Luke 23:43

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Oct 3 06:28:25 EDT 2002


Hi again, Nick

You wrote:
>
>      It is interesting that of these only 23:43 is in the future tense.
The
>      only other place in Luke-Acts in which SHMERON appears with a future
>      clause is Luke 22:61:
>      "Before the cock crows today (SHMERON), you will deny me three
times."
>      Here SHMERON clearly ends the first clause.

When I look at all the occurrences of SHMERON in Luke there are clear
reasons why an aorist, a present tense or a future tense would be used. In
my opinion this is a parameter which is unrelated to the placement of
SHMERON, because it functions on a different semantic level. Since "today"
is a deictic word pointing to the time of speaking plus a certain period
before and after, it is natural that aorist should be used for an event that
has already taken place, and future for an event that is still to take
place. Present tense is used mainly for general,  more or less timeless
events in the passages which employ SHMERON. Only a future would be possible
in 22:61 and 23:43, regardless of the relative emphasis put on SHMERON.
Other factors determine the placement of the adverb.

I was curious to know why all the comments in Greek from a previous postings
on this verse did not quote the text we have in our GNT which is AMHN SOI
LEGW, but they all quoted the "natural" order AMHN LEGW SOI. Carl also
quoted the words in that (wrong) order. Were those Greek commentators
looking at a different text, or simply quoting wrongly from memory in a
theological debate? The UBS GNT has no variant readings at this place. The
Textual Commentary has a note that Codex Bezae inserted some words to make
sure to which criminal Jesus was talking. This shows that the copyist of
Bezae did not understand that this was already marked by the fronted SOI. Or
he may have had a theological reason to want to make it doubly sure.

By the way, the Syriac translation you mentioned is from the 5th century,
isn't it? Church theology had changed significantly from the time of Luke to
the 4th and 5th century, so it is quite possible that it is not only a
Syriac linguistic re-interpretation but a theological re-interpretation.
That same translation has rendered PARADEISOS with "in the Garden of Eden".
So, I am not sure that it is a reliable source for how the original was.
>
>      The thought that struck me is - are we to interpret Christ's use of
>      'Paradise' in this verse by contemporary Jewish thinking, or by the
>      use of the word in the New Testament? The book of Revelation clearly
>      places Paradise in a post-resurrection, new heavens and earth, time
>      frame. It occurs in the promise of Rev 2:7, describing the place
where
>      the 'tree of life' is located, which is the New Jerusalem (22:2).
>      This is of course a theological issue rather than NT Greek.

My thinking is that since Jesus is talking to a Jewish criminal, he would
use a concept that this person could understand. If, as I am thinking,
people at the time believed there were two places for the spirits of
deceased persons, one being Hades/hell/the unquenchable fire/gehenna, the
other being bosom of Abraham/paradise, then the criminal would understand
which place he was promised to come to after death, without having an
understanding of the details of Revelation.
Paul's use of the word in 2 Cor 12:4 I would understand in the same sense,
referring to the bosom of Abraham/paradise/the third heaven where the
spirits of the saved/righteous people are. He does not tell us who he saw
there in his spiritual journey or how it was.
The third and final use in Revelation I take to refer to the new world after
the PAROUSIA, so different aspects come into play. At the time referred to
by Revelation, the paradise as a spiritual "forecourt" has been emptied,
because these spirits have now received new bodies and moved to Heaven (the
seventh heaven?). Then the scene is being set for a new kind of "paradise"
that is much closer to the original Garden of Eden. What the two paradises
have in common is that God is in complete control, only the saved/righteous
have access to it, and there is no evil there. There are also some
differences.

That is how I see it at the moment,
Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list