Hot answers tagged

11

OP: Is it possible, through the interpretation of scripture, to determine approximately when this event happened? Yes, I believe it is. Luke 10:18 in Greek (SBL GNT), with the New American Standard Bible, reads this way: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς· Ἐθεώρουν τὸν Σατανᾶν ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα. eipen de autois, Etheōroun ton Satanan ōs astrapēn ...


10

Historically, Luke 10.18 was often incorporated into a broader mythos concerning the fall of 'Lucifer' in prehistory. Hoppe briefly touches on this when commenting on Isaiah:1 In [Isaiah] 14:12 the prophet calls the king of Babylon the "Morning Star," which Jerome rendered into Latin as "Lucifer." Patristic and medieval interpreters, influenced by ...


8

"Is there any support for this claim?" It seems unlikely. On the one hand, so far as I can tell, Malina and Rohrbaugh offer no evidence in support of their assertion that the phrase γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν = gennēmata echidnōn -- traditionally, "brood of vipers" -- means "snake bastards". And, on the other hand, I cannot see that this suggestion has made the ...


7

Using a more complete lexicon than Strongs yields more precision. But the entry to study here is "ἕως" ("until") which Liddell-Scott says: A.1. with Indicative, of a fact in past time... with impf. with ἄν in apodosi, of an unaccomplished action... but we're interested in: A.2. ἕως ἄν or κε with Subjunctive (mostly of aorist), of an event at ...


6

Another answer addressed the issue of Samaritan rejection of one traveling to Jerusalem, so I will attempt to address your other question: Why does this use "his face" instead of simply "him"? What is the difference supposed to be? The difference is a Semitic flavor and the emphatic sense of the Semitic idiom behind it. The word πρόσωπον = face is ...


6

I think the answer to your question is very simple: in verse 31 Jesus is referring to the disciples as a whole (ὑμᾶς, “you” plural), while in verse 32 he is addressing Simon/Peter (σύ, “thou” singular). You are aware, I trust, that in KJV the words “to have”, and the second “you” (in “to sift you as wheat”) are printed in italics, indicating that they are ...


6

A rhetorical response question would be, "Why would one think Act 2:36 is referring to Jesus being 'made Lord and Christ after the resurrection'?" This idea is reading more into Act 2:36 than is there. The ESV, and most translations, make the aorist indicative ἐποίησεν into "has made" (a perfective idea, a completed action). That is an interpretative move, ...


6

I do sympathize with the sentiments expressed in comments here about the complexity of Greek particles. As I started looking into this I realized that there are many pieces of the puzzle that are well beyond my own Greek. However, there is a "rule"1 about whether ἂν is included or not (albeit a controverted and contradicted one), and in broad strokes it ...


6

Luke 9:49 Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰωάννης εἶπεν· ἐπιστάτα, εἴδομέν τινα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια καὶ ἐκωλύομεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν. (Luk 9:49 BGT) In context the verb Ἀποκριθεὶς carries the sense of 'responded to' or some times just to speak up (Mk 9:5; J 5:19; Ac 5:8) also according to Friberg it can be used as "as a formula to control ...


6

Let's consider for a moment what the Farrer (Mt used Mk, Lk used Mk and Mt) and Wilke (Lk used Mk, Mt used Mk and Lk) theories suggest that the third evangelist in each case did. (For what it's worth, I would regard Kloppenborg's layered Q as a nuanced form of Wilke: he puts the sayings material in the Lucan order, then adds in some para-Marcan material.) ...


6

To discern what constitutes a "primary" source requires asking some research question or other: a "primary source" is any evidence which bears on the question's answer or solution; a "secondary source" is any assessment (or interpretation) of that evidence. In the absence of such a question (and subsequent argument in attempting to answer it), nothing or ...


6

In Search of Lost Lilies (and reliable Bible commentaries) “[A]lthough there is little doubt that the word [κρίνον] denotes some plant of the lily species, it is by no means certain what individual of this class it especially designates.” So William Smith framed his widely-quoted and, as we’ll see, outdated entry for ‘Lily’ in his popular Bible ...


5

Matthew 24:34 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα γένηται. (Mat 24:34 BGT) I am not sure "supposition, wish, possibility or uncertainty." really carries the sense of the sources you provided on the link. Rather then showing that ἂν denotes uncertainty of an action they demonstrate that ἂν shows the contingent certainty of an ...


5

Yes, this seems to be a common way that it was used. As another answer pointed out, the noun is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. However, Luke was familiar with (arguably, an imitator of) both LXX and Classical Greek, and there are multiple examples of ἀγωνία with this sense available there. Because context is required, I have included only English ...


4

This is a textual issue. Most important manuscripts (including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus) contain αὐτῶν, unambiguously 3rd masculine plural (genitive). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus that you quote However, the Vulgate contains eius, the 3rd person singular genitive pronoun that may be either masculine or feminine. This reading, as ...


4

Regarding μισέω (miseó) Luke 14:26 uses the term μισέω ("hate" in many, perhaps all, English translations) in a context that reasonably shows its usage to be something other than "an adversarial emotion we recognize as 'hate.'" That is, it is used in a relative sense there, where Christ is comparing the fact that one ought to "detest" father, mother, wife, ...


4

No, it is not. As they are used in the New Testament, πλήρης χάριτος describes one's own character and capacity to bestow favor; κεχαριτωμένος is a designation of God's attitude and actions toward the one so labeled. Κεχαριτωμένος χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!1 Κεχαριτωμένος is a perfect ...


4

The idea in brief A recent (2015) work, The First Nativity (Part II): History and Theology of Our Incarnate Lord and Savior by Joseph David Rhodes contains a good discussion of Neri. In short, the hypothesis is that Neri was the biological father of Shealtiel while Jeconiah was his legal father. The idea is not entirely new (the following image is from ...


4

Setting to the scene The parable of the Good Samaritan is told by Jesus shortly after an expert of the law summarizes the law into 1) Love God and 2) Love your neighbor. This scene occurs in the town of Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-55.) The text then states in verse 29, But the expert [of the law], wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my ...


4

Howard Marshall addresses this concept well in his NIGTC commentary on Luke. Based on correlations with Aramaic, the best aspect for the imperfect used here might be a simple past tense. However, Luke could have chosen the imperfect to indicate an on-going process begun in the past. Marshall points out that the concept here is very active in Jewish ...


4

Two reasons barrenness was undesirable In antiquity there were typically two reasons that barrenness was undesirable. The first, which isn't really an issue in this text had to do with the security of the future. Children were the ancient equivalent of a retirement plan since there were no pensions, social security, etc. Therefore, the only ones to care for ...


4

The earliest story of Jesus going into the wilderness occurs in Mark 1:13. Adam Winn (Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative) says that all the details of Jesus' temptation narrative find parallels in the wilderness experiences of Elijah. Both Elijah and Jesus are in the wilderness for forty days, both are tempted, both are attended by angels and both are in ...


4

There have been instances when fasting was used as a tool to gain spiritual strength. When the disciples of Christ were unable to cast out a spirit, they take part in the following discussion recorded in Matthew 17:19-21 (KJV) 19Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of ...


3

It is probably easier to address the questions in reverse order. Question 2) Why the significant difference between the NA27 and TR in Matthew, but not in Luke? Comfort and Metzger both explain that the reading τέκνων most likely originated as a scribal emendation intended to harmonize this text with the parallel in Luke 7:35. Metzger for example ...


3

Uta Ranke-Heinemann says, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 7, that the nativity accounts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are, with respect to time, place, and circumstances, a collection of legends. She says (page 11) Luke wants to make the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem plausible by fabricating the story of the census. But since he handles the facts ...


3

This is a good, piercing question that goes to the root of a lot. Unfortunately I have had to conclude [30 years or so of study] that we are not told the full answer to the question. First, there is nothing in the Genesis record that speaks plainly about a "Satan" being given authority over anything. Sticking to the text, we are told of a serpent who is a ...


3

Luke 14:28-32 is about "counting the cost" in order to avoid being humiliated. To avoid humiliation: you wouldn't set about constructing a building without considering whether or not you had sufficient reason to believe you could finish it; you wouldn't contemplate going to war against an army larger than your own without considering whether or not you ...


3

The simple answer is, of course they are different, they are describing actions that happened on two separate occasions. One narrates from His birth until 40 days later; while the other tells of events that happened around the age of two. First you have to remember that there were no chapter and verse markers in the original Greek; you can’t always assume ...


3

Since the stories are incompatible, can we conclude that at least one of them was invented? How can we tell which is true, if any? I would like to challenge the assumption that the the two narratives of the birth of Jesus are incompatible. Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown writes: This leads us to the observation that the two narratives are not ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible