[] Luke 19:31 A. J. Birch a_j_birch at yahoo.es
Tue Nov 14 02:48:40 EST 2006
[] Lk 19.29 ff [esp. 19.31] The ass (again) [] Luke 19:31 George,Luke 19:31:”KAI EAN TIS hUMAS ERWTAi, ‘DIA TI LUETE;’ hOUTWS EREITE hOTI ‘hO KURIOS AUTOU CREIAN ECEI.'”Although, on the face of it, this is (gramatically) ambiguous,(1) how common is it for the object of “ECW CREIAN” not to be explicit (as in your first alternative)?;(2) in vv. 33 and 34 the phrase is used by the two disciples to the owners (hOI KURIOI AUTOU), which seems to make the first of your two alternatives unlikely, does it not?Andrew J. BirchPalma de Mallorca, Spain ______________________________________________ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com
[] Lk 19.29 ff [esp. 19.31] The ass (again)[] Luke 19:31
[] Luke 19:31 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 14 12:07:23 EST 2006
[] Luke 19:31 [] Eph 4:15 1. NON-EXPLICIT OBJECT of XREIAN + EXWA search has given me the following statistics in the NT:Total occurances of XREIAN + (a form of) EXW = 341. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) infinitive = 82. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) hINA = 43. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) noun (gen) =114. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) pronoun (gen) = 2________________________________________________Total 25As you can see the sum of the parts do not equal the whole. Since this cannot be, I assume that there are instances which fall into more than one category which the search engine didn’t distinguish. One verse has 2 differing usages. Additionally, there are a few instances where there is no inf, hINA, gen noun or gen pron. Mt 21.3 // Mk 11.3 // Lk 19.31 + Lk 19.34 (Our pericope). In Lk the gen pron precedes XREIAN + EXWMk 2.25 where it has the meaning “we are hungry”Jn 13.29 “whatever we need” — unspecifiedActs 2.45; 4.35 — unspecified needEph 4.28 — unspecified need1 Thess 4.12 — unspecified need1 Jn 3.17 — unspecified needRe 3.17 — specified lack of needI’m not sure of the totals at this point, but this leaves 1 Cor 12.24 which does not specify the need but leaves it to be understood and is supplied by an understood reference to TIMHN PERISSOTERAN PERITIQEMEN in the preceding verse. If a pronoun were to be supplied, it would most likely need to be AUTOU, TOUTOU or EKEINOU.2. hOI KURIOI AUTOUI was thinking that this might refer back (a long way) to KWMH and refer to the authorities of the village. We do, however, have a problem of gender, n’est pas?georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: A. J. Birch <a_j_birch at yahoo.es>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:48:40 AMSubject: [] Luke 19:31George,Luke 19:31:”KAI EAN TIS hUMAS ERWTAi, ‘DIA TI LUETE;’ hOUTWS EREITE hOTI ‘hO KURIOS AUTOU CREIAN ECEI.'”Although, on the face of it, this is (gramatically) ambiguous,(1) how common is it for the object of “ECW CREIAN” not to be explicit (as in your first alternative)?;(2) in vv. 33 and 34 the phrase is used by the two disciples to the owners (hOI KURIOI AUTOU), which seems to make the first of your two alternatives unlikely, does it not?Andrew J. BirchPalma de Mallorca, Spain ______________________________________________ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com— home page: http://ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Luke 19:31[] Eph 4:15
[] Luke 19:31 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 16 21:47:28 EST 2006
[] Hebrew/Greek internet parsing resource? [] Third Announcement of the 10th Annual SBL E-Listers’ Meeting, Nov. 18th, 2006 I was somewhat anticipating a comment regarding the matter of concord between KWMHN in 19.30 and AUTOU in 19.31 in my proposal. Since I didn’t get any response, I’ll ask a question. Might AUTOU refer to KWMHN despite its lack of agreement in gender as being a constructio ad sensum, and thus having the natural gender, since the authorities in the village would in this era be males? georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: A. J. Birch <a_j_birch at yahoo.es>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:07:23 PMSubject: Re: [] Luke 19:311. NON-EXPLICIT OBJECT of XREIAN + EXWA search has given me the following statistics in the NT:Total occurances of XREIAN + (a form of) EXW = 341. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) infinitive = 82. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) hINA = 43. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) noun (gen) =114. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) pronoun (gen) = 2________________________________________________Total 25As you can see the sum of the parts do not equal the whole. Since this cannot be, I assume that there are instances which fall into more than one category which the search engine didn’t distinguish. One verse has 2 differing usages. Additionally, there are a few instances where there is no inf, hINA, gen noun or gen pron. Mt 21.3 // Mk 11.3 // Lk 19.31 + Lk 19.34 (Our pericope). In Lk the gen pron precedes XREIAN + EXWMk 2.25 where it has the meaning “we are hungry”Jn 13.29 “whatever we need” — unspecifiedActs 2.45; 4.35 — unspecified needEph 4.28 — unspecified need1 Thess 4.12 — unspecified need1 Jn 3.17 — unspecified needRe 3.17 — specified lack of needI’m not sure of the totals at this point, but this leaves 1 Cor 12.24 which does not specify the need but leaves it to be understood and is supplied by an understood reference to TIMHN PERISSOTERAN PERITIQEMEN in the preceding verse. If a pronoun were to be supplied, it would most likely need to be AUTOU, TOUTOU or EKEINOU.2. hOI KURIOI AUTOUI was thinking that this might refer back (a long way) to KWMH and refer to the authorities of the village. We do, however, have a problem of gender, n’est pas?georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: A. J. Birch <a_j_birch at yahoo.es>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:48:40 AMSubject: [] Luke 19:31George,Luke 19:31:”KAI EAN TIS hUMAS ERWTAi, ‘DIA TI LUETE;’ hOUTWS EREITE hOTI ‘hO KURIOS AUTOU CREIAN ECEI.'”Although, on the face of it, this is (gramatically) ambiguous,(1) how common is it for the object of “ECW CREIAN” not to be explicit (as in your first alternative)?;(2) in vv. 33 and 34 the phrase is used by the two disciples to the owners (hOI KURIOI AUTOU), which seems to make the first of your two alternatives unlikely, does it not?Andrew J. BirchPalma de Mallorca, Spain ______________________________________________ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com— home page: http://ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— home page: http://ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Hebrew/Greek internet parsing resource?[] Third Announcement of the 10th Annual SBL E-Listers’ Meeting, Nov. 18th, 2006
[] Luke 19:31 Carlton Winbery winberycl at earthlink.net
Fri Nov 17 11:38:20 EST 2006
[] Lk 5:17 syntax of hOI clause [] Luke 19:31 >I was somewhat anticipating a comment regarding the matter of >concord between KWMHN in 19.30 and AUTOU in 19.31 in my proposal. >Since I didn’t get any response, I’ll ask a question. Might AUTOU >refer to KWMHN despite its lack of agreement in gender as being a >constructio ad sensum, and thus having the natural gender, since the >authorities in the village would in this era be males?> >george>gfsomsel>_________> >In 19:30-31. . . PWLON (PWLOS m.) . . . AUTON . . . AUTOU . . .George, what’s wrong with the obvious, the antecedent of both pronouns is PWLON. Its the PWLOS that has to be untied and its the PWLOS that “The Lord has need of.” AUTOU explains the need. Am I missing something here?Carlton WinberyRetired Prof.> >—– Original Message —->From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>>To: A. J. Birch <a_j_birch at yahoo.es>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:07:23 PM>Subject: Re: [] Luke 19:31> > >1. NON-EXPLICIT OBJECT of XREIAN + EXW> >A search has given me the following statistics in the NT:> >Total occurances of XREIAN + (a form of) EXW = 34> >1. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) infinitive = 8>2. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) hINA = 4>3. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) noun (gen) =11>4. (XREIAN + EXW) + before (5 words) pronoun (gen) = 2>________________________________________________> >Total 25> >As you can see the sum of the parts do not equal the whole. Since >this cannot be, I assume that there are instances which fall into >more than one category which the search engine didn’t distinguish. >One verse has 2 differing usages. Additionally, there are a few >instances where there is no inf, hINA, gen noun or gen pron.> >Mt 21.3 // Mk 11.3 // Lk 19.31 + Lk 19.34 (Our pericope). In Lk the >gen pron precedes XREIAN + EXW>Mk 2.25 where it has the meaning “we are hungry”>Jn 13.29 “whatever we need” — unspecified>Acts 2.45; 4.35 — unspecified need>Eph 4.28 — unspecified need>1 Thess 4.12 — unspecified need>1 Jn 3.17 — unspecified need>Re 3.17 — specified lack of need> >I’m not sure of the totals at this point, but this leaves 1 Cor >12.24 which does not specify the need but leaves it to be understood >and is supplied by an understood reference to TIMHN PERISSOTERAN >PERITIQEMEN in the preceding verse. If a pronoun were to be >supplied, it would most likely need to be AUTOU, TOUTOU or EKEINOU.> >2. hOI KURIOI AUTOU> >I was thinking that this might refer back (a long way) to KWMH and >refer to the authorities of the village. We do, however, have a >problem of gender, n’est pas?> >george>gfsomsel>_________> > > >—– Original Message —->From: A. J. Birch <a_j_birch at yahoo.es>>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:48:40 AM>Subject: [] Luke 19:31> > >George,> >Luke 19:31:>“KAI EAN TIS hUMAS ERWTAi, ‘DIA TI LUETE;’ hOUTWS EREITE hOTI ‘hO KURIOS>AUTOU CREIAN ECEI.'”> >Although, on the face of it, this is (gramatically) ambiguous,> >(1) how common is it for the object of “ECW CREIAN” not to be explicit (as>in your first alternative)?;> >(2) in vv. 33 and 34 the phrase is used by the two disciples to the owners>(hOI KURIOI AUTOU), which seems to make the first of your two alternatives>unlikely, does it not?> >Andrew J. Birch>Palma de Mallorca, Spain> > > > >______________________________________________>LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.>Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.>http://es.voice.yahoo.com>—> home page: http://ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >—> home page: http://ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >—> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carlton L. WinberyRetired Professor of ReligionLouisiana College318-448-6103winberycl at earthlink.nethttp://tinyurl.com/dy5zr
[] Lk 5:17 syntax of hOI clause[] Luke 19:31
[] Luke 19:31 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 17 11:49:25 EST 2006
[] Luke 19:31 [] Luke 19:31 First, let’s get the text before us again.KAI EAN hUMAS ERWTAi, “DIA TI LUETE?” hOUTWS ERITE hOTI “hO KURIOS AUTOU XREIAN EXEI.”What I am exploring here is the reason for the statement “hO KURIOS AUTOU XREIAN EXEI.” This would seem to presuppose that anyone who asked would be aware of to whom “hO KURIOS” refers and would have no objection to Jesus’ use of the animal. The problem is that we are not told that this is the case. While there is generally an economy of expression in the gospels in particular, they do generally contain all of the information which we need to understand them. If, however, the statement is somewhat ambiguous so that it could refer to either Jesus as hO KURIOS or to the owner of the animal, then the answer might be understandable as being sufficient. I feel very uncomfortable ASSUMING that Jesus had some prior contact with the people of this village and was known to them. Furthermore, the simple designation as hO KURIOS is not in itself identifying if it does not refer to the owner of the animal since it was a common form of address.georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Carlton Winbery <winberycl at earthlink.net>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Friday, November 17, 2006 11:38:20 AMSubject: Re: [] Luke 19:31>I was somewhat anticipating a comment regarding the matter of >concord between KWMHN in 19.30 and AUTOU in 19.31 in my proposal. >Since I didn’t get any response, I’ll ask a question. Might AUTOU >refer to KWMHN despite its lack of agreement in gender as being a >constructio ad sensum, and thus having the natural gender, since the >authorities in the village would in this era be males?> >george>gfsomsel>_________> >In 19:30-31. . . PWLON (PWLOS m.) . . . AUTON . . . AUTOU . . .George, what’s wrong with the obvious, the antecedent of both pronouns is PWLON. Its the PWLOS that has to be untied and its the PWLOS that “The Lord has need of.” AUTOU explains the need. Am I missing something here?Carlton WinberyRetired Prof.
[] Luke 19:31[] Luke 19:31
[] Luke 19:31 Carlton Winbery winberycl at earthlink.net
Fri Nov 17 13:24:28 EST 2006
[] Luke 19:31 [] Luke 19:31 George Somsel wrote:>First, let’s get the text before us again.> >KAI EAN hUMAS ERWTAi, “DIA TI LUETE?” hOUTWS ERITE hOTI “hO KURIOS >AUTOU XREIAN EXEI.”> >What I am exploring here is the reason for the statement “hO KURIOS >AUTOU XREIAN EXEI.” This would seem to presuppose that anyone who >asked would be aware of to whom “hO KURIOS” refers and would have no >objection to Jesus’ use of the animal. The problem is that we are >not told that this is the case. While there is generally an economy >of expression in the gospels in particular, they do generally >contain all of the information which we need to understand them. >If, however, the statement is somewhat ambiguous so that it could >refer to either Jesus as hO KURIOS or to the owner of the animal, >then the answer might be understandable as being sufficient. I feel >very uncomfortable ASSUMING that Jesus had some prior contact with >the people of this village and was known to them. Furthermore, the >simple designation as hO KURIOS is not in itself identifying if it >does not refer to the owner of the animal since it was a common form >of address.> >george>gfsomsel>_________George, I’m afraid that what you are looking for is not in the Greek text. There are a number of places where the gospel writers leave us to presume. I was addressing your question about the relationship between the pronoun AUTOU and KWMHN. That AUTOU has as its antecedent PWLON is obvious in the text. Matthew uses AUTWN because he is dealing with two animals one of which is a male. That keeps the concord in tact.Carlton Winbery– Carlton L. WinberyRetired Professor of ReligionLouisiana College318-448-6103winberycl at earthlink.net
[] Luke 19:31[] Luke 19:31
[] Luke 19:31 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Nov 18 03:13:38 EST 2006
[] Luke 19:31 [] Reader’s Greek New Testament —– Original Message —– From: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> 19: 31 KAI EAN TIS hUMAS ERWTAi, “DIA TI LUETE?” hOUTWS EREITE hOTI “hO KURIOS AUTOU CREIAN ECEI.”> > What I am exploring here is the reason for the statement “hO KURIOS AUTOU XREIAN EXEI.” This > would seem to presuppose that anyone who asked would be aware of to whom “hO KURIOS” refers and > would have no objection to Jesus’ use of the animal. The problem is that we are not told that > this is the case. While there is generally an economy of expression in the gospels in particular, > they do generally contain all of the information which we need to understand them.IL: The economy of expression is common to all communication (confer Relevance Theory), and the gospels generally have less of this than many other texts. On the other hand, one needs to have some background information of the situation to understand. It is helpful to know that Jesus and his disciples were approaching both Bethany and Bethphage at this point in the story. Bethany is about one mile off the main road to the left as they were coming up the Jericho road. To go to Bethany now would be a detour, but Jesus has been there several times and is well-known in the village. He used to stay at the spacious home of the well-to-do Martha who must have been known by everyone there. A number of people in that village would know him as “the Master” (hO KURIOS or the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent) – and Luke commonly refers to Jesus as “hO KURIOS”. Bethphage has not been located with absolute certainty, but it is likely that it was on or very near the main road about 1½ mile east of Jerusalem. So, looking at the map in front of me, it is likely that Jesus stopped about 3 miles before Jerusalem and sent two of his disciples southwest along the path to Bethany to get the donkey and asked them to return with it along the path going northwest to Bethpage. At the meantime he and the others would procede on the main road towards the west and a bit south to go to Bethphage and wait for them there before descending the hill towards Jerusalem.> If, however, the statement is somewhat ambiguous so that it could refer to either Jesus as hO > KURIOS or to the owner of the animal, then the answer might be understandable as being sufficient. > I feel very uncomfortable ASSUMING that Jesus had some prior contact with the people of this > village and was known to them. Furthermore, the simple designation as hO KURIOS is not in itself > identifying if it does not refer to the owner of the animal since it was a common form of address.IL: I don’t know why you feel uncomfortable with an assumption that is well founded in the Gospel narratives. Jesus knew exactly who the people were who would be asking and what they would say. So, Luke bends over backwards to explain who the owners of the donkey(s) were, because he is more specific than Mark when he says in v. 33-34:LUONTWN DE AUTWN TON PWLON, EIPAN hOI KURIOI AUTOU PROS AUTOUS:TI LUETE TON PWLON? hO DE EIPAN hOTI hO KURIOS AUTOU CREIAN ECEI.Now, since Luke identifies the bystanders as the owners of the donkey, it makes no sense for them or us to understand hO KURIOS as the owner of the donkey. They must have understood that hO KURIOS referred to Jesus, and that is why they let them take the donkey. They probably recognized the two disciples of Jesus anyway, since they had been seen in the company of Jesus several times in Bethany. They don’t ask the two disciples who they are, but only why they are taking the donkey. And Jesus presumably returned the donkeys the same evening, when he went to Bethany to stay overnight with his friends. He might even have gone to the owners and said thank you for lending them to me. Or he could have sent them back earlier with the two disciples. We don’t need to know all the details, but there is no doubt that hO KURIOS refers to Jesus.Iver Larsen
[] Luke 19:31[] Reader’s Greek New Testament
[] Luke 19:31 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 18 06:45:55 EST 2006
[] Translation/Defintion of Porneia [] Luke 19:31 Iver,When we read these accounts, we really must try to understand them as the original readers might have understood them. Today people sometimes hand out tracts containing the Gospel according to John. Some have never read the Bible in their lives (hard to believe, isn’t it?). Imagine that you were in that situation and someone handed you a Gospel according to Luke, and you’re now reading it for the first time. You know nothing about the Gospel according to John. The only Lazarus mentioned in Luke is the beggar who sat at the rich man’s gate. Mary and Martha are mentioned (Lk 10), but where they live is not — it’s merely KWMH TINA. In our passage Bethany and Bethphage are indeed mentioned, but when Jesus tells the disciples to go get the ass he doesn’t say “Go to Bethphage” but THN KATENANTI KWMHN so put away your maps. I’m inclined to say that it was not Bethphage or it would have been stated. I’m not trying, in a once fashionable manner, to explain everything naturalistically (such as to say that when Jesus was walking on the water he was really stepping on some stones). When Luke introduces a miracle story, he generally signals that this is such as in the case of the healing of the blind man where everyone “gives thanks to God” afterward. When he wants you to know that Jesus has some special knowledge, he also signals that by saying something like “he knew what was in their hearts.” We don’t have that here. What we do have appears to be a very natural type of story. It seems that Luke is putting his hand over his mouth in trying to suppress a laugh as he tells a story of misunderstanding (It reminds me a bit of Til Eulenspiegels Lustige Spiel). The OT in particular is full of plays on words. Jacob makes some [red] lentil soup which his brother Esau wants because he’s famished so he sells his birthright for this “mess of pottage” and gets the name “Red.” Amos sees a basket of summer fruit and proclaims that the end has come for Israel. In English this doesn’t seem to follow, but in Hebrew the two words are similar. Imagine that “summer fruit” was called “termination” and Amos then pronounces that Israel is terminated — this is the kind of play that is going on. We take these books to be holy scripture and feel that we need to wear our best clothes and wash our hands and sit up straight with a very serious expression on our faces when we read it. NOT SO!! The essence of a word-play is that afterwards you sit there and scratch your head and say “I hadn’t thought of that possibility.” Sometimes in English there are writers who don’t do a very good job and leave ambiguities. I was reading an article on Dell Computers the other day where it spoke of “the bathroom where Michael Dell hid the parts which he used to make computers from his parents” [this is a near-quote, not an exact quote since I do not claim to have a photographic memory]. I had to laugh since it appears that the writer is saying that Dell made computers from his parents. Do I think that is the case? Of course not. So also, we know that “of him [it]” in our passage refers to the ass, but it could conceivably refer to the owner of the animal and to the village elders. I seriously doubt that the villagers recognized the disciples as you suppose. In fact, the story almost presupposes that they DON’T know them. This was something like a “Neighborhood Watch.” They see someone they don’t recognize unteathering an ass so they ask them what they’re up to. It’s not Joe from 1/4 mile down the road who is a good friend of Frank, who owns the animal. I was living in the Pasadena, CA area some years ago when I got off work and was walking up to the Glendale Mall dressed in my suit and carrying an attache case when I saw this creature in a flouncy dress and broadbrimed hat walking down the steps to the street level and then walk over to a lamp post to which a bicycle was chained and start to rattle the chain. I thought this rather strange so I said, “Pardon me, is that yours?” The reply came back in a deep voice “Watch out or I’ll coldcock you!” I put down my attache case and said, “You’re welcome to try” but then he stooped down and unlocked the lock at which point I concluded that it was his bike and dropped the matter. This is the way it works. When someone sees something unusual they ask questions.People today are amused when they see something in which an unusual cleverness is exhibited. They also appreciated it back then. Remember the movie [Senior moment here and I’m only 39!], was it “The Sting”? It stared Newman and concerned a setup in which some pool sharks were going to part a guy of some money. Normally we don’t think of theft as in any way admirable, but this wasn’t a case of meeting someone in a dark alley, hitting him over the head, and riffling his pockets. It was clever so we appreciate it. I’m wondering if Luke isn’t signalling that Jesus was very clever here. Remember, SMILE, God loves you. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 3:13:38 AMSubject: Re: [] Luke 19:31—– Original Message —– From: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>> 19: 31 KAI EAN TIS hUMAS ERWTAi, “DIA TI LUETE?” hOUTWS EREITE hOTI “hO KURIOS AUTOU CREIAN ECEI.”> > What I am exploring here is the reason for the statement “hO KURIOS AUTOU XREIAN EXEI.” This > would seem to presuppose that anyone who asked would be aware of to whom “hO KURIOS” refers and > would have no objection to Jesus’ use of the animal. The problem is that we are not told that > this is the case. While there is generally an economy of expression in the gospels in particular, > they do generally contain all of the information which we need to understand them.IL: The economy of expression is common to all communication (confer Relevance Theory), and the gospels generally have less of this than many other texts. On the other hand, one needs to have some background information of the situation to understand. It is helpful to know that Jesus and his disciples were approaching both Bethany and Bethphage at this point in the story. Bethany is about one mile off the main road to the left as they were coming up the Jericho road. To go to Bethany now would be a detour, but Jesus has been there several times and is well-known in the village. He used to stay at the spacious home of the well-to-do Martha who must have been known by everyone there. A number of people in that village would know him as “the Master” (hO KURIOS or the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent) – and Luke commonly refers to Jesus as “hO KURIOS”. Bethphage has not been located with absolute certainty, but it is likely that it was on or very near the main road about 1½ mile east of Jerusalem. So, looking at the map in front of me, it is likely that Jesus stopped about 3 miles before Jerusalem and sent two of his disciples southwest along the path to Bethany to get the donkey and asked them to return with it along the path going northwest to Bethpage. At the meantime he and the others would procede on the main road towards the west and a bit south to go to Bethphage and wait for them there before descending the hill towards Jerusalem.> If, however, the statement is somewhat ambiguous so that it could refer to either Jesus as hO > KURIOS or to the owner of the animal, then the answer might be understandable as being sufficient. > I feel very uncomfortable ASSUMING that Jesus had some prior contact with the people of this > village and was known to them. Furthermore, the simple designation as hO KURIOS is not in itself > identifying if it does not refer to the owner of the animal since it was a common form of address.IL: I don’t know why you feel uncomfortable with an assumption that is well founded in the Gospel narratives. Jesus knew exactly who the people were who would be asking and what they would say. So, Luke bends over backwards to explain who the owners of the donkey(s) were, because he is more specific than Mark when he says in v. 33-34:LUONTWN DE AUTWN TON PWLON, EIPAN hOI KURIOI AUTOU PROS AUTOUS:TI LUETE TON PWLON? hO DE EIPAN hOTI hO KURIOS AUTOU CREIAN ECEI.Now, since Luke identifies the bystanders as the owners of the donkey, it makes no sense for them or us to understand hO KURIOS as the owner of the donkey. They must have understood that hO KURIOS referred to Jesus, and that is why they let them take the donkey. They probably recognized the two disciples of Jesus anyway, since they had been seen in the company of Jesus several times in Bethany. They don’t ask the two disciples who they are, but only why they are taking the donkey. And Jesus presumably returned the donkeys the same evening, when he went to Bethany to stay overnight with his friends. He might even have gone to the owners and said thank you for lending them to me. Or he could have sent them back earlier with the two disciples. We don’t need to know all the details, but there is no doubt that hO KURIOS refers to Jesus.Iver Larsen — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Translation/Defintion of Porneia[] Luke 19:31
[] Luke 19:31 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Nov 18 09:33:40 EST 2006
[] Luke 19:31 [] Luke 19:31 On Nov 18, 2006, at 6:45 AM, George F Somsel wrote:> Iver,> > When we read these accounts, we really must try to understand them > as the original readers might have understood them. …This discussion has — perhaps from the initial query — bordered upon the realm of hermeneutics — theory of interpretation. There’s little or no confusion or disagreement about what the Greek text as Greek text can mean; the question is how to make sense of the verse in question in its contexts — and that involves implicit or explicit assumptions about how the passage as a whole must be approached, what necessary presuppositions must be taken into account with regard to the relationship of the gospel accounts to each other and to an intelligible historical context, etc., etc. These are matters upon which there is a considerable range of perspectives held by list- members, some of them irreconcilably at odds — particularly inasmuch as some may suppose that their own perspective is the only reasonable and “obvious” perspective. That is a reason why we steer clear of hermeneutical discussion. I would urge that Iver and George — and any other interested parties — take this discussion off-list if they wish to continue with it — please.Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu or cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Luke 19:31[] Luke 19:31
[] Luke 19:31 Carlton Winbery winberycl at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 18 10:00:07 EST 2006
[] Luke 19:31 [] Translation/Defintion of Porneia This discussion is ranging far afield from the Greek text. Let’s have no more of this. If you have analysis of the text/grammar discuss that, but no more reconstructions of the history which involves harmonizing differences in the parallel accounts or the geography except where the text specifically uses the locations for light on what is written.Carlton WinberyCo-moderator>Iver,> >When we read these accounts, we really must try to understand them >as the original readers might have understood them. Today people >sometimes hand out tracts containing the Gospel according to John. >Some have never read the Bible in their lives (hard to believe, >isn’t it?). Imagine that you were in that situation and someone >handed you a Gospel according to Luke, and you’re now reading it for >the first time. You know nothing about the Gospel according to >John. The only Lazarus mentioned in Luke is the beggar who sat at >the rich man’s gate. Mary and Martha are mentioned (Lk 10), but >where they live is not — it’s merely KWMH TINA. In our passage >Bethany and Bethphage are indeed mentioned, but when Jesus tells the >disciples to go get the ass he doesn’t say “Go to Bethphage” but THN >KATENANTI KWMHN so put away your maps. I’m inclined to say that it >was not Bethphage or it would have been stated.> >I’m not trying, in a once fashionable manner, to explain everything >naturalistically (such as to say that when Jesus was walking on the >water he was really stepping on some stones). When Luke introduces >a miracle story, he generally signals that this is such as in the >case of the healing of the blind man where everyone “gives thanks to >God” afterward. When he wants you to know that Jesus has some >special knowledge, he also signals that by saying something like “he >knew what was in their hearts.” We don’t have that here. What we >do have appears to be a very natural type of story. It seems that >Luke is putting his hand over his mouth in trying to suppress a >laugh as he tells a story of misunderstanding (It reminds me a bit >of Til Eulenspiegels Lustige Spiel). The OT in particular is full >of plays on words. Jacob makes some [red] lentil soup which his >brother Esau wants because he’s famished so he sells his birthright >for this “mess of pottage” and gets the name “Red.”> Amos sees a basket of summer fruit and proclaims that the end has >come for Israel. In English this doesn’t seem to follow, but in >Hebrew the two words are similar. Imagine that “summer fruit” was >called “termination” and Amos then pronounces that Israel is >terminated — this is the kind of play that is going on. We take >these books to be holy scripture and feel that we need to wear our >best clothes and wash our hands and sit up straight with a very >serious expression on our faces when we read it. NOT SO!! The >essence of a word-play is that afterwards you sit there and scratch >your head and say “I hadn’t thought of that possibility.” Sometimes >in English there are writers who don’t do a very good job and leave >ambiguities. I was reading an article on Dell Computers the other >day where it spoke of “the bathroom where Michael Dell hid the parts >which he used to make computers from his parents” [this is a >near-quote, not an exact quote since I do not claim to have a> photographic memory]. I had to laugh since it appears that the >writer is saying that Dell made computers from his parents. Do I >think that is the case? Of course not. > >So also, we know that “of him [it]” in our passage refers to the >ass, but it could conceivably refer to the owner of the animal and >to the village elders. I seriously doubt that the villagers >recognized the disciples as you suppose. In fact, the story almost >presupposes that they DON’T know them. This was something like a >“Neighborhood Watch.” They see someone they don’t recognize >unteathering an ass so they ask them what they’re up to. It’s not >Joe from 1/4 mile down the road who is a good friend of Frank, who >owns the animal. I was living in the Pasadena, CA area some years >ago when I got off work and was walking up to the Glendale Mall >dressed in my suit and carrying an attache case when I saw this >creature in a flouncy dress and broadbrimed hat walking down the >steps to the street level and then walk over to a lamp post to which >a bicycle was chained and start to rattle the chain. I thought this >rather strange so I said, “Pardon me, is that yours?” The reply> came back in a deep voice “Watch out or I’ll coldcock you!” I put >down my attache case and said, “You’re welcome to try” but then he >stooped down and unlocked the lock at which point I concluded that >it was his bike and dropped the matter. This is the way it works. >When someone sees something unusual they ask questions.> >People today are amused when they see something in which an unusual >cleverness is exhibited. They also appreciated it back then. >Remember the movie [Senior moment here and I’m only 39!], was it >“The Sting”? It stared Newman and concerned a setup in which some >pool sharks were going to part a guy of some money. Normally we >don’t think of theft as in any way admirable, but this wasn’t a case >of meeting someone in a dark alley, hitting him over the head, and >riffling his pockets. It was clever so we appreciate it. I’m >wondering if Luke isn’t signalling that Jesus was very clever here. >Remember, SMILE, God loves you.> >george>gfsomsel>_________> > > >—– Original Message —->From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>>To: at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 3:13:38 AM>Subject: Re: [] Luke 19:31> > >—– Original Message —–>From: “George F Somsel” <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>>> >19: 31 KAI EAN TIS hUMAS ERWTAi, “DIA TI LUETE?” hOUTWS EREITE hOTI >“hO KURIOS AUTOU CREIAN ECEI.”>> >> What I am exploring here is the reason for the statement “hO >>KURIOS AUTOU XREIAN EXEI.” This>> would seem to presuppose that anyone who asked would be aware of >>to whom “hO KURIOS” refers and>> would have no objection to Jesus’ use of the animal. The problem >>is that we are not told that>> this is the case. While there is generally an economy of >>expression in the gospels in particular,>> they do generally contain all of the information which we need to >>understand them.> >IL: The economy of expression is common to all communication (confer >Relevance Theory), and the>gospels generally have less of this than many other texts. On the >other hand, one needs to have some>background information of the situation to understand. It is helpful >to know that Jesus and his>disciples were approaching both Bethany and Bethphage at this point >in the story. Bethany is about>one mile off the main road to the left as they were coming up the >Jericho road. To go to Bethany now>would be a detour, but Jesus has been there several times and is >well-known in the village. He used>to stay at the spacious home of the well-to-do Martha who must have >been known by everyone there. A>number of people in that village would know him as “the Master” (hO >KURIOS or the Hebrew/Aramaic>equivalent) – and Luke commonly refers to Jesus as “hO KURIOS”. >Bethphage has not been located with>absolute certainty, but it is likely that it was on or very near the >main road about 1½ mile east of>Jerusalem. So, looking at the map in front of me, it is likely that >Jesus stopped about 3 miles>before Jerusalem and sent two of his disciples southwest along the >path to Bethany to get the donkey>and asked them to return with it along the path going northwest to >Bethpage. At the meantime he and>the others would procede on the main road towards the west and a bit >south to go to Bethphage and>wait for them there before descending the hill towards Jerusalem.> >> If, however, the statement is somewhat ambiguous so that it could >>refer to either Jesus as hO>> KURIOS or to the owner of the animal, then the answer might be >>understandable as being sufficient.>> I feel very uncomfortable ASSUMING that Jesus had some prior >>contact with the people of this>> village and was known to them. Furthermore, the simple >>designation as hO KURIOS is not in itself>> identifying if it does not refer to the owner of the animal since >>it was a common form of address.> >IL: I don’t know why you feel uncomfortable with an assumption that >is well founded in the Gospel>narratives. Jesus knew exactly who the people were who would be >asking and what they would say. So,>Luke bends over backwards to explain who the owners of the donkey(s) >were, because he is more>specific than Mark when he says in v. 33-34:> >LUONTWN DE AUTWN TON PWLON, EIPAN hOI KURIOI AUTOU PROS AUTOUS:>TI LUETE TON PWLON? hO DE EIPAN hOTI hO KURIOS AUTOU CREIAN ECEI.> >Now, since Luke identifies the bystanders as the owners of the >donkey, it makes no sense for them or>us to understand hO KURIOS as the owner of the donkey. They must >have understood that hO KURIOS>referred to Jesus, and that is why they let them take the donkey. >They probably recognized the two>disciples of Jesus anyway, since they had been seen in the company >of Jesus several times in>Bethany. They don’t ask the two disciples who they are, but only why >they are taking the donkey. And>Jesus presumably returned the donkeys the same evening, when he went >to Bethany to stay overnight>with his friends. He might even have gone to the owners and said >thank you for lending them to me.>Or he could have sent them back earlier with the two disciples. We >don’t need to know all the>details, but there is no doubt that hO KURIOS refers to Jesus.> >Iver Larsen> >—> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >—> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carlton L. WinberyRetired Professor of ReligionLouisiana College318-448-6103winberycl at earthlink.nethttp://tinyurl.com/dy5zr
[] Luke 19:31[] Translation/Defintion of Porneia
[] Luke 19:31; 33; and 34 John B. Senterfitt millenia05 at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 18 14:23:21 EST 2006
[] Translation/Defintion of Porneia [] Word Definitions in Greek to English Lexicons? Why are we making such a fuss (long extended discussion) about Jesus laying claim to the ass or colt?After all, since according to John 1:1 he created the all of creation, including the colt, why then can he not lay claim to the animal?John B. Senterfitt
[] Translation/Defintion of Porneia[] Word Definitions in Greek to English Lexicons?