Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] The Timing Of The Text of Luke 22:7

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 3/12/2002 8:43:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, TALMIDIM@aol.com writes:
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 12, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 3/12/2002 8:43:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      TALMIDIM@... writes:

      <<
      The Greek word used here for 'came' is # 2064 "Erchomai" is
      frequently translated as, "to come" and is translated as "coming" in the
      following verses:>>

      Your comments show ignorance of Greek linguistic usage. "To come" would often
      be a proper rendering of this verb in the infinitive form, and "coming" would
      often render correctly the participial (present participle) form of the verb.
      Neither of these two forms of the verb are used in Lk 22:7, which uses
      instead an aorist form of Erchomai, normally referring to a past, and never
      to a future event. Thus, the texts you cite are irrelevant to the translation
      of Lk 22:7, since none of them use the same form of the verb as is used in
      that text, and some, such as Matt 24:48, do not contain the verb Erchomai at
      all.


      << Matt. 16: 28 - The Son of man "coming" in His kingdom.
      Matt. 24:30 - The Son of man "coming"....
      Matt. 24:48 - My lord delayeth his "coming"
      Matt. 25:27 - at my "coming" I should have received...
      Luke 12:45 - My lord delayeth His "coming"..
      Luke 18:6 - by her continual "coming" she weary me.
      Luke 19:23 - at my "coming" I might have required...
      Luke 23:26 - a Cyrenian "coming" out of the country...
      Luke 23:29 - Behold the days are "coming" in which...
      John 1:27 - "Coming" after me is preferred before me>>

      << Since in the earliest documents of the church, and from the
      eyewitness
      testimony regarding the beliefs of the Quartodecimans, and based on the
      doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox churches today, this meal was not a
      Passover, Luke 22:7, must have originally been translated as following:
      'The Day of Unleavened Bread, was "COMING", when the Passover must be
      killed.'>>

      Must have been translated from what? By whom? Are you implying that Luke is
      translating here from a Semitic source, and that he inaccurately translates?
      Why are any of the texts you cite above relevant to this gratuitous
      assumption? It would do, I think, without any further help, to make your
      point.


      << If anyone is interested I have address the other few verses in the
      Synoptics which without doing violence to the text, could be translated to
      agree with John's passion account. >>


      What does it take to "do violence" to a text?


      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.