Luke 23:43

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Oct 2 08:23:16 EDT 2002


Thanks, Nick, for some good observations from your Hebrew background which
is stronger than mine. Let me comment below:
>
> 1. 'I X to you today' is a recognised Hebrew/Aramaic idiom, where X is a
> verb of speech or declaration. The function of the idiom is to stress the
> truth or the certainty of the affirmation that follows these words. The
> word 'today' in this case is simply part of the formula and there is no
> focus upon the particular day when it was spoken. This idiom is common in
> Deuteronomy (e.g. 4:26; 8:19; 30:18), but also appears in other Old
> Testament books (1 Sam 12:5; 1 Kgs 1:51). That this idiom was
> still in use in New Testament times is shown by the fact that it is
attested
> in certain Palestinian Aramaic legal documents dating from the 1st
century.

In Deu 4:26 the verb of speech in LXX is DIAMARTUROMAI, in 8:19 the same, in
30:18 ANAGGELLW, in 1 Sam 12:5 LXX has MARTUS KURIOS and MARTUS CRISTOS
AUTOU, in 1 Kgs 1:51 OMOSATW (let him swear). It appears that this formula
is connected with either swearing or calling a higher power to witness,
which is similar to swearing.
>
> 2. It is evident that Luke, though a Gentile, knew this idiom, as
> it occurs
> in the book of Acts. In 20:26 the apostle Paul says, 'I testify
> to you this
> day'. In this case the ambiguity of whether 'this day' belongs with what
> precedes or follows is removed by the use of the complementizer
> HOTI, which
> Luke places AFTER 'this day' in keeping with the Semitic idiom.

20:26 MARTUROMAI hUMIN EN THi SHMERON hHMERAi
I find it of interest that again here we find the word MARTUREW as he is
implicitly calling upon the witness of a higher power.
The idiom used by Paul here is very similar to the occurrences mentioned
above, but at the same time very different from the idiom used by Jesus in
Luke 23:43 and 74 other places in the NT.
You have made a good case for the existence of such an idiom, but Jesus
never used it. I assume he did not because he had no need for calling upon a
higher power to be a witness to the truth of what he said. He simply started
his statement with AMHN LEGW. The fixed phrase starting with AMHN and used
by Jesus was not a normal Hebrew idiom as far as I can tell. At least it
never occurs in the OT.
>
> 3. In the translation of Luke 23:43 in the Curetonian MS of the
> Old Syriac
> Gospels the Syriac equivalent of HOTI is used - the particle /d/ 'that'.
> And the translators, no doubt familiar with a Semitic idiom, placed this
> particle AFTER 'today'.

This, of course, may be their Syriac re-interpretation and not necessarily
correct.
>
> 4. The writings of Luke show a preference for adverbial SHMERON in the
> final position. Altogether, according to my reckoning, there are 25
> occurrences of adverbial SHMERON in the New Testament, in 14 it
> is initial,
> in 11 it is final. And, significantly, of these 11, no less than 9 are in
> Luke-Acts. Interestingly, in one synoptic parallel, where Matthew (6:30)
> has 'today' + Participle, Luke's version (12:28) has Participle +
> 'today'.
> There is a clear tendency on Luke's part to place this word at the end.

I don't think we can deduce much from such statistics. What is more
important to me is to look at the individual contexts and see whether the
relative placement within the sentence appears to be significant. It is
correct that Luke by placing SHMERON after the participle in 12:28 puts
slightly more emphasis on the "being" than the idea of "today". This could
also reflect a more Semitic structure in Matthew and a more Greek structure
in Luke. Both orders make good sense in that context. It seems significant
to me that those places where Luke has SHMERON initially are very similar in
content:
4:21 Today this scripture has been fulfilled (the Messiah has come to save)
19:5 Today in your house I must stay (because he was sent to save the lost)
19:9 Today salvation has come to this house
(23:43 Today you will be with me in paradise (he is saved))
In any case, I don't think the question of whether SHMERON normally occurred
in the beginning or end is going to solve the issue.
>
> 5. According to the teaching of the early church (based on 1 Pet 3:19),
> after Christ died on the cross 'he descended into hell'. Equally, a case
> could be made that it was to 'hades' that he in fact went (cf.
> Acts 2:27).
> In either case it is not 'paradise'.

As far as I know there was a shift in Jewish thinking in terms of Sheol. In
the early parts of the OT, everybody went to Sheol (Hades) when they died,
whether good or bad. It looks like this was still the belief at the time of
King David which Acts 2:27 refers to. At the time of Jesus, it appears that
only the bad ones went to Sheol (Hades), and that is why it becomes
synonymous with "hell". The righteous ones/saved ones went to the "bosom of
Abraham" or "paradise".
I see no problem with Jesus and the saved criminal going together into that
"bosom of Abraham" or "paradise". Once there in spirit, Jesus apparently did
make a trip in his spiritual existence into Hades and back before his
resurrection. Is it not significant that in 1 Pet 3:19 Jesus went to preach
to the imprisoned spirits of the disobedient people? Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob would not be in that company. From Eph 4:8-9 it appears that some of
these people heeded the preaching and were forgiven and released so that
they were no longer imprisoned. Jesus would then have brought these released
spirit prisoners into the "bosom of Abraham". We know so little about this,
that I cannot be dogmatic, but I do not see point 5 as an argument against
Jesus first going to "paradise" in his spiritual existence. It depends, of
course, on what you think "paradise" stands for.

Thanks for a stimulating interaction,
Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list