From: Jeffrey B. Gibson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jun 03 2001 - 13:43:32 EDT
Dave Washburn wrote:
> Jeffrey wrote:
> > I beg to differ! If one feels that the SHMERON is a chronological indicator, then it
> > makes a good deal of difference whether the term modifies the first or the second
> > clause. For if it is the second clause, and is intended as an indicator of when the
> > "thief" (what a woeful translation!) AND Jesus would be in paradise, then we have a
> > contradiction between Luke's statement here and his supposition that Jesus does not
> > enter "paradise" until after the resurrection.
> I'm not sure where this supposition is found, but I'll bypass that for
The supposition is found in Luke's story of the ascension at the end of his Gospel.
> It seems to me that the question is, which form of the
> statement is more likely to have come out of the mouth of Jesus?
> We have profuse examples of his use of AMHN LEGW SOI/hUMIN
> etc as an introductory formula, and to my knowledge there is not
> another example of his modifying it with SHMERON. Thus,
> intrinsic probability by comparison with other use of this formula in
> the gospels would suggest that SHMERON belongs with the next
For what it's worth, I would argue that neither form would have come from the lips of Jesus
since there is good reason to think that the saying is a Lukan creation. Matthew and Luke do
not know of it, let alone the story of the "repentant thief". And it fits too well with the
Lukan theme of forgiveness. On top of that, it is Lukan in vocabulary.
> > Moreover, one also has to show that the term might **not** be a chronological
> > reference at all (i.e., something that denotes the day of the crucifixion), but a
> > reference to the eschatological "today" (cf. Luke's other uses of this term in the
> > Capernaum sermon and with the story of Zacchaeus, so that Jesus is actually saying, "I
> > say to you, now that the great "today" is here, that (given your repentance, you will
> > be (at no specified time) with me in paradise.
> Why would one have to show this if one is arguing that SHMERON
> belongs with the next clause? AFAIK, the gospels are pretty much
> silent on the location of Jesus between death and resurrection, and
> the eschatological suggestion seems excessively complex and
> unnecessary to me. But all that is exegetical and theological
> rather than linguistic, so to get back to the question of SHMERON,
> another avenue of investigation might involve statistics on the
> position of temporal indicators in the words of Jesus in the gospels.
You seem to be assuming that all of the material is authentic and is of equal value for
determining the patterns of Jesus' speech. In any case, it seems more sound to look first at
Lukan usage of terms like SHMERON.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:58 EDT