one disagrees with the opinion of a supposedly trustworthy expert, it must> be because one has a theological agenda. It was not my intention to convey the idea that it must be one or the other. One person’s expertise and/or another’s theological agenda were not meant to be linked, and if my comment came across that way, it was not meant to. With that, I gladly bow out of this topic.Dave Washburnhttp://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur”You just keep thinking, Butch. That’s what you’re good at.”

 

ENOUGH ALREADY! Re: Luke 23:43Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony

Luke 23:43 and my two cents Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Thu Nov 8 19:02:15 EST 2001

 

Frequency of hOS Didache (and MI imperatives) Some time in the past there was a thread that was cut before I got to give my two cents worth. So in this post I like to finally do so. Since an adverb needs to be adjacentto or very nearly so to the verb it modifies.I believe that the comma should be rightafter SHMERON. For example,…,AMHN SOILEGW SHMERON, MET’ EMOU ESHi entwi PARADEISWi. I just wanted to get my two cents in but not start up the thread again. So no replies will beappreciated.Best,Harry Jones

 

Frequency of hOSDidache (and MI imperatives)

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Kevin Buchs buchsk at charter.net
Thu Sep 19 07:39:33 EDT 2002

 

“incorrect” negative particles with moods RV: () Re:Condition in Acts 17:27 Is it possible to understand the phrase MET EMOU in Luke 23:43 asmodifying the verb ESH ? It seems the common understanding is totake it as a parallel direct object along with EN TW PARADEISW .Thank you.Kevin Buchs buchsk at charter.net Rochester, MN

 

“incorrect” negative particles with moodsRV: () Re:Condition in Acts 17:27
Luke 22:38 – It is enough! Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Sat Oct 20 14:43:23 EDT 2001

 

Luke 22:38 – It is enough! hEPTA + KIS? on 10/20/01 9:26 AM, Neal Stublen at nstublen at yahoo.com wrote:> When the disciples come up with two swords, as Jesus had just encouraged> them to do, he says to them, “IKANON ESTIN.”> > When I read this it seems that Jesus is saying that their two swords are> sufficient – they don’t need to get any more. However, others I have> interacted with suggest this is a rebuke of the disciples – Jesus has had> enough of their foolish talk – he did not mean for them to literally get> swords, but he was speaking figuratively concerning the attitude they would> need in the coming days. (This is similar to the understanding given by> Norval Geldenhuys in his commentary on Luke (NICNT), where he states that> most expositors agree that Jesus talked of buying swords in a figurative> sense.)> > Is this second understanding at all possible from IKANON ESTIN? Can this> phrase be issued as a way of saying, “That’s enough – now be quiet!”The swords here must be literal swords. When Jesus commands them to buyswords in v. 36, he states as the reason in v. 37 GAR LEGW hUMIN hOTI TOUTOTO GEGRAMMENON DEI TELESQHNAI EN EMOI, TO* KAI META ANOMWN ELOGISQH* KAI GARTO PERI EMOU TELOS ECEI (“For I tell you that this which is written must befulfilled in me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that whichrefers to me has [its] fulfillment.”) GAR explains why they should getswords: the scripture that says he will be numbered with the transgressorsmust be fulfilled, and it will be fulfilled by the disciples having swords,like revolutionaries (see v. 50). When told they had two swords, Jesusresponds hIKANON ESTIN (“It is sufficient.”), i.e., it is sufficient tofulfill the scripture about him being numbered with the transgressors.– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

Luke 22:38 – It is enough!hEPTA + KIS?

Luke 22:38 – It is enough! Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Sun Oct 21 21:07:33 EDT 2001

 

hEPTA + KIS? Luke 22:38 – It is enough! on 10/21/01 5:05 AM, Alex / Ali at alexali at surf.net.au wrote:> Steven Lo Vollu wrote regarding Luke 22:38,> >> GAR explains why they should get>> swords: the scripture that says he will be numbered with the transgressors>> must be fulfilled, and it will be fulfilled by the disciples having swords,>> like revolutionaries (see v. 50). When told they had two swords, Jesus>> responds hIKANON ESTIN (“It is sufficient.”), i.e., it is sufficient to>> fulfill the scripture about him being numbered with the transgressors.> > I found this an interesting point, Steven, and I’m going to chew it over.> Just a question in regard to it: if the swords were part of the Lord’s being> numbered with the transgressors, is there any significance in this not being> raised in the accusations made against him? I would have thought that the> being numbered with the transgressors relates to his death between two> thieves.The accusations made by the Jews before Pilate in Luke do seem to implyinsurrection (Luke 22.23ff.; 23.13ff.). That the incident of Luke 22.50f. isnot specifically raised in the charges of the Jews is odd, I think, whetheror not my interpretation of hIKANON ESTIN is valid. Maybe what Luke writesin 22.23ff. is just a summary statement of more specific accusations thatwere made, including the incident of 22.50f.As for the prophecy being fulfilled by Jesus’ death with the two thieves,note that Luke does not relate this prophecy specifically to that event(23.32ff.). Rather, he seems to have a different purpose altogether in hisinclusion of that story (see 23.39ff.). This is one of the reasons it ishard to understand the relationship between Luke 22.36 and 37 (joined byGAR) if Luke *doesn’t* link the swords to the fulfillment of the prophecy.Why mention the prophecy in a context where the reader is likely not to makethe connection between it and its fulfillment, if indeed the fulfillment isfound in 23.32-43?– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

hEPTA + KIS?Luke 22:38 – It is enough!

Luke 22:38 – It is enough! Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Oct 22 02:55:45 EDT 2001

 

Luke 22:38 – It is enough! “Retained accusative”? (was: RE: instances of (accusative) objects in passive constructions) > > Steven Lo Vollu wrote regarding Luke 22:38,> >> >> GAR explains why they should get> >> swords: the scripture that says he will be numbered with the> transgressors> >> must be fulfilled, and it will be fulfilled by the disciples> having swords,> >> like revolutionaries (see v. 50). When told they had two swords, Jesus> >> responds hIKANON ESTIN (“It is sufficient.”), i.e., it is sufficient to> >> fulfill the scripture about him being numbered with the transgressors.> >> > I found this an interesting point, Steven, and I’m going to> chew it over.> > Just a question in regard to it: if the swords were part of the> Lord’s being> > numbered with the transgressors, is there any significance in> this not being> > raised in the accusations made against him? I would have> thought that the> > being numbered with the transgressors relates to his death between two> > thieves.> > The accusations made by the Jews before Pilate in Luke do seem to imply> insurrection (Luke 22.23ff.; 23.13ff.). That the incident of Luke> 22.50f. is> not specifically raised in the charges of the Jews is odd, I> think, whether> or not my interpretation of hIKANON ESTIN is valid. Maybe what Luke writes> in 22.23ff. is just a summary statement of more specific accusations that> were made, including the incident of 22.50f.> > As for the prophecy being fulfilled by Jesus’ death with the two thieves,> note that Luke does not relate this prophecy specifically to that event> (23.32ff.). Rather, he seems to have a different purpose altogether in his> inclusion of that story (see 23.39ff.). This is one of the reasons it is> hard to understand the relationship between Luke 22.36 and 37 (joined by> GAR) if Luke *doesn’t* link the swords to the fulfillment of the prophecy.> Why mention the prophecy in a context where the reader is likely> not to make> the connection between it and its fulfillment, if indeed the> fulfillment is found in 23.32-43?>> > Steven Lo VulloIn Mark 15:28 the statement “he was numbered with the transgressors” isfound in the context of the crucifixion between two real transgressors. Butthe verse is lacking from so many old mss that is looks like an addition tothe text, carried over from Luke, and stuck in a different place.I would agree that this is too limited an interpretation of why Jesus quotedIs 53:12. Psalm 53 is the most famous Messianic prophetic chapter, and thedisciples would probably be familiar with the immediately preceding words inthat same verse: “because he poured out his life for many.” Also thefollowing words in the same verse: “For he bore the sins of many and madeintercession for the transgressors.”In this context, it seems to me that Jesus is trying to make the disciplesunderstand that it is the will of the Father that Jesus as the Messiah mustdie in order to pour out his life. In order for this to happen he will beconsidered by the Romans like a political rebel – although Pilate was notconvinced – and he will die in the same way as the other transgressors die.The way I understand the GAR is in the context of the topic of Luke22:35-36. Here Jesus indicates the changing times. Jesus used to be popularamong the masses because of all his healings. The disciples were thereforealso popular, and people were eager to invite them into their houses andgive them food to eat on their travels in Galilee. They did not need to takeanything along. But now – ALLA NUN in v. 35 – hard times are coming and theyneed to prepare themselves mentally for such hard times. Jesus will beunpopular and the disciples can expect the same. This change is necessary,says Jesus, and it is a fulfillment of Isaiah 53. Even though Jesus did notsin and was not a transgressor, he had to bear the sins of others and wastreated as if he was a transgressor. It is because of this suffering that ifthe disciples were to use swords to defend him they would be opposing theplan of God, not out of ill will, but out of ignorance – Peter had triedthat before.The hIKANON is too ambiguous to be the basis for an interpretation one wayor the other. Rather, the phrase ought to be interpreted in light of thelarger context. And it is this larger context that suggest to me that theintended meaning is “enough of this talk now.” (You don’t seem to understandit anyway when you can even imagine that I was talking about physicaldefense.) The fact that the disciples asked Jesus in 22:49 whether theyshould strike with the sword shows that they had not understood. That Peterwent ahead and struck with the sword, expecting Jesus to answer yes, showseven more fully that he had not understood. Again, Jesus had to rebuke Peterfor his lack of spiritual discernment. Peter did not understand what Isaiah53 was all about – the atonement through suffering.Best wishes,Iver Larsen

 

Luke 22:38 – It is enough!”Retained accusative”? (was: RE: instances of (accusative) objects in passive constructions)

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 19 12:19:32 EDT 2002

 

RV: () Re:Condition in Acts 17:27 Photos of Arndt & Gingrich? At 6:39 AM -0500 9/19/02, Kevin Buchs wrote:>Is it possible to understand the phrase MET EMOU in Luke 23:43 as>modifying the verb ESH ? It seems the common understanding is to>take it as a parallel direct object along with EN TW PARADEISW .Who takes it as a direct object? and of what? I see no other way ofunderstanding the phrase than as an adverbial complement of ESHi EN TWiPARADEISWi.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

RV: () Re:Condition in Acts 17:27Photos of Arndt & Gingrich?

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Thu Sep 19 17:50:04 EDT 2002

 

Photos of Arndt & Gingrich? Lk 2:2 hAUTH EGENETO APOGRAFH PRWTH (D05) On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 06:39 AM, Kevin Buchs wrote:> Is it possible to understand the phrase MET EMOU in Luke 23:43 as> modifying the verb ESH ? It seems the common understanding is to> take it as a parallel direct object along with EN TW PARADEISW .Kevin:ESHi is a future form of EIMI, a verb of being. Such verbs do not take an object, but a predicate nominative, as well as other kinds of complements such as prepositional phrases. So, both MET’ EMOU and EN TWi PARADEISWi are adverbial complements with ESHi. Most purists would balk at speaking of an adverbial “modfier” for EIMI, and would prefer the term “complement.”============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

Photos of Arndt & Gingrich?Lk 2:2 hAUTH EGENETO APOGRAFH PRWTH (D05)

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Kevin Buchs buchsk at charter.net
Thu Sep 26 08:09:09 EDT 2002

 

Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? I’ll post the background first since I am so slow in replying and thenmy question follows.My original question:> Is it possible to understand the phrase MET EMOU in Luke 23:43 as> modifying the verb ESH ? It seems the common understanding is to> take it as a parallel direct object along with EN TW PARADEISW .Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>ESHi is a future form of EIMI, a verb of being. Such verbs do nottake>an object, but a predicate nominative, as well as other kinds of>complements such as prepositional phrases. So, both MET’ EMOU and EN>TWi PARADEISWi are adverbial complements with ESHi. Most puristswould>balk at speaking of an adverbial “modfier” for EIMI, and would prefer>the term “complement.”Steven, thanks for helping me with the terminology.Carl Conrad wrote:>Who takes it as a direct object? and of what? I see no other way of>understanding the phrase than as an adverbial complement of ESHi ENTWi>PARADEISWi.I think the question mostly comes from my mistaken terminology. Seenext question.My Question: The verb of being (ESHi) takes a complement that givesthe state or place of being, in this case, EN TWi PARADEISWi. Stevensuggests the MET’ EMOU is also a adverbial complement of ESHi whileCarl identifies it as the complement of ESHi EN TWi PARADEISWi.English translations typically read, for me at least, with “with me”and “in paradise” being parallel. Syntactically, I see somethingdifferent about MET’ EMOU in that it preceeds the verb. Could thisprepositional phrase be understood to serve a different adverbialfunction? Could it answer questions such as, what is the antecedentcondition to the verb taking effect, or under what conditions wouldthe verb take effect? In my simplistic thinking on grammer, I see “inparadise” clearly serving as identifying the state/place of being.”With me” could also certainly do that, but I would then imagine thatwould be better indicated by this prepositional phrase following theverb as the other does, not preceeding it. English translations donot follow this ordering. Does it not communicate something differentin English to say, “today with me you will be in paradise.” ?Thank you for any further thoughts you might have on this.Kevin Buchs buchsk at charter.net Rochester, MN

 

Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae)adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43?

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 26 09:58:19 EDT 2002

 

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae) At 7:09 AM -0500 9/26/02, Kevin Buchs wrote:>I’ll post the background first since I am so slow in replying and then>my question follows.> >My original question:>> Is it possible to understand the phrase MET EMOU in Luke 23:43 as>> modifying the verb ESH ? It seems the common understanding is to>> take it as a parallel direct object along with EN TW PARADEISW .> >Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>>ESHi is a future form of EIMI, a verb of being. Such verbs do not>take>>an object, but a predicate nominative, as well as other kinds of>>complements such as prepositional phrases. So, both MET’ EMOU and EN>>TWi PARADEISWi are adverbial complements with ESHi. Most purists>would>>balk at speaking of an adverbial “modfier” for EIMI, and would prefer>>the term “complement.”> >Steven, thanks for helping me with the terminology.> >Carl Conrad wrote:>>Who takes it as a direct object? and of what? I see no other way of>>understanding the phrase than as an adverbial complement of ESHi EN>TWi>>PARADEISWi.> >I think the question mostly comes from my mistaken terminology. See>next question.> >My Question: The verb of being (ESHi) takes a complement that gives>the state or place of being, in this case, EN TWi PARADEISWi. Steven>suggests the MET’ EMOU is also a adverbial complement of ESHi while>Carl identifies it as the complement of ESHi EN TWi PARADEISWi.>English translations typically read, for me at least, with “with me”>and “in paradise” being parallel. Syntactically, I see something>different about MET’ EMOU in that it preceeds the verb. Could this>prepositional phrase be understood to serve a different adverbial>function? Could it answer questions such as, what is the antecedent>condition to the verb taking effect, or under what conditions would>the verb take effect? In my simplistic thinking on grammer, I see “in>paradise” clearly serving as identifying the state/place of being.>“With me” could also certainly do that, but I would then imagine that>would be better indicated by this prepositional phrase following the>verb as the other does, not preceeding it. English translations do>not follow this ordering. Does it not communicate something different>in English to say, “today with me you will be in paradise.” ?I would say that MET’ EMOU and EN TWi PARADEISWi are indeed paralleladverbial phrases functioning as complements to ESHi: one indicates WHEREyou shall be, the other obviously WITH WHOM. And yes, I think that thephrase MET’ EMOU does have some emphasis by virtue of its position ahead ofESHi.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43?Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae)

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Sep 29 00:39:08 EDT 2002

 

accusative indirect objects? Mark 2:28 (KURIOS) On Thursday, September 26, 2002, at 07:09 AM, Kevin Buchs wrote:> My Question: The verb of being (ESHi) takes a complement that gives> the state or place of being, in this case, EN TWi PARADEISWi. Steven> suggests the MET’ EMOU is also a adverbial complement of ESHi while> Carl identifies it as the complement of ESHi EN TWi PARADEISWi.> English translations typically read, for me at least, with “with me”> and “in paradise” being parallel. Syntactically, I see something> different about MET’ EMOU in that it preceeds the verb. Could this> prepositional phrase be understood to serve a different adverbial> function? Could it answer questions such as, what is the antecedent> condition to the verb taking effect, or under what conditions would> the verb take effect? In my simplistic thinking on grammer, I see “in> paradise” clearly serving as identifying the state/place of being.> “With me” could also certainly do that, but I would then imagine that> would be better indicated by this prepositional phrase following the> verb as the other does, not preceeding it. English translations do> not follow this ordering. Does it not communicate something different> in English to say, “today with me you will be in paradise.” ?> > Thank you for any further thoughts you might have on this.Kevin:I think Carl and I were saying the same thing.Yes, as Carl indicated in his response, MET’ EMOU is in a more prominent position than EN TWi PARADEISWi. This would indicate that being with Jesus is the more prominent idea than being in paradise, although being in paradise is nothing to shake a stick at. Being with the person is more important than being in the place, as great as the place is. As far as serving to indicate something like antecedent condition, this, I think, is more a theological conclusion than syntactical.As far as preceding the verb or following, that does not change the meaning of the prepositional phrase, just its relative prominence in the clause.I’m guessing the reason English translations do not follow the order of the original is that it makes for unnatural English. It seems to me we would be more apt to say, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” than “Today with me you will be in paradise.”As a side note, there is something similar in 1 Th 4.17 (PANTOTE SUN KURIWi ESOMETHA, “always with the Lord we will be”), although with only one prepositional phrase. There we have adverb-prepositional phrase of association-future verb of being. The prepositional phrase indicating association is fronted here as in Luke 23.43. Could Jesus’ words recorded in Luke 23.43 lie behind Paul’s (and the early Church’s) thoughts here?============Steven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

accusative indirect objects?Mark 2:28 (KURIOS)

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Sep 29 08:51:28 EDT 2002

 

Matthew 21:28 and 32 adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? > > Yes, as Carl indicated in his response, MET’ EMOU is in a more> prominent position than EN TWi PARADEISWi. This would indicate that> being with Jesus is the more prominent idea than being in paradise,> although being in paradise is nothing to shake a stick at. Being with> the person is more important than being in the place, as great as the> place is. As far as serving to indicate something like antecedent> condition, this, I think, is more a theological conclusion than> syntactical.> > As far as preceding the verb or following, that does not change the> meaning of the prepositional phrase, just its relative prominence in> the clause.> > I’m guessing the reason English translations do not follow the order of> the original is that it makes for unnatural English. It seems to me we> would be more apt to say, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” than> “Today with me you will be in paradise.”> > As a side note, there is something similar in 1 Th 4.17 (PANTOTE SUN> KURIWi ESOMETHA, “always with the Lord we will be”), although with only> one prepositional phrase. There we have adverb-prepositional phrase of> association-future verb of being. The prepositional phrase indicating> association is fronted here as in Luke 23.43. Could Jesus’ words> recorded in Luke 23.43 lie behind Paul’s (and the early Church’s)> thoughts here?May I intersperse a spin-off here?The concept of prominence in different languages and how it relates totranslation is an intriguing one.It seems to me that English is pretty much the OPPOSITE of Greek when itcomes to word order and prominence. Of course, English is far less flexiblethan Greek in word order changes, but when changes are possible, it is myimpression that the later positions are more prominent in English. Younative speakers of English have a better feeling for this than I have, soyou can correct me if I am wrong.The Greek word order in Luke 23:43 is:Today with me you will be in (the) paradise.I think the prominence is best captured in English by saying:You will be in paradise with me today!Similarly in 1 Th 4:17:We will be with the Lord always/for ever!As someone who works with idiomatic translations of the Bible, theconsequence of this is very interesting. It seems that the closer an Englishbible translation follows the Greek word order, the further it is fromfaithfully rendering the originally intended prominence.Iver Larsen

 

Matthew 21:28 and 32adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43?

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Sep 29 14:30:44 EDT 2002

 

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43? SUGCEW & SUGCUSIS Acts 19:29,32 Gen 11:7,9 At 3:51 PM +0300 9/29/02, Iver Larsen wrote:>> >> Yes, as Carl indicated in his response, MET’ EMOU is in a more>> prominent position than EN TWi PARADEISWi. This would indicate that>> being with Jesus is the more prominent idea than being in paradise,>> although being in paradise is nothing to shake a stick at. Being with>> the person is more important than being in the place, as great as the>> place is. As far as serving to indicate something like antecedent>> condition, this, I think, is more a theological conclusion than>> syntactical.>> >> As far as preceding the verb or following, that does not change the>> meaning of the prepositional phrase, just its relative prominence in>> the clause.>> >> I’m guessing the reason English translations do not follow the order of>> the original is that it makes for unnatural English. It seems to me we>> would be more apt to say, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” than>> “Today with me you will be in paradise.”>> >> As a side note, there is something similar in 1 Th 4.17 (PANTOTE SUN>> KURIWi ESOMETHA, “always with the Lord we will be”), although with only>> one prepositional phrase. There we have adverb-prepositional phrase of>> association-future verb of being. The prepositional phrase indicating>> association is fronted here as in Luke 23.43. Could Jesus’ words>> recorded in Luke 23.43 lie behind Paul’s (and the early Church’s)>> thoughts here?> >May I intersperse a spin-off here?>The concept of prominence in different languages and how it relates to>translation is an intriguing one.>It seems to me that English is pretty much the OPPOSITE of Greek when it>comes to word order and prominence. Of course, English is far less flexible>than Greek in word order changes, but when changes are possible, it is my>impression that the later positions are more prominent in English. You>native speakers of English have a better feeling for this than I have, so>you can correct me if I am wrong.> >The Greek word order in Luke 23:43 is:>Today with me you will be in (the) paradise.> >I think the prominence is best captured in English by saying:>You will be in paradise with me today!> >Similarly in 1 Th 4:17:>We will be with the Lord always/for ever!> >As someone who works with idiomatic translations of the Bible, the>consequence of this is very interesting. It seems that the closer an English>bible translation follows the Greek word order, the further it is from>faithfully rendering the originally intended prominence.As an English-speaker and writer, I wouldn’t want to affirm that as agenerally valid principle; I think there are different factors at work indifferent sentences.I’d also note that there are some, perhaps many (myself included), whothink that SHMERON in Lk 23:43 belongs with AMHN SOI LEGW. Of course, thisdoes indeed run counter to Iver’s assertion that there is no final-positionemphasis in Greek word-order, but that’s one of the points on which wecontinue to disagree.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: Most months: 1989 (was 1647) Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

adverbial use of prepositional phrase in Luke 23:43?SUGCEW & SUGCUSIS Acts 19:29,32 Gen 11:7,9

Luke 23:43 Matthew T. Williams kopio at attbi.com
Mon Sep 30 13:15:08 EDT 2002

 

The implied verb in Eph 2:8 DIANOIA SOU Hello All,Carl Conrad wrote;I’d also note that there are some, perhaps many (myself included), whothink that SHMERON in Lk 23:43 belongs with AMHN SOI LEGW. Of course, thisdoes indeed run counter to Iver’s assertion that there is no final-positionemphasis in Greek word-order, but that’s one of the points on which wecontinue to disagree.—————————————————I’m curious why you preffer SHMERON belonging with AMHN SOI LEGW instead ofthemet emou esh en tw paradeisw.I can see that the syntax could really read either way. Can you explain tome your grammatical/syntactical reasons for preffering the first reading?Thanks,——————————–Matthew T. Williamskopio at attbi.com360-883-8946——————————–

 

The implied verb in Eph 2:8DIANOIA SOU

Luke 23:43 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Sep 30 20:08:32 EDT 2002

 

The implied verb in Eph 2:8 Luke 23:43 At 10:15 AM -0700 9/30/02, Matthew T. Williams wrote:>Hello All,> >Carl Conrad wrote;> >I’d also note that there are some, perhaps many (myself included), who>think that SHMERON in Lk 23:43 belongs with AMHN SOI LEGW. Of course, this>does indeed run counter to Iver’s assertion that there is no final-position>emphasis in Greek word-order, but that’s one of the points on which we>continue to disagree.>—————————————————> >I’m curious why you prefer SHMERON belonging with AMHN SOI LEGW instead of>MET’ EMOU ESHi EN TWi PARADEISWi.> > >I can see that the syntax could really read either way. Can you explain to>me your grammatical/syntactical reasons for preffering the first reading?Rather than repeat the arguments, I think I’ll suggest that you and anyothers interested in the matter consult in the archives the message I wroteafter changing my mind on this issue. It’s dated Jan 15, 2000 and has thesubject-header, “Re: SHMERON in Luke 23:43 (a long palinode)”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: Most months: 1989 (was 1647) Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

The implied verb in Eph 2:8Luke 23:43

Luke 23:43 waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 30 21:36:07 EDT 2002

 

Luke 23:43 Luke 23:43 Carl:> Rather than repeat the arguments, I think I’ll> suggest that you and any> others interested in the matter consult in the> archives the message I wrote> after changing my mind on this issue. It’s dated Jan> 15, 2000 and has the> subject-header, “Re: SHMERON in Luke 23:43 (a long> palinode)”I consider myself proficient with computers, but am ata complete lost trying to work this archive. Would youdo me the favor of cutting and pasting your Jan 15,2000 message into a new posting so I can read it.=====Waldo SlusherCalgary, AL__________________________________________________Do you Yahoo!?New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!http://sbc.yahoo.com

 

Luke 23:43Luke 23:43

Luke 23:43 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Sep 30 22:05:18 EDT 2002

 

Luke 23:43 My apologies to the list for allowing (quite unintentionally) the pastedcopy of my message of two years ago to go to the list instead of to Waldoonly; I have deleted the message from the current messages archive at ourmain Lyris web site.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: Most months: 1989 (was 1647) Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Luke 23:43

[] SHMERON in LUke 23:43 Kenneth Litwak javajedi2 at yahoo.com
Tue May 18 01:29:51 EDT 2004

 

[] Gloses versus definitions [] SHMERON in LUke 23:43 Yesterday I was asked about LUke 23:43, by partieson one side of an argument I wasn’t involved in(mercifully). Here’s the question. Given that therewas no punctuation in first century Greek writing, isthere any way to determine, on _purely_ grammaticalgrounds, whehter SHMERON goes with what precedes orfollows it? IN other words, does Lke record of Jesusas sayng1. Today I say to you, you will be with me inparadise [at some future point]or2. I say to you that on this very day you will bewith me in paradiseI would never have thoght of #1 being an option, butthe people who asked me aobut it strongly supportnumber #1. I’m not aware of any rule, and I”m notready to go read the TLG for occurrences of SHMERON. That could take years to analyze. Thanks.Kenneth Litwak, Ph.D.Affiliate FacultySouthwestern CollegeWichita, KS__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?SBC Yahoo! – Internet access at a great low price.http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/

 

[] Gloses versus definitions[] SHMERON in LUke 23:43

[] SHMERON in LUke 23:43 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net
Tue May 18 11:14:12 EDT 2004

 

[] SHMERON in LUke 23:43 [] Bible Translation Discussion List? Kenneth Litwak wrote:> Yesterday I was asked about LUke 23:43, by parties> on one side of an argument I wasn’t involved in> (mercifully). Here’s the question. Given that there> was no punctuation in first century Greek writing, is> there any way to determine, on _purely_ grammatical> grounds, whehter SHMERON goes with what precedes or> follows it? IN other words, does Lke record of Jesus> as sayng> > 1. Today I say to you, you will be with me in> paradise [at some future point]> > or> > 2. I say to you that on this very day you will be> with me in paradise> > I would never have thoght of #1 being an option, but> the people who asked me aobut it strongly support> number #1. I’m not aware of any rule, and I”m not> ready to go read the TLG for occurrences of SHMERON.> That could take years to analyze. Thanks.You’ve left out a third option — that Luke has Jesus say, Given thatit is TODAY, the eschatological day, ….Having said that, there’s nothing to my knowledge grammatically thathelps to decide the question one way or the other. What we have toresort to as evidence that will help us decide is Luke’s usage of theterm in question. It is usually used with an “eschatological sense”isn’t it?You might also want to consider the fact that early commentators didthink what you say you would not think could be the case (see the datagathered in Fitzmyer)BTW, and FWIW, SyrC **does** punctuate this verse — and it places thecomma **after** “today”, not before it. . In other words, it testifiesto the perception (common in Syriac Christianity?) that Jesus’declaration was not one in which Jesus is saying that the “thief” wasgoing to be in paradise later on in the day in which he and Jesus werecrucified.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1Chicago, IL 60626jgibson000 at comcast.net

 

[] SHMERON in LUke 23:43[] Bible Translation Discussion List?
[bible passage=”Luke 23:43″]

Thank you very much.

Statistics: Posted by grogers — December 18th, 2013, 6:06 pm


 

grogers wrote:
What rule of grammar determines the placement of the comma in the phrase καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἀμήν σοι λέγω σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ ?

Here’s an earlier discussion of this question:

Luke 23:43 – Where does the comma go?

You can find other discussions of this question by Googling comma greek luke:23:43.

As for rules of grammar … does anyone know particularly good articles on punctuation rules used in various Greek manuscripts?

Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — December 18th, 2013, 5:47 pm


What rule of grammar determines the placement of the comma in the phrase καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἀμήν σοι λέγω σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ Παραδείσῳ ?

Statistics: Posted by grogers — December 18th, 2013, 5:06 pm


People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

8 thoughts on “Luke 23:43

  1. ProBible says:

    George Gunn wrote: />/ /> Dubious theological considerations re: the identity of “paradise” aside, I/ /> believe it’s important to consider the use of the phrase AMHN LEGW SOI in/ /> the Gospels. The prhase occurs 9 times in the sayings of Jesus (Mt 5:26;/ /> 26:34; Mk 14:30; Lk 23:43; Jn 3:3,5,11; 13:38; 21:18). Since it occurs only/ /> once in Lk, one can only draw conclusions from the other occurrences/ /> assuming the gospel writers accurately quote Jesus. I make that assumption/ /> though others may not. Of the other 8 occurrences, none, in my opinion, use/ /> any kind of adverbial qualifier for LEGW. Three of the occurrences use a/ /> hOTI clause immediately following the prhase, thus ruling out the/ /> possibility of there being an adverbial qualifier. Of the references lacking/ /> hOTI, only one might be considered parallel in structure (i.e. including a/ /> possible adverbial qualifier), viz. Jn 21:18; there, I hardly think anyone/ /> would consider the temporal clause hOTE HS NEWTEROS “when you were young” as/ /> modifying LEGW rather than EZONNUES and PERIEPATEIS. In conclusion, on/ /> linguistic evidence, I favor taking SHMERON in Lk 23:43 with the following/ /> George Gunn/

    I am not sure I fully understand the implications of rejecting a translation based upon the premise that a particular construction must be found in other texts to be valid grammar. This whole business of statistics in linquistics puzzles me, and if anyone has and references on this subject I would be very interested. From what little background I do have in statistics as applied to another science, I know that the sample size available for study significantly affects the accuracy of the premise. Because of this I opened up my search for similar constructions in meaning.

    Please forgive me if I have misunderstood the syntax, because I freely admit to being a rank novice in Greek. Therefore I looked for a construction in Greek which fit the criterion of ‘I [Tell | say ] today’ where today is not refering to the physical 24 hour time frame, but in the context of emphasizing that ‘you better believe what I am about to say’ , because the alternative of ‘This is the day I am telling you this’ would appear to add no real information.

    Therefore I submit the following construction to this group for criticism.

    De 30:18 ANAGGELLW SOI SHMERON OTI APWLEIA APOLEISQE KAI OU MH POLUHMEROI GENHSQE EPI THJ GHJ HJ KURIOJ O QEOJ SOU DIDWSIN SOI EIJ HN UMEIJ DIABAINETE TON IORDANHN EKEI KLHRONOMHSAI AUTHN (lxx)

    I realize that the hOTI clause removes all doubt as to how to interpret SHMERON, but I do not know enough Greek (yet) to determine if this disqualifies my example as a parallel construction to Luke 23:43.

    Sincerely, -lars

  2. ProBible says:

    />>The adverb may qualify either LEGW or ESHi. This is the extent of what CAN/ be. But in trying to resolve the ambiguity, we have to go beyond what CAN be and ask what was LIKELY to have been Jesus’ meaning. What we are dealing with in the phrase AMHN LEGW SOI is a kind of introductory formula Jesus used on many occaisions.< < I agree that AMHN LEGW SOI was a pattern of speech Jesus used. Please believe me when I say that I completely understand your point. I simply maintain that that the limited number of examples of AMHN LEGW SOI cited by writers does not necessarily IMPLY that Jesus would not have used "here," "there," "in the dark," "in the light," or any other kind of adverb whenever he wanted to. I think it too weak to form a doctrinal assessment of what Jesus even LIKELY intended without the benefit of context. In fact, at Luke 4:25, Luke varies the expression and says "ep alhtheias de legw humin," or, "I say to you in truth." Here, "ep alhtheias adverbially modifies "legw humin." As a result, it seems reasonable to conclude that the expression AMHN LEGW SOI is not to be taken as an inviolable grammatical mantra. I would say it was simply Jesus' way of saying "What I am about to say to you is absolutely true [and by implication], Listen to it." And that is as far as we can reasonably go with it grammatically speaking. />>For SHMERON to be taken as a modifier of LEGW there would have to be some/ compelling reason from the context requiring that to be more likely than its modifying ESHi. Perhaps this is where a theological discussion of the meaning of paradeisos comes in. BAGD says of this word, “In our lit. not of any formal garden or park, but only paradise …. a place of blessedness above the earth….” 2Co 12:4 refers to it as a place to which one (Paul?) was caught up (hARPAZW) in rapturous vision of the unspeakable glories of God. << True. However, I believe that Bible Translator L. Reinhardt's point was that the evildoer would not have understood it in this light. It was and is not my intent to promote a discussion of the distinction between "heaven", "paradeisos" and the "hades" to which Jesus went that very day (Acts 2:27). But "hades" is an interesting word study. Sincerely, Wes

  3. ProBible says:

    George Gunn wrote: />/ /> Dubious theological considerations re: the identity of “paradise” aside, I/ /> believe it’s important to consider the use of the phrase AMHN LEGW SOI in/ /> the Gospels. The prhase occurs 9 times in the sayings of Jesus (Mt 5:26;/ /> 26:34; Mk 14:30; Lk 23:43; Jn 3:3,5,11; 13:38; 21:18). Since it occurs only/ /> once in Lk, one can only draw conclusions from the other occurrences/ /> assuming the gospel writers accurately quote Jesus. I make that assumption/ /> though others may not. Of the other 8 occurrences, none, in my opinion, use/ /> any kind of adverbial qualifier for LEGW. Three of the occurrences use a/ /> hOTI clause immediately following the prhase, thus ruling out the/ /> possibility of there being an adverbial qualifier. Of the references lacking/ /> hOTI, only one might be considered parallel in structure (i.e. including a/ /> possible adverbial qualifier), viz. Jn 21:18; there, I hardly think anyone/ /> would consider the temporal clause hOTE HS NEWTEROS “when you were young” as/ /> modifying LEGW rather than EZONNUES and PERIEPATEIS. In conclusion, on/ /> linguistic evidence, I favor taking SHMERON in Lk 23:43 with the following/ /> George Gunn/

    I am not sure I fully understand the implications of rejecting a translation based upon the premise that a particular construction must be found in other texts to be valid grammar. This whole business of statistics in linquistics puzzles me, and if anyone has and references on this subject I would be very interested. From what little background I do have in statistics as applied to another science, I know that the sample size available for study significantly affects the accuracy of the premise. Because of this I opened up my search for similar constructions in meaning.

    Please forgive me if I have misunderstood the syntax, because I freely admit to being a rank novice in Greek. Therefore I looked for a construction in Greek which fit the criterion of ‘I [Tell | say ] today’ where today is not refering to the physical 24 hour time frame, but in the context of emphasizing that ‘you better believe what I am about to say’ , because the alternative of ‘This is the day I am telling you this’ would appear to add no real information.

    Therefore I submit the following construction to this group for criticism.

    De 30:18 ANAGGELLW SOI SHMERON OTI APWLEIA APOLEISQE KAI OU MH POLUHMEROI GENHSQE EPI THJ GHJ HJ KURIOJ O QEOJ SOU DIDWSIN SOI EIJ HN UMEIJ DIABAINETE TON IORDANHN EKEI KLHRONOMHSAI AUTHN (lxx)

    I realize that the hOTI clause removes all doubt as to how to interpret SHMERON, but I do not know enough Greek (yet) to determine if this disqualifies my example as a parallel construction to Luke 23:43.

    Sincerely, -lars

  4. ProBible says:

    />>The adverb may qualify either LEGW or ESHi. This is the extent of what CAN/ be. But in trying to resolve the ambiguity, we have to go beyond what CAN be and ask what was LIKELY to have been Jesus’ meaning. What we are dealing with in the phrase AMHN LEGW SOI is a kind of introductory formula Jesus used on many occaisions.< < I agree that AMHN LEGW SOI was a pattern of speech Jesus used. Please believe me when I say that I completely understand your point. I simply maintain that that the limited number of examples of AMHN LEGW SOI cited by writers does not necessarily IMPLY that Jesus would not have used "here," "there," "in the dark," "in the light," or any other kind of adverb whenever he wanted to. I think it too weak to form a doctrinal assessment of what Jesus even LIKELY intended without the benefit of context. In fact, at Luke 4:25, Luke varies the expression and says "ep alhtheias de legw humin," or, "I say to you in truth." Here, "ep alhtheias adverbially modifies "legw humin." As a result, it seems reasonable to conclude that the expression AMHN LEGW SOI is not to be taken as an inviolable grammatical mantra. I would say it was simply Jesus' way of saying "What I am about to say to you is absolutely true [and by implication], Listen to it." And that is as far as we can reasonably go with it grammatically speaking. />>For SHMERON to be taken as a modifier of LEGW there would have to be some/ compelling reason from the context requiring that to be more likely than its modifying ESHi. Perhaps this is where a theological discussion of the meaning of paradeisos comes in. BAGD says of this word, “In our lit. not of any formal garden or park, but only paradise …. a place of blessedness above the earth….” 2Co 12:4 refers to it as a place to which one (Paul?) was caught up (hARPAZW) in rapturous vision of the unspeakable glories of God. << True. However, I believe that Bible Translator L. Reinhardt's point was that the evildoer would not have understood it in this light. It was and is not my intent to promote a discussion of the distinction between "heaven", "paradeisos" and the "hades" to which Jesus went that very day (Acts 2:27). But "hades" is an interesting word study. Sincerely, Wes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.