[B-Greek] PARA with acc (was. PAR' AUTOU in Luke 18:9-14)
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 17 14:14:33 EDT 2009
On Jul 17, 2009, at 12:02 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>
> First, let me say that I am quite convinced that DEDIKAIWMENOS in
> Luke 18:14 is
> intended to be passive in sense rather than middle based on how this
> verb is
> used in the GNT. Similarly, DIKAIWQHNAI in Acts 13:38 and DIKAIOUTAI
> in Acts
> 13:39 are passives. It is God who justifies people, i.e. he has the
> right and
> authority to decide whether a person is considered "righteous" in
> God's eyes.
>
> BAGD renders PARA in Luke 18:14 as "rather than the other". Another
> option is
> "contrary to" which is sense III.6 in BAGD.
>
> I would think that the comparative option is unlikely. Many of the
> quotes in
> BAGD III.3 would fit better under III.6.
> The Hebrews often spoke in extremes and contrasts. The tax collector
> left in a
> state of having been declared righteous, the Pharisee left in a
> state of having
> been declared not righteous, rather than less righteous. The text
> indicates that
> the Pharisee compared himself to the tax collector, but it also
> shows that the
> tax collector did not compare himself to the Pharisee. He did not
> lift up his
> eyes, so he was not even aware that the Pharisee was present.
>
>
From: "Yancy Smith" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: "'B Greek'" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 17. juli 2009 01:15
Subject: [B-Greek] PAR' AUTOU in Luke 18:9-14
> [Yancy Smith]
>
> I want to register my agreement with Conrad's assessment here about
> the DIK-
> verbs in this passage and suggest that Luke's quotation of Jesus'
> parable end
> on a less that "once for all note." That may well be because of the
> way Luke
> is handling his source. The statement that κατέβη οὗτος
> δεδικαιωμένος εἰς τὸν
> οἶκον αὐτοῦ παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον· KATEBH HOUTOS
> DEDIKAIOMENOS EIS TON OIKON AUTOU PAR'
> EKEINON could and probably should be Englished, "this man went down
> to his
> house more justified than the other." I understand that BDAG
> recommends the
> exclusive righteousness idea, "instead of" rather than the
> comparative "more
> than". However, the idea of comparative righteousness in surprising
> situations
> is an echo of Gen. 38:26, Δεδικαίωται Θαμαρ ἢ
> ἐγώ DEDIKAWTAI QAMAR H EGW. The
> delicious irony of the Luke's parable, however, is that the good
> Pharisee's
> good works may well be the impetus that provokes the humble reaction
> of the
> Tax Collector. A case of transferred merit, as it were! We know the
> Pharisee
> compares himself with the tax collector. Are we to assume the Tax
> Collector
> compares himself with the righteous Pharisee? If both men compare
> themselves
> with one another, God sees the more humble man as the more
> righteous. Read in
> this way, it becomes a trap of a parable, indicting any sort of self
> exalting
> pride. As far as I can see, the only reason for choosing the
> exclusive meaning
> of PAR'AUTOU rather than the comparative is the assumption that a
> Pharisee
> (qua Pharisee) cannot possibly be a righteous person. The brilliant
> parable
> then becomes a ham-fisted polemic against Pharisees. I can see how
> Luke is
> complicit in our reading the parable this way, but as Jesus would
> have said
> it, in the first context, it works better as a comparative. A great
> discussion
> of this is found in the popular book by Amy Jill-Levine, _The
> Misunderstood
> Jew_.
It seems to me that PAR' EKEINON isn't really the point of contention
here. Y.Smith and I.Larsen appear to have different ideas about what
DEDIKAIOMENOS means in this context. Smith seems to read it as a
subjective state "God sees the more humble man as the more righteous"
whereas Larsen sees it as a status conferred on one without regard to
one's subjective state "The tax collector left in a state of having
been declared righteous, the Pharisee left in a state of having been
declared not righteous, rather than less righteous." I don't see how
this status conferred on one would permit the notion of degree. In
other words, if DEDIKAIOMENOS is read as a passive with QEOS as the
implied agent and the resultant state is conferred by the agent on the
recipient, then we are left with and either/or, QEOS either confers
the state or not, there isn't any middle option.
I agree with Iver, but I suspect this has a lot to do with reformed
readings of Paul. I suspect my understanding of DEDIKAIOMENOS is
conditioned by Romans and Galatians.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list