Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: RickCarpenter Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219578 | ||
John, Your friend Hank's quote "It forces me to attempt to speak only where the Bible speaks and to keep my mouth shut where the Bible is silent" is wonderful and I try in my research to ground myself by that. However, may I respectfully remind you of when Jesus asks us what we think of the Galileans whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices and what we think of the eighteen who died when the tower fell. When tantalizing tidbits are revealed as prompts to us, He asks us what we think, to dig deep. His words on the cross, "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" are not a literal acknowledgment of God abandoning Jesus, rather they are call to remember the rest of the Psalm and what it means to us. Respectfully, Rick |
||||||
2 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219576 | ||
Doc, My "shame" comment (note the quotation marks) was made in response to David's comments: "May it not be that Mary, remembering her status as betrothed to Joseph, was seeking to avoid all the publicity that would undoubtedly ensue when news broke about the birth of John?" "She herself would have been 3 months pregnant at that time, and no reason could be given which would be acceptable to those who would enquire!" I think Joseph may actually have initially felt somewhat shamed by the situation he and Mary were in, but probably more shocked at the incongruity of a pregnant virgin -- as was Mary (Luke 1.26-38), then pensive (Matt 1.20), and then accepting (Matt 1.24) -- than shamed. It appears foremost that he didn't want Mary shamed if he had publicly revealed she was pregnant not by him, so he intended to divorce her quietly (Matt 1.19). When he found out what was really happening, I'm sure his initial reluctance to continue on with Mary changed dramatically to enthusiasm, as happened with Mary (Luke 1.38). Rick |
||||||
3 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219572 | ||
Tim, I just looked at the Jewish Encyclopedia 1906 and the Encyclopaedia Judaica 2007. The whole process is quite involved and detailed discussion of it probably well beyond the intent of this forum. Briefly however, according to JE1906 and EJ2007, in Biblical times one method of betrothal allowed but not encouraged was by cohabitation (bi'ah). Objections to this method by some authorities were due to sexual relations within it being considered akin to prostitution, yet the same considerations were turned on their heads to allow for it (still not encouraged) by other authorities in that prostitution was not the reason for betrothal. The typical period of betrothal per JE1906 and EJ2007 was 12 months, but I cannot determine exactly when that was customary. My speculation of the marriage ceremony back then being nearly optional was dead wrong, but the marriage ceremony is only one part of a series of legal procedures. I guess that made it seem less of a major role to me compared to how important modern Westerners consider the marriage ceremony (and the relative unimportance and near 'a-legality' now attached to the engagement), and thus I characterized it incorrectly. I think modern sensibilities have genteelized this discussion. I noticed JE1906 was more "clinical" and matter of fact, while EJ2007 was more discreet. Oh this is fun, yet boy-howdy has it ever strayed from the original question! Rick |
||||||
4 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219569 | ||
David, "I'll have to look into it again! " As will I, my comments were from memory without accessing what I read about it a good while back (not good practice!). The vast differences in time, cultures, and languages do not make detailed study easy, but they sure do make it interesting and fun. Thanks. Rick |
||||||
5 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219564 | ||
Thanks David. It's my understanding that betrothal/marriage were nearly the same thing back then, not like in our current Western mindset. It may well be that the marriage ceremony itself was the only difference, some had it and some didn't, yet they were both as equally wed. So I'm thinking a pregnant betrothed woman was considered in the same light as a pregnant married woman. I think the only "shame" anyone felt was Joseph initially when he found out his betrothed Mary was pregnant but not by him. He soon found out from an authoritative source that everything was OK. :) |
||||||
6 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219562 | ||
Thanks Brad and Tim, I really like this forum and hope to use it and the NASB text in a work I am compiling solely based from historical/chronological details that Luke provides. With Luke, I still always go back to the admitted compilatory nature of this Gospel (1.1-4). I don't see verses 5 through 80 as necessarily one monolithic narrative and so I make the following guesses as a layman based only on the English in NASB (I do not know what the Greek may say to a scholar). I see 1.15-17 as a plausible insertion within narrative 1.5-25; 1.26 as a possible break; 1.46-55 as a plausible insertion at the end of narrative 1.27-55; 1.56 being a probable break/transition; 1.57-79 as a narrative; and 1.80 as a "bookend." That's why I hold out the probability that Mary stayed with Elizabeth until after John was born (I believe Tim Moran is allowing for this too), yet willfully concede that the only rock-solid baseline from which I can proceed would be Bock's statement as amended by me: "Although it's possible, the impression of the [literal] narrative does not fit this interpretation." Brad, where might I find your complete study/exposition of this? Brad and/or Tim, anything more about Alford's supposition that hosei implies a leeway after a certain mentioned point? Is there a similar Hebrew word/phrase which may underlie hosei (I support JSSR's Lukan Priority theory with its attendant supposition of Hebrew vorlages)? Thanks again! -- Rick |
||||||
7 | Lunch vs meal in Luke 11.37 | Luke 11:37 | RickCarpenter | 219541 | ||
I am trying to compose a work on all chronological references based in Luke, so I will be a bit nit-picky here if you don't mind in this and in further questions to come. If 11.1-37 only is considered and is a narrative of one event, then the aristao could have been the first meal after the shahalit prayers or the second meal after the minhah gedolah prayers. (But 11.14 and/or 11.29 could be breaks, thereby making which meal it was inconclusive. Or, there could be other breaks in 11.1-37 that we don't see, after all Luke is an admitted compilation.) However, given the company at the meal (11.38-54, perhaps this is the context to which you referred), it does look most plausible to have been the second meal. Thanks |
||||||