Luke 24:17

Lk 24:17-28 richard smith rbsads at aol.com
Sun Apr 7 22:00:23 EDT 2002

 

Genesis 19:18 BHS & LXX Romans 1:16 KAI ESTAQHSAN SKUQRWPOI. (18)APOKRIQEIS DE hEIS ONOMATI KLEOPAS EIPEN PROSAUTON, SU MONOS PAROIKEIS IEROUSALHM KAI OUK EGNWS TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi ENTAIS hHMERAIS TAUTAIS;There are 3 questions in this post.1. I realize that there has recently been a question about ISTHMI, butplease consider this as continuing the thread.My understanding with ISTHMI as an intransitive verb the aorist and futurecan mean “stand still, stop.” In the perfect and pluperfect, theintransitive sense is intensive, “have stood” with the emphasis on thepresent result of now standing.How does the passive voice effect the meaning of the verb. Thetranslations seem to render the verse as “they stood still,” which Iunderstand as intransitive.Can there be an intransitive passive voice? Might the sense of the versebe that the stranger’s question caused them to stand still?2. Another question is how to understand the adjective SKUQRWPOI? Is thisconsidered attributive or predicative? How can it be understood inrelation to the embedded subject?3. A final question with regard to these verses is how to understand thewhole of verse 18.The NIV, RSV and NRSV have an almost sarcastic rendering. “Are you theonly stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have takenplace there in these days?”This reading seems to be rather loose with the Greek. Daniel Wallace inhis grammar, pg 322, gives a similar reading, although he stays closer tothe Greek. But the logic of the sentence does not make sense to me.”Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem and yet you do not know thethings that have happened in it?”The KJV seems to me to make the best of the Greek, but the rendering givesa sense different from these more modern translations. “Art thou only astranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come topass there in these days?”My attempts to translate have tended to the KJV, simply because I cannotmake sense of the implication that the two would think that all strangersbut this one would know of the events in Jerusalem.But in my attempts I seem to generally treat MONOS as an adverb orPAROIKEIS as a participle.My best effort is “Are you living in Jerusalem alone as a stranger, and donot know of the things which happend in her during these days?”Is the sense of the verse that the two could not believe that even aperson whom they recognized as a stranger did not know of the crucifixionor that the two believed the person they met must be a stranger because hedid not know of the crucifixion?Thanks,Richard SmithChattanoga, TN

 

Genesis 19:18 BHS & LXXRomans 1:16

Lk 24:17-28 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Mon Apr 8 04:18:01 EDT 2002

 

Col 3.8, KAI hUMEIS 1 Cor 3:15 (The force of the future indicative) In a message dated 4/7/2002 9:59:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rbsads at aol.com writes:KAI ESTAQHSAN SKUQRWPOI. (18)APOKRIQEIS DE hEIS ONOMATI KLEOPAS EIPEN PROSAUTON, SU MONOS PAROIKEIS IEROUSALHM KAI OUK EGNWS TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi ENTAIS hHMERAIS TAUTAIS;There are 3 questions in this post.1. I realize that there has recently been a question about ISTHMI, butplease consider this as continuing the thread.My understanding with ISTHMI as an intransitive verb the aorist and futurecan mean “stand still, stop.” In the perfect and pluperfect, theintransitive sense is intensive, “have stood” with the emphasis on thepresent result of now standing.How does the passive voice effect the meaning of the verb. Thetranslations seem to render the verse as “they stood still,” which Iunderstand as intransitive.Can there be an intransitive passive voice? Might the sense of the versebe that the stranger’s question caused them to stand still?2. Another question is how to understand the adjective SKUQRWPOI? Is thisconsidered attributive or predicative? How can it be understood inrelation to the embedded subject?3. A final question with regard to these verses is how to understand thewhole of verse 18.The NIV, RSV and NRSV have an almost sarcastic rendering. “Are you theonly stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have takenplace there in these days?”This reading seems to be rather loose with the Greek. Daniel Wallace inhis grammar, pg 322, gives a similar reading, although he stays closer tothe Greek. But the logic of the sentence does not make sense to me.”Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem and yet you do not know thethings that have happened in it?”The KJV seems to me to make the best of the Greek, but the rendering givesa sense different from these more modern translations. “Art thou only astranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come topass there in these days?”________________________1. The aorist passive of hISTHMI appears 5 times in the NT. In all cases it simply means “stand.”2. I would think that SKUQRWPOI would be considered predicative though it seems to have an adverbial force – “with downcast looks” or “sad-faced.” It appears but twice in the NT. In the other instance it references the fasting of the Pharisees and their hypocritical appearance to gain attention for themselves. It does not, however, always signify a feigned appearance. Xenophon tells of Socrates visiting the painter and asking regarding men’s appearance reflecting their moods. The painter replies using this word but not seeming to imply thereby that their looks are hypocritical.3. I think you are overemphasizing the “visitor” meaning of PAROIKEIS. If you take a look at either BGAD or BDAG, you will note that they also state that it may be used without the connotation of being strange. There is the function of KAI to be considered as well. It can be used in various fashions. Here I tend to think it almost functions as a relative pronoun (see I.e. under KAI in BGAD – offhand, I’m not sure how BDAG handles this). I would suggest the translation, “The one named Kleopas answered and said to him, “Are you the only resident of Jerusalem who doesn’t know what has happened these (past few) days?” It could also almost function as a statement of surprise – “Surely, you’re the only resident of Jerusalem who doesn’t know what has happened the past few days!”gfsomsel

 

Col 3.8, KAI hUMEIS1 Cor 3:15 (The force of the future indicative)

Lk 24:17-28 Manolis Nikolaou aei_didaskomenos at hotmail.com
Mon Apr 8 06:46:29 EDT 2002

 

1 Cor 3:15 (The force of the future indicative) “Home for Abused Apostrophes” > “The one named Kleopas answered and said to > him, “Are you the only resident of Jerusalem who doesn’t know what has > happened these (past few) days?” It could also almost function as a > statement of surprise – “Surely, you’re the only resident of Jerusalem who> doesn’t know what has happened the past few days!”> > gfsomselGeorge:I don’t disagree with your translation -I’m sure this is the way Kleopaswould have said that words in English; however the Greek syntax in thiscase seems to be a little problematic:SU MONOS PAROIKEIS IEROUSALHM KAI OUK EGNWS TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi EN TAIShHMERAIS TAUTAIS; If I was to translate the passage the way it is (without worrying aboutits meaning), I would say: “Are you the only resident of Jerusalem *and*(not “who”) you haven’t noticed what has happened these past few days?”.That is to say “There is no way you haven’t noticed what’s going on here;you are not the only resident of Jerusalem!”Since this, apparently, doesn’t make much sense, let me guess that a morenormal structure would have been:SU MONOS EN IEROUSALHM OUK EGNWS TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi EN TAIS hHMERAISTAUTAIS?That way, PAROIKEIS wouldn’t have been necessary here and this littleconfusion would have been avoided.Regards,Manolis NikolaouGreece

 

1 Cor 3:15 (The force of the future indicative)”Home for Abused Apostrophes”

Lk 24:17-28 Glenn Blank glennblank at earthlink.net
Mon Apr 8 21:24:07 EDT 2002

 

Use of the conjunction KAI Greek plural of proper names “Manolis Nikolaou” <aei_didaskomenos at hotmail.com> wrote> . . . however the Greek syntax in this>case seems to be a little problematic:> >SU MONOS PAROIKEIS IEROUSALHM KAI OUK EGNWS TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi EN TAIS>hHMERAIS TAUTAIS;> >If I was to translate the passage the way it is (without worrying about>its meaning), I would say: “Are you the only resident of Jerusalem *and*>(not “who”) you haven’t noticed what has happened these past few days?”.>That is to say “There is no way you haven’t noticed what’s going on here;>you are not the only resident of Jerusalem!”> >Since this, apparently, doesn’t make much sense, let me guess that a more>normal structure would have been . . .If PAROIKEIS means “stranger,” this rendering makes perfect sense, and thestructure perfectly normal — the implication being, “You don’t know aboutwhat has been happening?! Everyone else does! Is it because you are theonly visitor and everyone else are citizens of Jerusalem that they all knowand you don’t? But that can’t be — surely, you are not the only visitor!”Which is the same meaning as Manolis’ suggested alternative would imply, butwith more sarcasm. >SU MONOS EN IEROUSALHM OUK EGNWS TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi EN TAIS hHMERAIS>TAUTAIS?>That way, PAROIKEIS wouldn’t have been necessary here and this little>confusion would have been avoided.But it is the presence of PAROIKEIS that adds the hint of sarcasm:”Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem and [meaning that] you are [the onlyone] not knowing the happenings in her these days.This also makes sense of KAI as a KAI (in the sense of showing equivalenceor maybe emphasis, not addition, cf KAI in Luk 1.35;) rather than having torender it as a relative pronoun. George Somsel wrote>I think you [Richard] are overemphasizing the “visitor” meaning ofPAROIKEIS. If >you take a look at either BGAD or BDAG, you will note that they also state >that it may be used without the connotation of being strangePerhaps in its classical useage PAROIKEW can mean simply “to live nearby,””to live as a neighbor.” But it the LXX and GNT “temporary residence” seemsto be an essential semantic component, for example, in Gen 17.8; 20.1;21.34; 26.3; Ex 6.4; Lev 17.8; Heb 11.9 ; 1 Pet 1.17; 2.11, it is in thecontext of a journey, “just passing through.”glenn blankPensacola FL

 

Use of the conjunction KAIGreek plural of proper names

Lk 24:17-28 Manolis Nikolaou aei_didaskomenos at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 9 07:49:02 EDT 2002

 

2 Co 1:5 Displacement in Chiasm? 1 Cor 15:24-28 > >SU MONOS PAROIKEIS IEROUSALHM KAI OUK EGNWS TA GENOMENA EN AUTHi EN TAIS> >hHMERAIS TAUTAIS;> If PAROIKEIS means “stranger,” this rendering makes perfect sense, and the> structure perfectly normal — the implication being, “You don’t know about> what has been happening?! Everyone else does! Is it because you are the> only visitor and everyone else are citizens of Jerusalem that they all know> and you don’t? But that can’t be — surely, you are not the only visitor!”> It is the presence of PAROIKEIS that adds the hint of sarcasm:> > “Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem and [meaning that] you are [the only> one] not knowing the happenings in her these days.> glenn blank> Pensacola FLInteresting, Glenn. You suggest that PAROIKW, in this case, should notjust be understood as “I am temporally somewhere as a visitor” or as “Ipass through some place” but (in a sarcastic sense) as “I’m a realstranger here, completely unaware of what’s going on”:”Come on! Haven’t you heard about the happenings in Jerusalem? Are youfrom another planet or something?”Another -less interesting- suggestion might be that Kleopas thought he wastalking to some guy from EMMAOUS, the village they were going to. Theother residents of EMMAOUS might not have been aware of what had happened,since they hadn’t been in Jerusalem. However, that strange person wascoming from Jerusalem with them, so he was expected to know about thehappenings there:”You are the only man from your village who was in Jerusalem and youhaven’t noticed anything?”, Kleopas might have asked him.Greetings,Manolis NikolaouGreece

 

2 Co 1:5 Displacement in Chiasm?1 Cor 15:24-28

Lk 24:17-28 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Tue Apr 9 10:01:07 EDT 2002

 

Romans 1:16 Durative Force of HN In a message dated 4/8/2002 9:24:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, glennblank at earthlink.net writes:Perhaps in its classical useage PAROIKEW can mean simply “to live nearby,””to live as a neighbor.” But it the LXX and GNT “temporary residence” seemsto be an essential semantic component, for example, in Gen 17.8; 20.1;21.34; 26.3; Ex 6.4; Lev 17.8; Heb 11.9 ; 1 Pet 1.17; 2.11, it is in thecontext of a journey, “just passing through.”__________________I would hardly call 2 instances convincing evidence that this is the meaning in the NT. Especially when one of the 2 is open to question. I’ll stick to my statement.gfsomsel

 

Romans 1:16Durative Force of HN

Lk 24.17, PAROIKEW Glenn Blank glennblank at earthlink.net
Wed Apr 10 21:39:28 EDT 2002

 

masc/feminine plural participle Lluke 24:15 >In a message dated 4/8/2002 9:24:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >glennblank at earthlink.net writes:> >Perhaps in its classical useage PAROIKEW can mean simply “to live nearby,”>“to live as a neighbor.” But it the LXX and GNT “temporary residence” seems>to be an essential semantic component, for example, in Gen 17.8; 20.1;>21.34; 26.3; Ex 6.4; Lev 17.8; Heb 11.9 ; 1 Pet 1.17; 2.11, it is in the>context of a journey, “just passing through.”>__________________>From: Polycarp66 at aol.com>Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:01:07 EDT> >I would hardly call 2 instances convincing evidence that this is themeaning >in the NT. Especially when one of the 2 is open to question. I’ll stickto >my statement.> >gfsomselAlright. I would think its use in the LXX would have more bearing on itsunderstanding in the NT than would its use in the classics. But let usfocus solely on its use in the NT.The only place the verb occurs, other than the passage in question, is Heb11.9, a reference to Abraham’s travel from Ur to the promised land, and heis said to be PARWiKHSEN as *ALLOTRIAN (from another place)* — which is afitting name for the state of affairs described in verse 8: “went out to aplace he would *afterward* receive for an inheritance, *not knowing* wherehe went.”As you, say, only two instances in the NT. But add to that the adjectivalform, PAROIKOS, and the theme of being a foreigner, or at least of nothaving citizenship, continues:Eph 2.19 Previous condition of being XENOI and PAROIKOI with the conditionnow of being SUMPOLITAI (fellow-citizen) with the saints of the OIKEOI ofGod.1 Pet 2.11 Paul warns his readers as PAROIKOUS and PAREPIDHMOUS (foreigner)of the hostile environment they are in.Acts 7.6 Describing the Israelites in Egypt as PAROIKON in an alien(ALLOTRIAi) land, and DOULWSOUSIN and KAKWSOUSIN (enslaved and treatedbadly) — absence of rights of citizenship is key to the meaning ofPAROIKON here.Acts 7.29 When Moses fled into Midian, he was described as a PAROIKOSthere.Add to that the noun PAROIKIA, the dwelling place itself:Acts 13.17 PAROIKIA is the Israelites’ dwelling in Egypt1 Pet 1.17 Our time on earth is described as PAROIKIASo if not “residing temporarily,” at least “being a stranger” in the senseof not having the same status as a permanent citizen.glenn blank

 

masc/feminine plural participleLluke 24:15

Lk 24.17, PAROIKEW Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Apr 10 23:25:37 EDT 2002

 

1 Cor. 2:7 Lluke 24:15 In a message dated 4/10/2002 9:41:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, glennblank at earthlink.net writes: The only place the verb occurs, other than the passage in question, is Heb11.9, a reference to Abraham’s travel from Ur to the promised land, and heis said to be PARWiKHSEN as *ALLOTRIAN (from another place)* — which is afitting name for the state of affairs described in verse 8: “went out to aplace he would *afterward* receive for an inheritance, *not knowing* wherehe went.”______________Glenn,Of course, much in the NT concentrates on the relationship to Abraham who was known as a transient. There are other usages in the LXX, however, where it would seem rather far-fetched to consider it as referring to some form of transience. Consider, e.g., Deut. 18.6, 76 EAN DE PARGENHTA hO LEVITHS EK MIAS TWN POLEWN hUMWN EK PANTWN TWN hUIWN ISRAHL, hOU AUTOS PAROIKEI, KAQOTI EPIQUMEI hH YUXH AUTOU, EIS TON TOPON, hON ANELECHTAI KURIOS, 7 KAI LEITOURGHSEI TWi ONOMATI KURIOU TOU QEOU AUTOU . . .The POLEWN . . . hOU AUTOS PAROIKEI here is **where he lives permanently**. He only comes to the central sanctuary to serve. This is a similar situation to Luke 1 & 2 where Zacharias serves his term then returns to his home in “the hill country . . . a city of Judah” (Lk 1.39) where Mary goes to visit Elizabeth.or consider 2 Sam. 4.33 KAI APEDRASAN hOI BHRWQAI EIS GEQQAM KAI HSAN EKEI PAROIKOUNTES hEWS THS hHMERAS TAUTHS.Here it is told that the Beerothites fled the raiding parties of Ishbosheth [Ishbaal] and went to live at Gittaim “where they are PAROIKOUNTES until this day.” Some period of transiency indeed! or Judith 5.77 KAI PARWiKHSAN TO PROTERON EN THi MESOPOTAMIAi, hOTI OUK EBOULHQHSAN AKOLOUQHSAI TOIS QEOIS TWN PATERWN AUTWN, hOI EGENONTO EN GHi XALDAIWNHere the land from which Abraham is said to come is spoken of as the land where they were transients.Does PAROIKEW predominantly mean “to be a transient”? Yes. It is not, however, universally so. Also, I don’t think the concept of transience seems quite appropriate to the context of Lk 24.17 since a transient might not be expected to be knowledgeable regarding all the latest ‘dirt.’gfsomsel

 

1 Cor. 2:7Lluke 24:15

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

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>