From: clayton stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 15 1998 - 09:31:54 EST
> Randall M. Tidmore wrote:
> I would like to see some discussion on Luke 22:20. The NASB
> Luke 22:20
> 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying,
> "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
> They say that the Greek grammar makes it the "cup" that is "poured
> out." I have looked at the Greek and see what I think is their
> reasoning. I wonder if any of the scholars on the list could show why
> it is not necessarily so.
This is a tricky question. George Athas has already responded well. I will add
a few comments culled from ancient sources.
Godet calls TO EKCUNNOMENON a nominative absolute and he thinks it explains
TWi AIMATI MOU.
H. A. W. Meyer also thinks that TO EKCUNNOMENON is an expansion on TWi AIMATI
MOU. Meyer's explanation is subtle: "The abnormal use of the case is
occasioned by the fact that, according to ver. 19, the idea prevails: that the
cup (in respect to it's contents) is the blood of the new covenant which is
shed. Consequently TO EKCUNNOMENON is applied to TWi AIMATI MOU because TWi
AIMATI MOU has floated before the mind of the speaker as the logical
predicate, even although it did not become the grammatical predicate. The
nominative expression more emphatically brings into prominence what is
declared of the blood . . ."
Alfred Plummer says that TO EKCUNNOMENON agrees with TWi AIMATI MOU in sense
but with POTHRION in grammar.
So all three of these notable exegetes of yesteryear have the same reading of
the "sense" of this passage.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:10 EDT