Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Mark Goodacre M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk
Fri Jul 23 13:00:22 EDT 1999
IMHO? Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN It occurred to me recently that the way we read the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.25-37) depends partly on whether or not we see the priest walking towards Jerusalem or away from Jerusalem. If he is on his way to Jerusalem he might be passing by on the other side because he is attempting to avoid corpse impurity — he thinks the man may be dead and since he is on his way to the temple, he does not want to risk corpose impurity (Lev. 21.1-3). This, at least, is the way that the parable is read by E. P. Sanders and others. is not, of course, the place to delve into possible meanings at a pre-Lucan stage but I am interested in whether Luke’s text as we have it makes it clear that the priest is not walking towards Jerusalem, as the above interpretation would require. Clearly the man in the ditch was on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho (KATEBAINEN APO IEROUSALHM EIS IERIXO, v. 30). It is then said that the priestKATEBAINEN the road (v. 31). My instinct is to read this as implying that he, too, is going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. Is this necessarily the case, in which case we can rule out the interpretation involving corpse impurity and the temple? Or might KATABAINW be used more casually of travelling on a road?Thanks for any help.Mark————————————–Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre at bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdomhttp://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre The New Testament Gateway Mark Without Q Aseneth Home Page
IMHO?Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Mark Goodacre M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk
Fri Jul 23 13:00:22 EDT 1999
IMHO? Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN It occurred to me recently that the way we read the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.25-37) depends partly on whether or not we see the priest walking towards Jerusalem or away from Jerusalem. If he is on his way to Jerusalem he might be passing by on the other side because he is attempting to avoid corpse impurity — he thinks the man may be dead and since he is on his way to the temple, he does not want to risk corpose impurity (Lev. 21.1-3). This, at least, is the way that the parable is read by E. P. Sanders and others. is not, of course, the place to delve into possible meanings at a pre-Lucan stage but I am interested in whether Luke’s text as we have it makes it clear that the priest is not walking towards Jerusalem, as the above interpretation would require. Clearly the man in the ditch was on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho (KATEBAINEN APO IEROUSALHM EIS IERIXO, v. 30). It is then said that the priestKATEBAINEN the road (v. 31). My instinct is to read this as implying that he, too, is going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. Is this necessarily the case, in which case we can rule out the interpretation involving corpse impurity and the temple? Or might KATABAINW be used more casually of travelling on a road?Thanks for any help.Mark————————————–Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre at bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdomhttp://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre The New Testament Gateway Mark Without Q Aseneth Home Page
IMHO?Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 23 13:02:46 EDT 1999
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN > Or might KATABAINW > be used more casually of travelling on a road?Mark,I was kind of surprised that I could not find KATABAINW in the LXX(canonical) used of decent from Jerusalem. However there is one placein the apocrypha which looks promising.1Mac. 2:31The two NT passages are Luke 10:30 (your passage) and Acts 8:26. I tooka look at LEH (LXX lexicon) and found no indication of a “casual” use ofKATABAINW.The next thing that needs to be done is to look at ANABAINW withJerusalem. This is far more common. If one could establish that ANABAINWand KATABAINW are a contrasting pair (a binary opposition) then onecould perhaps infer that any use of KATABIANW in reference to a roadcoming out of Jerusalem would always mean movement away from Jerusalem.Of course there is really no reason to limit the study of these words tooccurrences with Jerusalem. I just did that to limit the scope since thewords are very common. I also was operating on a hunch that ANABAINWwith Jerusalem is something like a fixed expression and for this reasoncan be studied as a lexical unit.I think this is an exercise in proving the obvious.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINENLuke 10:31: KATEBAINEN
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 23 13:09:44 EDT 1999
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN At 5:00 PM +0000 7/23/99, Mark Goodacre wrote:>It occurred to me recently that the way we read the Good Samaritan>(Luke 10.25-37) depends partly on whether or not we see the priest>walking towards Jerusalem or away from Jerusalem. If he is on his>way to Jerusalem he might be passing by on the other side because he>is attempting to avoid corpse impurity — he thinks the man may be>dead and since he is on his way to the temple, he does not want to>risk corpose impurity (Lev. 21.1-3). This, at least, is the way that the>parable is read by E. P. Sanders and others.> > is not, of course, the place to delve into possible meanings at>a pre-Lucan stage but I am interested in whether Luke’s text as we>have it makes it clear that the priest is not walking towards Jerusalem,>as the above interpretation would require. Clearly the man in the ditch>was on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho (KATEBAINEN APO>IEROUSALHM EIS IERIXO, v. 30). It is then said that the priest>KATEBAINEN the road (v. 31). My instinct is to read this as>implying that he, too, is going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. Is this>necessarily the case, in which case we can rule out the interpretation>involving corpse impurity and the temple? Or might KATABAINW>be used more casually of travelling on a road?One curious factor of interest here involves, if my memory serves me right,a significant difference between Greek and Hebrew usage. Doesn’t “go down”in Hebrew refer specifically to movement away from the hills/Jerusalem and”go up” refer specifically or commonly to the journey TO Jerusalem? Yet inclassical Attic Greek, ANABAINW means “to leave home”–while KATABAINW orKATERCOMAI means “to come home.” I would not suppose that the classicalAttic usage has any bearing here. I just mention it as a fact of someinterest. But doesn’t Hebraic usage enter into these words in this passage?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINENLuke 10:31: KATEBAINEN
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 23 13:02:46 EDT 1999
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN > Or might KATABAINW > be used more casually of travelling on a road?Mark,I was kind of surprised that I could not find KATABAINW in the LXX(canonical) used of decent from Jerusalem. However there is one placein the apocrypha which looks promising.1Mac. 2:31The two NT passages are Luke 10:30 (your passage) and Acts 8:26. I tooka look at LEH (LXX lexicon) and found no indication of a “casual” use ofKATABAINW.The next thing that needs to be done is to look at ANABAINW withJerusalem. This is far more common. If one could establish that ANABAINWand KATABAINW are a contrasting pair (a binary opposition) then onecould perhaps infer that any use of KATABIANW in reference to a roadcoming out of Jerusalem would always mean movement away from Jerusalem.Of course there is really no reason to limit the study of these words tooccurrences with Jerusalem. I just did that to limit the scope since thewords are very common. I also was operating on a hunch that ANABAINWwith Jerusalem is something like a fixed expression and for this reasoncan be studied as a lexical unit.I think this is an exercise in proving the obvious.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINENLuke 10:31: KATEBAINEN
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 23 13:09:44 EDT 1999
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN At 5:00 PM +0000 7/23/99, Mark Goodacre wrote:>It occurred to me recently that the way we read the Good Samaritan>(Luke 10.25-37) depends partly on whether or not we see the priest>walking towards Jerusalem or away from Jerusalem. If he is on his>way to Jerusalem he might be passing by on the other side because he>is attempting to avoid corpse impurity — he thinks the man may be>dead and since he is on his way to the temple, he does not want to>risk corpose impurity (Lev. 21.1-3). This, at least, is the way that the>parable is read by E. P. Sanders and others.> > is not, of course, the place to delve into possible meanings at>a pre-Lucan stage but I am interested in whether Luke’s text as we>have it makes it clear that the priest is not walking towards Jerusalem,>as the above interpretation would require. Clearly the man in the ditch>was on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho (KATEBAINEN APO>IEROUSALHM EIS IERIXO, v. 30). It is then said that the priest>KATEBAINEN the road (v. 31). My instinct is to read this as>implying that he, too, is going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. Is this>necessarily the case, in which case we can rule out the interpretation>involving corpse impurity and the temple? Or might KATABAINW>be used more casually of travelling on a road?One curious factor of interest here involves, if my memory serves me right,a significant difference between Greek and Hebrew usage. Doesn’t “go down”in Hebrew refer specifically to movement away from the hills/Jerusalem and”go up” refer specifically or commonly to the journey TO Jerusalem? Yet inclassical Attic Greek, ANABAINW means “to leave home”–while KATABAINW orKATERCOMAI means “to come home.” I would not suppose that the classicalAttic usage has any bearing here. I just mention it as a fact of someinterest. But doesn’t Hebraic usage enter into these words in this passage?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINENLuke 10:31: KATEBAINEN
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
Fri Jul 23 13:24:41 EDT 1999
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Sorting alphabetically? > —–Original Message—–> From: Mark Goodacre [mailto:M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk]> Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 12:00 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN> Clearly the man in the ditch> was on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho (KATEBAINEN APO> IEROUSALHM EIS IERIXO, v. 30). It is then said that the priest> KATEBAINEN the road (v. 31). My instinct is to read this as> implying that he, too, is going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. Is this> necessarily the case, in which case we can rule out the interpretation> involving corpse impurity and the temple? Or might KATABAINW> be used more casually of travelling on a road?Both geographically and religiously Jerusalem is *up* from Jericho. Infact, Jerusalem is typically thought of as *up* from any locality. Notethe ‘Psalms of Ascent’, and Acts 18.22 which reads: KAI KETELQWN EISKAISAREIAN, ANABAS KAI ASPASAMENOS THN EKKLHSIAN, KATEBH EIS ANTIOXEIAN.The strength of the idiom (that Jerusalem is ‘up’) has been held in the TEVtranslation to supply “Jerusalem” as implied information for the unnameddestination of ANABAS. Thus the TEV reads: “When he arrived at Caesarea, hewent to Jerusalem and greeted the church, and then went to Antioch.” Iwould agree, and argue similarly in the Luke passage.> If he is on his> way to Jerusalem he might be passing by on the other side because he> is attempting to avoid corpse impurity — he thinks the man may be> dead and since he is on his way to the temple, he does not want to> risk corpose impurity (Lev. 21.1-3). This, at least, is the way that the> parable is read by E. P. Sanders and others.Nevertheless, I have heard a similar interpretation given for the priestdescending from Jerusalem, with the explanation that he did not want to*return* to Jerusalem for ritual cleansing. FWIW, I must note that theparable itself does not specify the reason for avoidance, and suggest thatJesus left it open-ended to be applied in many ways to our hearts. :)God Bless!Joe A. FribergM.A. LinguisticsM.A. Theology studentArlington, TXJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINENSorting alphabetically?
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
Fri Jul 23 13:24:41 EDT 1999
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN Sorting alphabetically? > —–Original Message—–> From: Mark Goodacre [mailto:M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk]> Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 12:00 PM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: Luke 10:31: KATEBAINEN> Clearly the man in the ditch> was on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho (KATEBAINEN APO> IEROUSALHM EIS IERIXO, v. 30). It is then said that the priest> KATEBAINEN the road (v. 31). My instinct is to read this as> implying that he, too, is going down from Jerusalem to Jericho. Is this> necessarily the case, in which case we can rule out the interpretation> involving corpse impurity and the temple? Or might KATABAINW> be used more casually of travelling on a road?Both geographically and religiously Jerusalem is *up* from Jericho. Infact, Jerusalem is typically thought of as *up* from any locality. Notethe ‘Psalms of Ascent’, and Acts 18.22 which reads: KAI KETELQWN EISKAISAREIAN, ANABAS KAI ASPASAMENOS THN EKKLHSIAN, KATEBH EIS ANTIOXEIAN.The strength of the idiom (that Jerusalem is ‘up’) has been held in the TEVtranslation to supply “Jerusalem” as implied information for the unnameddestination of ANABAS. Thus the TEV reads: “When he arrived at Caesarea, hewent to Jerusalem and greeted the church, and then went to Antioch.” Iwould agree, and argue similarly in the Luke passage.> If he is on his> way to Jerusalem he might be passing by on the other side because he> is attempting to avoid corpse impurity — he thinks the man may be> dead and since he is on his way to the temple, he does not want to> risk corpose impurity (Lev. 21.1-3). This, at least, is the way that the> parable is read by E. P. Sanders and others.Nevertheless, I have heard a similar interpretation given for the priestdescending from Jerusalem, with the explanation that he did not want to*return* to Jerusalem for ritual cleansing. FWIW, I must note that theparable itself does not specify the reason for avoidance, and suggest thatJesus left it open-ended to be applied in many ways to our hearts. :)God Bless!Joe A. FribergM.A. LinguisticsM.A. Theology studentArlington, TXJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
Luke 10:31: KATEBAINENSorting alphabetically?
It occurred to me recently that the way we read the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.25-37) depends partly on whether or not we see the priest walking towards Jerusalem or away from Jerusalem. If he is on his way to Jerusalem he might be passing by on the other side because he is attempting to avoid corpse impurity — he thinks the man may be dead and since he is on his way to the temple, he does not want to risk corpose impurity (Lev. 21.1-3).
It occurred to me recently that the way we read the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.25-37) depends partly on whether or not we see the priest walking towards Jerusalem or away from Jerusalem. If he is on his way to Jerusalem he might be passing by on the other side because he is attempting to avoid corpse impurity — he thinks the man may be dead and since he is on his way to the temple, he does not want to risk corpose impurity (Lev. 21.1-3).