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

Re: [textualcriticism] 'men' or 'mhn' in Luke 23:56?

Expand Messages
  • David Robert Palmer
    Luke does intend a contrast with MEN and DE. Compare MEN - DE in Luke 23:41: And we indeed justly; for we have gotten back what was fitting to how we have
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      
      Luke does intend a contrast with MEN and DE.  Compare  MEN - DE in Luke 23:41: "And we indeed justly; for we have gotten back what was fitting to how we have lived.  But this man, he has done nothing wrong."
       
      The contrast in Luke ch. 23 going into ch. 24 is one of strictly observing the Sabbath, versus immediately laboring at the soonest legal and practical opportunity- "at the crack of dawn."  (ORQROU BAQEWS, Literally, "the dark of dawn", ie., at the very beginning of dawn.)
       
      Thus:
       
      23:56 "Then when they returned home, they prepared spices and perfumes.  And for the Sabbath though, they did rest, in keeping with the commandment; 24:1 but at the crack of dawn on the first day of the week, they went to the tomb, carrying the spices they had prepared.
       
      David Robert Palmer
    • Eric Rowe
      ... I won t go overboard and say there s no such thing as a de...men clause--I m sure if I did, people would start posting examples of one. But I think you
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        > I think that 'men ... de' clauses work in either order and I think it a
        > tad perilous to be "washed in the blood of word order" as though there
        > were, in the period when Luke was written, some sort of hard and fast
        > rule about word order in sentence structure.

        I won't go overboard and say there's no such thing as a de...men
        clause--I'm sure if I did, people would start posting examples of one.
        But I think you have to admit that it isn't the norm. The order of
        men...de is the rule. As some others have noted, we have an acceptable
        men...de clause here that extends into 24:1. And I wouldn't call
        giving preference to this option over the de...men option "being
        washed in the blood of word order."

        But, besides having a good men...de construction, even if we exclude
        that and just look at this as a case of a men without de, as Daniel
        suggested, there's no real problem. I think that translating a men
        anacolouthon as "indeed," is fine. Men and mhn are alternate spellings
        of the same word (the mhn that means "indeed", not the mhn that means
        "moon"). So even if some mss spelled it that way, it wouldn't be a
        problem, and I wouldn't expect to see it listed in NA. In order for
        Luke to have said "lunar sabbath", he would have had to use the
        adjective mhnion; or even if he wanted to use the noun adjectivally,
        it would still have to be declined, so mhnon I guess.
      • Jovial
        I don t think this is de...men, but men...de. 023:056 upostreyasai DE htoimasan arwmata KAI mura KAI to MEN sabbaton hsucasan kata thn entolhn 024:001 th DE
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 8, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't think this is de...men, but men...de.  
           
          023:056  upostreyasai DE htoimasan arwmata KAI mura KAI to MEN sabbaton hsucasan kata thn entolhn 
          024:001  th DE mia twn sabbatwn orqrou baqewV epi to mnhma hlqon ferousai a htoimasan arwmata 
          In both Hebrew as well as NT Greek, "Sabbath" can mean either the 7th day of the week, or a week ending on the 7th day.  The MEN...DE draws a clear contrast so that the "sabbaton" of 24:1 is not confused with the "sabbaton" of 23:56.  Perhaps it is clearer if I add parenthesis....
           
          023:056  (upostreyasai DE htoimasan (arwmata KAI mura)) KAI (to MEN sabbaton hsucasan kata thn entolhn 
          024:001  th DE mia twn sabbatwn orqrou baqewV epi to mnhma hlqon ferousai a htoimasan arwmata) 

          Clearer now? 
           
          Joe
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Eric Rowe
          Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:35 PM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: 'men' or 'mhn' in Luke 23:56?

          > I think that 'men ... de' clauses work in either order and I think it a
          > tad perilous to be "washed in the blood of word order" as though there
          > were, in the period when Luke was written, some sort of hard and fast
          > rule about word order in sentence structure.

          I won't go overboard and say there's no such thing as a de...men
          clause--I'm sure if I did, people would start posting examples of one.
          But I think you have to admit that it isn't the norm. The order of
          men...de is the rule. As some others have noted, we have an acceptable
          men...de clause here that extends into 24:1. And I wouldn't call
          giving preference to this option over the de...men option "being
          washed in the blood of word order."

          But, besides having a good men...de construction, even if we exclude
          that and just look at this as a case of a men without de, as Daniel
          suggested, there's no real problem. I think that translating a men
          anacolouthon as "indeed," is fine. Men and mhn are alternate spellings
          of the same word (the mhn that means "indeed", not the mhn that means
          "moon"). So even if some mss spelled it that way, it wouldn't be a
          problem, and I wouldn't expect to see it listed in NA. In order for
          Luke to have said "lunar sabbath", he would have had to use the
          adjective mhnion; or even if he wanted to use the noun adjectivally,
          it would still have to be declined, so mhnon I guess.

        • Daniel Buck
          ... observing the Sabbath, versus immediately laboring at the soonest legal and practical opportunity- at the crack of dawn. (ORQROU BAQEWS, Literally, the
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 9, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            "David Robert Palmer" wrote:
            >> The contrast in Luke ch. 23 going into ch. 24 is one of strictly
            observing the Sabbath, versus immediately laboring at the soonest
            legal and practical opportunity- "at the crack of dawn." (ORQROU
            BAQEWS, Literally, "the dark of dawn", ie., at the very beginning of
            dawn.)
            Thus:
            23:56 "Then when they returned home, they prepared spices and
            perfumes. And for the Sabbath though, they did rest, in keeping with
            the commandment; 24:1 but at the crack of dawn on the first day of
            the week, they went to the tomb, carrying the spices they had
            prepared.
            David Robert Palmer>>

            Excellent answers; I got more than I asked for. I especially like the
            above translation. The grammatical information was also very helpful--
            I'll use it in my blog article.
            http://whitemail.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-post-for-passion-week.html

            Thanks, everyone who contributed.

            DB
          • David Robert Palmer
            You are welcome to use it. The translation is downloadable in Word 97: http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/lukewgrk.zip David Robert Palmer ... From: Daniel
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 10, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              You are welcome to use it.  The translation is downloadable in Word 97:
               
              David Robert Palmer
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 12:38 PM
              Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: 'men' or 'mhn' in Luke 23:56?

              >> Thus:
              23:56 "Then when they returned home, they prepared spices and
              perfumes. And for the Sabbath though, they did rest, in keeping with
              the commandment; 24:1 but at the crack of dawn on the first day of
              the week, they went to the tomb, carrying the spices they had
              prepared.
              David Robert Palmer>>

              Excellent answers; I got more than I asked for. I especially like the
              above translation. The grammatical information was also very helpful--
              I'll use it in my blog article.
              http://whitemail. blogspot. com/2007/ 04/new-post- for-passion- week.html

              Thanks, everyone who contributed.

              DB

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.