Re: [Synoptic-L] Meanings of Words
- The clause in question in 1 Cor 11:23 reads:
"in the night in which he was-being-given-over" (ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο)
The verb is imperfect tense, suggesting an action that was in process at the
time. When was it in process? - "in the night...Jesus took bread, and giving thanks he broke (it) and said..."
So there was a giving-over process that happened to Jesus, and it occurred "in [that] night". That doesn't sound to me like Paul is here making a theological statement such as God "gave-over his own son" in Rom 8:32 (and 4:25), or even Jesus "giving-over himself" as in Gal 2:20. Rather, it sounds much more like something local and temporal, ie..."historical".
Can we not at least say that Paul is referring here to some process of events whereby Jesus was "given over" (by somebody?) to somebody (else?), during that night of the Last Supper, which events culminated in his crucifixion. I don't know if we can even say whether Paul understood that the crucifixion also took place "in [that] night" or after day break...or if it even mattered. Whether or not Paul considered this a plot of "betrayal" is probably not knowable - but I would say we have to retain it as a possibility.
>________________________________[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
>Sent: Wednesday, 25 January 2012, 15:42
>Subject: [Synoptic-L] Meanings of Words
>On: Meanings of Words
>There has been a question of what Paul means in 1 Cor 11:23.
>To Jeffrey Gibson: Strong's (in some of its many forms) is a handy
>lemmatized index, not to NT occurrences of some English word, but to NT
>occurrences of some Greek word. It gives a complete list, not selective as
>in BDAG. It is Strong's citations, not his English equivalents, on which I
>am relying in the present argument. If someone feels that I have attributed
>the wrong meaning to a given NT passage, it is open to them to say so.
>To Ken Olson: With any word whose meaning is significantly
>context-determined, it seems proper (and as far as I know, also standard
>practice) to let context determine. No one example of usage (and no
>etymological argument) properly rules over another example of usage. The
>meaning of a word is the work it does in a given sentence. I think my
>examples of the context-determined nuance "betrayal" are sufficient to
>establish that nuance as possible for that word. That it has in other
>contexts a merely procedural meaning, or a positive transmissional meaning,
>do not disable the examples where it seems to convey a negative sense.
>Do we feel that the Apocalyptic fathers who denounce their children, or the
>Apocalyptic children who denounce their fathers, are meant as value-neutral
>instances? I don't think that such was the intention of the respective
>writers (Mt 10:21, 24:9-10; Mk 13:21). I think they meant us to feel the
>unnaturalness, the awfulness, of those occasions. The human equivalent of
>stars falling from above, or earthquakes rumbling from below.
>E Bruce Brooks
>University of Massachusetts at Amherst
>Does PARADIDWMI (aorist passive) ever mean "arrest?" There is the case of
>John in Mt 4:12, PAREDOQH, NRSV "[John the Baptist] was given over" (|| Mk
>1:14 PARADOQHNAI). Can we with equal justification render this as "was
>arrested?" Many translations do, but the focus in our word seems
>consistently to be on those initiating the transfer (whether of a person or
>a doctrine), not on those receiving it. The difference, with a criminal held
>in custody by A and passed on to B, would be the contrast between "was
>handed over by A" and "was taken into custody by B." When the NT writers
>want to say "arrested" they use a variant of KRATEW "hold" (Strong 2902),
>thus Mt 14:3, 21;46, 26:4, 26:48 (Judas to his party; most significant),
>compare Ac 24:6 (of the Jews who seized Paul and brought him before Festus).
>For cases where the verb is PARADIDWMI or its cousins, the meaning
>"arrested" thus seems not to be appropriate; it has the wrong polarity. In
>the Apocalyptic examples noted above, we have a family member as the A. In
>the case of John, we have, as far as I know, no story of exactly how John
>came to be in the custody of Herod, but the initiative in Mt 4:12 seems to
>have been on the John side, not the Herod side. John was handed over.
>Handed over by whom? When Matthew retells the story of John's arrest
>(14:3-12), he makes Herod (not somebody on the John side) the agent, and no
>variant of PARADIDWMI occurs; instead KRATHSAS. This leaves us with a mere
>mystery, which the commentaries on Mt 4:12 readily available to me do
>nothing to clear up. Handed over by whom? Or to put the question in the
>active voice, Who ratted John out?
>Here is a point (the spotty survival of John tradition in Jesus tradition)
>at which there may be hope of enlargement from a different quarter (the
>possible, if probably garbled, survival of John tradition in Mandaean
>tradition). Among the good bits of news here is that the Mandaean Book of
>John, in which many of the relevant legends occur, is in process of being
>translated into English. Not only so, but parts of that translation are
>already available online, see
>(This link courtesy of Charles Häberl, one of the two translators). Enjoy.