Luke 23:43 "..,today" or "today,.." ?

[AVmetro]

Luke 23:43 - "And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." NASB

Luke 23:43 - "And he said to him: 'Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.'" NWT

Does the above passage imply that there is a conscious existence after death? Or does the passage merely imply that Jesus made the above statement "today" (the day of His crucifixion)?

The only argument I have read revolving around this passage is what is found in Ron Rhodes book "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses".

The arguments for the orthodox rendering are summed up below:

1.] The phrase amen soi lego occurs 74 times in the Gospels and is always used as an introductory expression. The NWT places a break (e.g. comma etc.) after the phrase "Truly, I tell you" in the case of every occurance with the sole exception of Luke 23:43 (i.e. 73 out of 74 occurences). [Summary from Ron p.328]

2.] "Apologist Robert Bowman notes that if Jesus had really wanted to say, "Truly, I say to you today," He could have done this very clearly by using a different construction in the greek language." [Ron p.329]

3.] "Related to all this, Watchtower expert Marian Bodine points out that the phrase, 'Truly, I say to you today,' does not make good sense: "It would have been needless to say, 'Today, I am telling this to you.'" Of course He was! What other day would He have been speaking to the thief on? Jesus never added the word 'today' when speaking to anyone." [Ron p.329]

4.] Jesus is making reference to the Jewish view of Hades and paradise. [Summary from Ron p.329]

Does anyone feel they can expound upon or add to the above? I'm particularly interested in the reference made to Rob Bowman's argument.

-God bless-

[djconklin]

[i]04-11-2003 @ 10:35 AM
Does the above passage imply that there is a conscious existence after death?

No.

Or does the passage merely imply that Jesus made the above statement "today" (the day of His crucifixion)?

Yes.

2.] "Apologist Robert Bowman notes that if Jesus had really wanted to say, "Truly, I say to you today," He could have done this very clearly by using a different construction in the greek language." [Ron p.329]

Except that Jesus was not speaking in Greek!

[John Reece]

Avmetro asked:

Does the above passage imply that there is a conscious existence after death? Or does the passage merely imply that Jesus made the above statement "today" (the day of His crucifixion)?

The former, not the latter.

The phrase rendered “Truly I say to you,” is introductory. The word rendered “Today” is the first word in Jesus’ reply to the question, and it is in an emphatic position in terms of the syntax of Jesus’ answer in the Greek text.

djconklin answered:

Except that Jesus was not speaking in Greek!

Neither C. C. Torrey (late Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale) nor Joseph A. Fitzmyer (Professor Emeritus at the Catholic University of America), both foremost scholars of Aramaic in their respective generations, give any indication that the sense of Luke 23:43 in Aramaic would be any different from the sense that is rendered in the Greek text and in every English rendering (other than the idiosyncratic agenda-driven rendering of the NWT quote above).

[djconklin]

John,

Since you didn't cite your sources I cannot investigate them further. The point I was making is that since Jesus was not speaking Greek one should not use Greek sentence construction as a way of determing what is going on in the text. The only proper way to determine what Jesus meant is to ask ourselves a couple of simple questions:

1) Did Jesus go straight to heaven when He died?

2) If you answer yes to #1 then you have to explain John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Do we wish to create a contradiction and give real fuel to the claims of the Bible critics or is there a way to understand the texts that does not create a contradiction (and in doing make Jesus a liar).

Now if you wish to work with the Greek then let's do so carefully. Literally translated the Greek text reads:

"truly to-you I-say today with-me you-will-be in the paradise"

As we can see the word "today" stands between two verbs "I -say" and "you-will-be" and can be properly applied to either. Given that the verb "I-say"is closer grammatically to the word "today" it is fairly obvious that it is intended to go with it and not with "you-will-be". The question on the mind of thief was not when he would be with the Lord but if.

[dizzle]

2) If you answer yes to #1 then you have to explain John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

No contradiction whatsoever in context. Mary was clinging to Him, clutching on as if He were leave her immediately. He was telling her that He was still there and would be there for a while longer. Any other interpretration makes no sense in toto.

To have Jesus point out that He was sayikng something "today" is to place inanities in His mouth and is violently anticontextual.

[djconklin]

I know Mary was clinging to Him. What Jesus said is that He had not yet ascended to the Father which is nonsense if He had gone to heaven the moment He died.

By saying to the thief today that he would be with Him in heaven is to emphsize that despite all appearances he was saved --which was the question on the mind of the thief, not when he would be saved.

[dizzle]

No it would not as I already explained.. and it was His body which she was clinging to. His Body had not yet ascended.. that speaks nothing of His Spirit.

[John Reece]

djconklin,

Re:

Since you didn't cite your sources I cannot investigate them further.

Sources:

(1) The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible), by Joseph A. Fitzmyer (pp. 1507-1511), from which these comments:

Jesus answers with the promise that he will be with him in Paradise that very day (23:39-43). (page 1507)

The criminal phrased his request vaguely, “when you come….,” but Jesus’ answer replies specifically, not when, but “today,” with the adverb σημερον placed emphatically immediately after the assertative clause.

(2) The Four Gospels, by Charles C. Torrey (p. 177). This book is a rendering in English of Torrey’s version of the Aramaic source behind the Greek text of the Gospels. Torrey’s rendering is this: And he said, Jesus, remember me when you come in your royal estate. He said to him, Verily I say to you, Today you shall be with me in Paradise.

The point I was making is that since Jesus was not speaking Greek one should not use Greek sentence construction as a way of determing what is going on in the text..

Are you implying that Luke was not competent to render in the Greek text an accurate representation of exactly what Jesus said and meant?

The only proper way to determine what Jesus meant is to ask ourselves a couple of simple questions:

No, the only proper way to determine what Jesus meant is to ascertain exactly what the text says.

Now if you wish to work with the Greek then let's do so carefully. Literally translated the Greek text reads:

"truly to-you I-say today with-me you-will-be in the paradise"

Literal translation is not necessarily accurate translation. Literal translation may in fact be very inaccurate translation. Greek syntax and English syntax do not match; each must be read and understood in terms of it’s own grammatical sense and structure.

The question on the mind of thief was not when he would be with the Lord but if.

And Jesus told him not only if, but also when.

[djconklin]

Literal translation is not necessarily accurate translation.

By literal I meant that if you translated each Greek word in order that it appears. The order reveals what was intended to modify what.

[John Reece]

djconklin,

Re:

By literal I meant that if you translated each Greek word in order that it appears. The order reveals what was intended to modify what.

Yes. I understood what you meant. I was responding to what you meant.

My reply was in response to your assertion that, because the order of the words in your word-for-word English translation is the same as the order of the words in Greek, that therefore the word rendered "today" is a part of the clause rendered "Truly, I say to you,", rather than the first word in the clause, “today you will be with me in Paradise.

The word order in English does not reveal the meaning in Greek, even though the order of the words of the English is the same as the order of the words in Greek.

Archibald Thomas Robertson (late Professor of New Testament Interpretation in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Louisville, KY) wrote a grammar of the Greek New Testament that was a standard in its day. Here is his comment in Word Pictures in the New Testament:

“43. Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Σεμερον μετ’ εμου εση εν τω παραδεισω). However crude may have been the robber’s Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state, but the very bliss of heaven itself.”

W. Robertson Nicoll, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament wrote:

Ver. 43. σημερον : to be connected with what follows, not with λεγω = today, as opposed to a boon expected at some future time… Or the point may be : this very day, as implying speedy release to death, instead of a slow lingering process of dying, as often in cases of crucifixion.

The fact that the word order as we have it in Greek supports the universal consensus of Greek scholars is supported by the fact that the order would have to changed in order to get a different sense. Thus, we have this comment by Bruce Metzger in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:

The Curetonian Syriac rearranges the order of words, joining σημερον, not with μετ’ εση but with ’Αμην σοι λεγω (“Truly I say to you today, that with me you will be…”).

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 10:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65114#post65114)
djconklin:

"truly to-you I-say today with-me you-will-be in the paradise"



Problem with your argumetnation is that lets switch to Semitic Languages since you say the Greek is not valid for argumentation (which I disagree with, but I will go a long with for the purposes of argument.) אמר (to say) in Semitic languages is a syntactic marker introducing direct speech, thus it functions like a quotation mark this cannot be said of דבר (to talk) or מלא (to utter). So it would be equivalent to "Truly, 'Today you will..."

GP

[AVmetro]

2) If you answer yes to #1 then you have to explain John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Post-resurrection ascension. Acts1:9. The ascension of the resurrected Christ.

Basically a 'dito' on DDW's statment.

[AVmetro]

View the argument here (http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/Luke%202343.htm)

I link to this for John R, Jaltus, GP, OS and those others who are familiar with Greek/Hebrew. I would be highly interested in hearing your comments.

-God bless-

[Sher]

OOooo ... this will be interesting ...

YLT translates Luk 23:43:and Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, Today with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'
I'm curious as well to see how close this is.

[John Reece]

I defer to my betters, in books and on this board.

A. T. Robertson, A. B. Bruce, J. A. Fitzmyer, and F. L. Godet (all commenting on the Greek text) agree. Godet puts it this way: “In our Lord’s answer, the word today stands foremost, because Jesus wishes to contrast the nearness of the promised happiness with the remote future to which the prayer of the thief refers. Today, before the setting of the sun which is shining on us.”

[Solly]

Coming from any other site, I think it would be worthy of time spent on it, but from this one...

I have come across the idea before, but all I have seen on it agrees with what John posts. It's a very definite preterist "soon"

[Sher]

Yeah ... that's what I thought too ...

[Piebald]

Yeah, Christadelphians try to pull the same thing. One Christadelphian says:

"There was no comma in the Greek! Read Deut. for similar similar sentence structure: "I testify to you --today-- that you will be utterly destroyed." Dt. 8:19"

But why go all the way to Deuteronomy for a single example, when we have tons of examples in the Gospels of that flatly contradict their "comma placement" argument? I mean, I'm certainly no expert in greek, but it doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

Matthew 5:26
I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny

Matthew 6:2
I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

Matthew 8:10
"I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

Matthew 10:15
I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Matthew 10:23
I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 10:42
I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

Matthew 11:11
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matthew 16:28
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:18
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be< 18:18 Or have been> bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be< 18:18 Or have been> loosed in heaven.

Matthew 19:23
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 21:21
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.

As you can see Jesus' sentence structure is the same:

"I tell you the truth" - "(What he has to say)"

So how do we interpret the passage in question? Easy, since we know how Jesus uses the phrase "I tell you the truth" there is no need to read it as "I tell you the truth today."

Luke 23:43
"I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Trying to go outside the gospels all the way into a completely different context is an act of desperation considering what we know about Jesus' sayings from the Gospel.

[Solly]

Good post Hamster.
Equally, of course, you can't compare what is a translation of the Greek with a translation of the Hebrew

[AVmetro]

They also cite Gen 22:14. In this example I honestly cannot see how one can equate the use of "today" with it's use in Luke 23:43.

Gen 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah Will See; so that it is said until this day, In the mount of Jehovah it will be seen. [LITV]

But they are, I believe, looking at the LXX:

Gen 22:14 And Abraam called the name of that place, The Lord hath seen; that they might say to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen. [Brenton]

However it still carries the same idea (as in the Heb). One which is not in view in Luke. I suppose it's the same old "..they sound eerily the same therefore let's equate"

A few of the other examples seem as if they could possibly parallel. I'd have to take a closer look. The problem being, if this is a "Hebrew idiom'' that Christ is employing, then why is it that He doesn't make use of it on any other occasion? We should then expect Him to be stating "Truly I tell you today.." prior to many of His emphatic statements. The AT must now demonstrate that Christ in this one instance is employing a 'Hebrew idiom' contrary to His choosing not to do so on many other occasions. Or should I say, on every other occasion. Especially taking into consideration that elsewhere His introductory phrase introduces that which is of more importance, IMHO. Our argument in that the majority of the uses are consistent with Luke 23:43 continues to stand while theirs is based upon a presupposition.

-God bless-

[AVmetro]

The JW article [linked in first post] mentions something on the grammar favoring their interpretation. As the citation from Rhodes [Bowman] demonstrates as well as the comments in the above linked thread, the grammar is claimed to be in favor of our view. (?)

-Thanks and God bless-

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 03:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100866#post100866)
IronMetro:

View the argument here (http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/Luke%202343.htm)

I link to this for John R, Jaltus, GP, OS and those others who are familiar with Greek/Hebrew. I would be highly interested in hearing your comments.

-God bless-

Thanx for the compliment but OS ain't all that. I did give the site a quick view here are a few things literally off the top of my head, which is all this piece of abstruse required condensation* merits. First this quote.

The interpretation of this verse depends entirely on punctuation, which rests wholly on human authority, the Greek manuscripts having no punctuation of any kind till the ninth century, and then it is only a dot(in the middle of the line)separating each word.....The verb "to say", when followed by hoti, intoduces the ipsissima verba of what is said; and answers to our quotation marks. So here(in Luke 23.43), in the absence of hoti = "that", there may be doubt as the the actual words included in the dependent clause. But the doubt is resolved (1) by the common Hebrew idiom, "I say unto thee this day", which is constantly used for very solemn emphasis.......; as well as (2) by the usage observable in other passages where the verb is connected with the Gk. semeron = to-day.

Note, that it says Greek had no punctuation until the 9th century. Let us overlook for the moment that my Greek sources show four punctuation marks, a raised period, for colon and semicolon. A semicolon for a question mark. The period and the comma are the same. Now observe this quote from further in the article. Particularly the penultimate sentence, "in the NWT, every place else the phrase occurs, the comma is placed directly after "you."" Although according to them Greek has no punctuation nevertheless, they are arguing they are right because of comma placement elsewhere. Either the Greek has punctuation or it doesn't, they can't have it both ways.

in the NWT, every place else the phrase occurs, the comma is placed directly after "you." The above also disposes of the criticism made by the website quoted at the head of this page:

"But [the NWT's editor's]reason for [placing a comma after "today"] is their preconceived theology, not grammar. JWs do not believe the righteous go directly to "paradise" after death. They believe people enter a state of non-existence at death, only to be "re-created" at the resurrection. However, even in the NWT, every place else the phrase occurs, the comma is placed directly after "you." So the burden of proof would be on them to prove why the phrase should be punctuated differently this one time and to explain why Jesus would have changed.

Here are a few quickies I gleaned from the article. Notice their penchant for quoting WTB&TS publications in support of their argument. Of course the printing arm of the World Bible and Tract Society, i.e. Jehovah Witnesses, is going to support JW doctrine. Duh-uh!

The book This Means Everlasting Life(1950,WTB&TS)on pp.281,282,reads:

It should be made known that the stance taken by the NWT translators is not so unique. The book,"Reasoning from the Scriptures,"(WTB&TS,p.288.)quotes German Bible translator L.Reinhardt

The two volume encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures(Vol 2. p.575.1988, WTB&TS) says, partly, under the article PARADISE:

Also they cite the Lamsa translation. Hasn't that thing been completely discredited?

We have a copy of George M.Lamsa's translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta The New Testament From The Ancient Eastern Text being a later printing of a 1957 edition published by A.J.Holman. Lamsa' translation herein reads at Lu.23:43: "Truly I say to you, Today[2] you will be with me in Paradise."-the ftnote reading: "2 Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today.")

* deep due dew

[AVmetro]

Here is an interesting post made on B-Greek:


Luke 23:43 (meaning of PARADEISOS)


Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Wed Oct 9 02:35:30 EDT 2002


On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 02:40 AM, Jonathan Burke wrote:

> I see no great difficulty here. The PARADEISOS (literallly 'garden'),
> is a
> concept which is found consistently in both Jewish and Christian
> thought.

I think you are confusing the term PARADEISOS with a broader view of eschatology, with which it is neither synonymous nor coextensive.

I offer the following comments not by way of theological argumentation, but in order to get a better handle on what PARADEISOS could legitimately have meant to Jesus and the thief to whom he was speaking.

> - In the Old Testament Jewish eschatology, we find the
> 'reward-of-the-faithful' described as the earth as a restored Eden in
> the
> age to come - what is called today Gan Eden (the garden of Eden), in
> the
> Olam HaBa (the age to come).

In the LXX, PARADEISOS (which is, after all, the word with which we are concerned, which I fear you have lost sight of) is used 34 times, in most cases to translate Hebrew GAN (masculine and feminine), "garden." The exceptions that I know of are Neh 2.8 and Song 4.13 (where it translates P.ARD."S), 2 Chron 33.20 (which does not follow the Hebrew text), and the uses found in the Apocrypha, additions, etc. (which have no Hebrew original, or at least no extant Hebrew original). In Gen 2-3 and Ezek 28.13; 31.8f. it is used for the garden of Eden. Elsewhere it is used to describe locations that are or will be *like* the garden of Eden (Gen 13.10 [hWS hO PARADEISOS TOU QEOU]; Is 51.3 [hWS PARADEISON KURIOU]; Joel 2.3 [hWS PARADEISOS TRUFHS]). From the OT evidence, and anticipating later Jewish and Christian literature, there are two crucial things to note:

(1) PARADEISOS (which in Luke 23.43 is clearly used as a toponym) is never in the LXX used as a toponym for an eschatological, renewed earth. The closest we come is Is 51.3 (cf. Ezek 36.35), where Zion's desolate places will be made hWS PARADEISON KURIOU ("like [the] Garden of [the] Lord"). The rejuvenated waste places are not *called* Paradise, they are said to be made *like* Paradise. While this may seem like nit-picking, it is a real and important distinction, and one that is crucial to keep in mind as we encounter later literature, which uses PARADEISOS as a toponym and in a much more restrictive sense than you appear to recognize. In addition, to say, as you do above, "we find the 'reward-of-the-faithful' described as the earth *as* a *restored* Eden in the age to come" is not strictly correct. It is not *as* a *restored* Eden, but *like* the *original* Eden.

(2) There is the unanswered question in the OT as to just what happened to the Garden of Eden, i.e., "Paradise." Though entrance was barred, we do not know the ultimate destiny of the Garden. As we shall see, this mystery will be exploited by later writers, who believed that it never ceased to exist. Though it is now hidden, it will someday be "revealed." And there is nothing in the OT eschatological perspective to necessarily contradict this. What is crucial to understand is that there later develops a very strong current of thought that considers Paradise to exist *now*, prepared already in heaven for its unveiling. It is not that it will be *restored* in the form of a new earth (though there will be a new earth that has many of its qualities), but rather that it will be *revealed* eschatologically. In much of extra-biblical Jewish and Christian thought, Paradise is distinct, though not separate, from the renewed earth. As will become obvious, this opens the door to attendant ideas that give us a more complete insight into what a 1st century Jew may have understood by the term PARADEISOS. Some of these ideas are clearly expressed in the NT, though noticeably stripped of the bizarre trappings of many of these extra-biblical sources.

> - In the post-exilic and extra-Biblical 1st century texts, we find
> the same
> concept

I think this continues the confusion of a broad eschatological
perspective with the much narrower meaning of PARADEISOS.

Rather than strictly adhere to a timeline, I will follow an outline
based on distinct categories of literature, dealing with the NT last, in order to tie things together and bring them to bear on the issue at hand. Though this is not intended to be an exhaustive or even comprehensive cataloguing, I think it will at least give us a good taste of what PARADEISOS could conjure up in the minds of a 1st century Jew or Christian.

First, there is the Pseudepigrapha to consider. I'll start with some of the most basic descriptions of Paradise and move to the more developed, though this does not necessarily mean that I will be moving in chronological order. Note that I am keying in on the terms "Paradise" and "Garden of Eden." We must stay focused on the term in question and its demonstrable synonyms if we are to gain a better understanding of what PARADEISOS would evoke in the mind of a contemporary of Jesus.

In 2 Baruch 4 (early 2nd century A.D.) the Paradise that God decided to create and was subsequently taken away from Adam is preserved with God, long with the heavenly Jerusalem, which itself was *prepared* beforehand from the time God decided to make Paradise, *preserved* with him along with Paradise, and removed from Adam along with Paradise.

According to 4 Ezra 4.7-8 (c. A.D. 100) Paradise exists now, and is
either equated with heaven or is in heaven; its fruit "abides"
unspoiled (7.123). It shall be *revealed* at the final judgment along with Gehenna (7.36).

1 Enoch 60.8 (1st century B.C./1st century A.D.) speaks of the garden of Eden, "wherein the elect and righteous ones dwell, wherein my grandfather was taken, the seventh from Adam."

2 Enoch 8-9 (late 1st century A.D.?) relates that Enoch was led to the third heaven, where he was placed in Paradise or was in a position from where he could see Paradise. Paradise, wherein is the tree of life, exists between corruptibility and incorruptibility and is kept by 300 angels and "prepared" for the "righteous and compassionate" for "eternal inheritance." This is contrasted by the place of torture in ch 10, also prepared as an "eternal inheritance" for the wicked.

According to the Life of Adam and Eve (original composition probably c. A.D. 100) Adam dies (his spirit leaves his body) and his spirit is washed in Lake Acheron and taken up into the third heaven, identified as "Paradise," while his body and that of Abel are prepared for burial in the spot where Adam's body had been formed at creation (ApMos 32-37).

The Testament of Abraham (1st/2nd century A.D.) pictures "the
first-formed Adam" rejoicing as many souls of the dead ("destroyed" by righteous Abraham, ch 10) enter the strait gate, the gate of the righteous that leads to Paradise (chap 11). After the intercession of Abraham and Michael, one soul that was "in the middle" between the place of punishment and the place of salvation is saved and carried up to Paradise by a light-bearing angel (ch 14).

Based on the above (and additional materials) the NIDNTT can rightly say:

"In later Judaism there were many varied speculations about the
paradise of Gen. 2 and 3. It was assumed that it was created before time, or on the third day of creation, and that in consequence of Adam’s sin it was removed and hidden either at the extreme edges of the earth, on a high mountain or in heaven. It is located in the third heaven (Ap.Mos. 37:5 and Sl.Enoch 8:1).... paradise becomes the dwelling-place of the righteous during the intermediate state.... In the renewed creation paradise will again emerge from its concealment. God or the messiah will bring it, as the dwelling-place of the righteous and blessed, to the renewed earth, to Palestine, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Taught by God himself, the righteous will study the Torah in paradise, and God will prepare for them the messianic meal. Above all, they may then enjoy the fruit of the tree of life."

As far as the Early Church Fathers are concerned, we have in the
Fragments of Papias (written c. A.D. 130) a pertinent assertion about a common understanding of PARADEISOS in the early church. Papias asks, "Where then was the first man placed?" The answer is obviously paradise (EN TWi PARADEISWi DHLONOTI), just as it is written in Gen 2.8. From there Adam was expelled into this world (EXEBLHQH EIS TONDE TON KOSMON; note the distinction between "paradise" and "this world"). From this he infers the following:

DIO KAI LEGOUSIN hOI PRESBUTEROI, TWN APOSTOLWN MAQHTAI, TOUS METATEQENTAS EKEISE METATEQHNAI (DIKAIOIS GAR ANQRWPOIS KAI PNEUMATOFOROIS hHTOIMASQH hO PARADEISOS, EN hWi KAI PAULOS hO APOSTOLOS
EISKOMISQEIS HKOUSEN ARRHTA hRHMATA, hWS PROS hHMAS EN TWi PARONTI), KAKEI MENEIN TOUS METATEQENTAS hEWS SUNTELEIAS, PROOIMIAZOMENOUS THN AFQARSIAN.

"Therefore the elders, the disciples of the Apostles, also say that
those who were translated were translated there (for paradise was prepared for righteous and inspired men; where the apostle Paul also was carried in, and 'heard words unspeakable,' to us at least in this present life), and that those who are translated will remain there until the end of all things, as a prelude to immortality."

Note what this has in common with the pseudepigraphical literature we perused earlier: Paradise exists NOW, prepared for the righteous. Those who were translated are there, and will remain there until the end. This is the place to which the Apostle Paul was caught up and received revelation, just like those seers in the Pseudepigrapha.

When we come to the NT, it is not hard to identify many of the above ideas. For example, in the book of Revelation Paradise is closely associated with the heavenly New Jerusalem (Rev 22.1-3, 14f., 19), as in 2 Baruch 4. Neither Paradise nor the City are identified with a restored earth, but are rather distinguished from the new heavens and new earth in that the New Jerusalem (in which is Paradise) is *prepared* (hHTOIMASMENHN) and *comes down* (KATABAINOUSAN; cf. Rev 3.12) from God out of heaven *to* the new earth (Rev 21.1f.). According to Revelation 2.7, the tree of life *is* (ESTIN, present tense) in the Paradise of God (EN TWi PARADEISWi TOU QEOU). So the idea of a preexistent Paradise being *revealed* eschatologically is clearly present. What is important to note is that Paradise exists NOW and that it is NOT synonymous with either the new earth or the kingdom of God/Christ (cf. Rev 1.6, 9; 5.10; 11.15; 12.10).

In 2 Cor 12.2 Paul says he was "caught up" (hARPAGENTA) as far as the "third heaven" (hEWS TRITOU OURANOU). As in some of the pseudepigraphical material above, Paul equates this with being "caught up" (hHRPAGH) into Paradise (EIS TON PARADEISON). Again it should be noted that Paradise is a place that exists NOW. Additionally, it is also a place that may be visited by human beings. And it is NOT synonymous with Christ's kingdom (cf. 1 Cor 15.24). Does anyone really think we could substitute EIS THN BASILEIAN TOU CRISTOU for EIS TON PARADEISON here, as if they are interchangeable?

This brings us to Luke 23.43. I intend to respond to one or more posts on this issue in the next few days, so I will only make a few
observations at this point.

(1) As the above survey indicates, it is not possible to equate THN BASILEIAN SOU in Luke 23.42 with TWi PARADEISWi in v. 43. The two terms are simply not synonymous (cf. e.g., Luke 19.11ff.). Their meanings and connotations are very different. This means we must move in another direction from the idea that Jesus is simply giving the nod of approval to the criminal's request. In fact, I believe the context indicates a contrast rather than an identification. I'll address this later.

(2) Since paradise is a place of bliss that exists now, and since,
according to popular thought, it was the abode of the souls or spirits of righteous human beings (see ApMos 32-37; TAb 10,11,14 above), we must take seriously the idea that what Jesus was promising the criminal was that he would be with Jesus in the renowned place of bliss that very day after death. This would be a particularly likely interpretation if Luke contains other indications of a belief that the righteous enter a place of bliss upon death, as I believe it does (cf. Luke 16.19ff.). More about this later.

(3) If SHMERON in Luke 23.43 is to be construed with what follows, the above interpretation is practically certain. I suspect this is what is behind much of the frenzy to construe SHMERON with what precedes. But even if SHMERON is to be construed with what precedes, this still does not rule out the above understanding of PARADEISOS and the idea that Jesus was promising the criminal that he would be with Jesus in Paradise upon death.

More about all this later.
============

Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI

[AVmetro]

The following translations either place the comma before 'today' or convey the idea as if it were so:

NASB, ESV, AMP, HCSB, NLT, NIV, NRSV, NJB, JNT, NAB, ALT, ASV, BBE, CEV, Darby, DRB, EMTV, GNB, GW, HNV, ISV, KJV, LITV, JBPhillips, MSG, Webster, WNT, YLT, NET etc.

[AVmetro]

I went ahead and merged the two similar threads.

[barryrob]

Luke 23:43 - "And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." NASB

Luke 23:43 - "And he said to him: 'Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.'" NWT

Does the above passage imply that there is a conscious existence after death? Or does the passage merely imply that Jesus made the above statement "today" (the day of His crucifixion)?

The only argument I have read revolving around this passage is what is found in Ron Rhodes book "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses".

The arguments for the orthodox rendering are summed up below:

1.] The phrase amen soi lego occurs 74 times in the Gospels and is always used as an introductory expression. The NWT places a break (e.g. comma etc.) after the phrase "Truly, I tell you" in the case of every occurance with the sole exception of Luke 23:43 (i.e. 73 out of 74 occurences). [Summary from Ron p.328]

2.] "Apologist Robert Bowman notes that if Jesus had really wanted to say, "Truly, I say to you today," He could have done this very clearly by using a different construction in the greek language." [Ron p.329]

3.] "Related to all this, Watchtower expert Marian Bodine points out that the phrase, 'Truly, I say to you today,' does not make good sense: "It would have been needless to say, 'Today, I am telling this to you.'" Of course He was! What other day would He have been speaking to the thief on? Jesus never added the word 'today' when speaking to anyone." [Ron p.329]

4.] Jesus is making reference to the Jewish view of Hades and paradise. [Summary from Ron p.329]

Does anyone feel they can expound upon or add to the above? I'm particularly interested in the reference made to Rob Bowman's argument.

-God bless-


1 Jesus did not go back to heaven until 40 days after his ressurection.

2 This man was not "born again" so was not able to go into heaven.

3 And "Paradise" here reffers to and earthly ressurection which the Jews believed in.

Barryrob

[aflfan]

The solution to all of this is to judge the correction of the punctuation by how the finished product matches up to the rest of scripture. Is Jesus saying that the thief would be in paradise that day or just that he would enter paradise (heaven) on resurrection day. Since God's inspired word teaches clearly that the dead go down to silence and that the dead have no thoughts or memories or even the ability to praise the Lord, it is pretty clear that the view of death that God taught his people was one where people are not conscious after death. In 1st Corinthians 15, Paul makes it clear that there is life in Christ on this earth and there is life in Christ after the resurrecion. In his words, if there was no resurrection, and we only had Christ on this earth, we might as well do whatever we want on this earth, because when we died we would be completely perished. Paul obviously didn't believe in some in -between trip to heaven after death or he wouldn't have spoken like this. Alot more I could say, but it pays to put the whole Greek thing in perspective. It was the Greek influence that steered many Bible believers away from the understanding that the dead were resting, unconscious, sleeping to the false tradition that the dead are conscious in heaven or hell. While Jesus taught that the dead were asleep, when he spoke to the Pharisees, he spoke to them in terms of the Greek garbage that they had become poisoned with, with the example of Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and Hell, better known in Greek mythology as Elysium and Tartarus, the two compartments of Hades. God doesn't make mistakes and if his inspired word tells us that we go down to silence with no thoughts or memories, then we fully understand that the correct punctuation of Luke 23:43 has to be with the comma after 'today' making it compatible with the rest of scripture.

[Jaltus]

The solution to all of this is to judge the correction of the punctuation by how the finished product matches up to the rest of scripture. Is Jesus saying that the thief would be in paradise that day or just that he would enter paradise (heaven) on resurrection day. Since God's inspired word teaches clearly that the dead go down to silence and that the dead have no thoughts or memories or even the ability to praise the Lord, it is pretty clear that the view of death that God taught his people was one where people are not conscious after death. In 1st Corinthians 15, Paul makes it clear that there is life in Christ on this earth and there is life in Christ after the resurrecion. In his words, if there was no resurrection, and we only had Christ on this earth, we might as well do whatever we want on this earth, because when we died we would be completely perished. Paul obviously didn't believe in some in -between trip to heaven after death or he wouldn't have spoken like this. Alot more I could say, but it pays to put the whole Greek thing in perspective. It was the Greek influence that steered many Bible believers away from the understanding that the dead were resting, unconscious, sleeping to the false tradition that the dead are conscious in heaven or hell. While Jesus taught that the dead were asleep, when he spoke to the Pharisees, he spoke to them in terms of the Greek garbage that they had become poisoned with, with the example of Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and Hell, better known in Greek mythology as Elysium and Tartarus, the two compartments of Hades. God doesn't make mistakes and if his inspired word tells us that we go down to silence with no thoughts or memories, then we fully understand that the correct punctuation of Luke 23:43 has to be with the comma after 'today' making it compatible with the rest of scripture.

The problem with such a take is that it contrasts with both the Greek text and with the style of the gospel.

One must ALWAYS stick to the text first, the text in this case not being determinative. However, style comes before theology. One cannot allow one's theology to determine meaning when there is a less biased way of figuring this out. The less biased way is noting that "Truly I say to you" is an introductory formula through the Gospel, and therefore "today" is the beginning of the reply. Any other answer uses theology to trump exegesis, and thus one becomes an eisogete, reading into the text the conclusion one wants rather than getting it from the text.

Theology should be taken from the text, not to it.

[aflfan]

Not meaning to read anything into scripture. My point is exactly that, that instead of accepting God's word as true and correcting our false beliefs, people tend to turn a blind eye to verses that contradict what they've been taught. A search on the internet will show that this verse is debated by alot of people and there are as many early Greek writings that support the comma after "today" as there are in support of the comma before. While I was born and raised and am still a member of the Assemblies of God where an eternal soul is taught, the scriptures clearly show me that this is not true and I side with the scholars who place the comma after "today", because I can't see God contradicting himself. It's not about personal theology, it's just accepting that if God inspired the words that the dead are silent, without thoughts or memories in the grave, then God said it. It must be true. And so I accept it, and then try to research and figure out why what I've been taught is in contradiction to what I read in scripture. Right? I mean, we've all been taught that Elijah and Enoch went to heaven, yet John 3:13 should make everyone search the scriptures to see where our traditional teaching went wrong. So one scholar says this about Luke 23:43, another says that. When it all comes down to it, the solution is still, what was taught by God in the rest of scripture? Anyway thanks for absorbing my endless rambling. God bless!

[BoranJarami]

Jaltus:
The problem with such a take is that it contrasts with both the Greek text and with the style of the gospel.

Such an interpretation does not contrast with the text. The Greek text of Luke 23:43 is not clear on this point. The word "today" (saymeron) in this verse has no grammatical ties to either verb in the Greek, and since syntax has little effect in Koine Greek, the text is very open on this subject.

Jaltus:
One must ALWAYS stick to the text first, the text in this case not being determinative. However, style comes before theology. One cannot allow one's theology to determine meaning when there is a less biased way of figuring this out. The less biased way is noting that "Truly I say to you" is an introductory formula through the Gospel, and therefore "today" is the beginning of the reply. Any other answer uses theology to trump exegesis, and thus one becomes an eisogete, reading into the text the conclusion one wants rather than getting it from the text.

This is true unless there is a reason that we can glean from the context as to why Jesus would add to his normal opening. There is. The thief was asking Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into his kingdom (Luke 23:42). By adding "today" to his customary opening Jesus would have been telling the man that he had no need to wait until that distant time, but that Jesus would remember his faith now. The very day that we confess the Lord Jesus Christ in faith, we have the promise of eternal life with Jesus. No need to wait.

This being said, Luke 23:42 neither affirms nor denies an eternal soul. It doesn't tell us where the man's soul went upon his death (if it went anywhere), it only speaks of the promise of salvation. Whether he went to heaven, pergatory, oblivion, or even nirvanah must be argued from from other scriptures. At least that's the way I look at it.

P.S. I think he went to heaven

[John Goddard]

I think Jesus said he was going to Hell for three days.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

[timspong]

I think Jesus said he was going to Hell for three days.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Yea same for me, this is the only objection I can see. I have not problem with the thief being in paradise that day, but what about Christ?

- was he referring to himself as God?
- do we all go to the same place before judgment
- did he go to some kind of dispensational “Jewish” Abrahams bosom - holding pattern
- other?

[John Goddard]

Yea same for me, this is the only objection I can see. I have not problem with the thief being in paradise that day, but what about Christ?

- was he referring to himself as God?
- do we all go to the same place before judgment
- did he go to some kind of dispensational “Jewish” Abrahams bosom - holding pattern
- other?

In Revelation there is a golden altar before God's Throne and martyrs and other righteous are there so I think that is Abraham's Bosom/Paradise/Heaven. They die in a sinless state and go right there and have the First Resurrection.

For everyone else, also in Revelation we're told about the sea giving up its dead and I think that is like Jonah being terrified in the sea. Maybe if you are going to the Lake of Fire you just "drown" and have death and stay there.

If not and you have a chance to be saved, then there is hell like the fish swallowing you up out of the sea as a place to repent and purify.

Revelation 20:13-14 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

All these people are in the Second Resurrection and Judgment, if you make it maybe you go on to Heaven, if not you stay in hell and death and are thrown into the Lake of Fire where maybe you just burn up and cease to exist. Maybe not.

So the only reason I can think of for Jesus to go to hell is to let people know he is real and they need to believe before they can get out, and to help them repent. Or else just so he would know what it was like for other humans too. Maybe both.

[Weboh2]

The phrase rendered “Truly I say to you,” is introductory. The word rendered “Today” is the first word in Jesus’ reply to the question, and it is in an emphatic position in terms of the syntax of Jesus’ answer in the Greek text. The word today isn't the first word of Jesus statement, though it is introductory. I don't think you are being clear here, but the greek word semhroV seems to be a substantive in the accausitive case of the verb legw meaning 'this day'. The word is followed by a prepositional phrase then a being verb, then the dative case nouns after 'en'. There is no way around the interpretation of an immediate life after death, because semhros is the object of the first statement. The second statement what would happen that very day.

[Weboh2]

Note, that it says Greek had no punctuation until the 9th century. Let us overlook for the moment that my Greek sources show four punctuation marks, a raised period, for colon and semicolon. The second statement by Jesus has to be about 'saymeron', because it is the object the object of the first statement. I also don't like the translation of 'met' which is a shortform for 'meta'. "Truly I word this day to you. After me, you (yourself) will be in a paradise." The punctuation doesn't help the greek at all, though it can clarify it. Anyone who translates this as wrong as the JWs do is definitely grinding the wrong axe.

[BoranJarami]

Weboh2:
The word today isn't the first word of Jesus statement, though it is introductory. I don't think you are being clear here, but the greek word σεμηρος seems to be a substantive in the accausitive case of the verb λεγω meaning 'this day'.

There is no need (and no grammatical reason) to look at saymeron as a substantive. It is mearly acting as it always does in Koine Greek, as an adverb. Based on context I believe it is safe to say that it is an adverb to the word lego (I speak or say), and at the very least there is no reason from the text or context to translate it otherwise.

Weboh2:
The word is followed by a prepositional phrase then a being verb, then the dative case nouns after 'en'. There is no way around the interpretation of an immediate life after death, because σεμηροσ is the object of the first statement. The second statement what would happen that very day.

I agree, but I do not think we get that from this verse. The text simply doesn't support this interpretation. Saymeron in not the object of the first statement; it is the adverb. The second statement (what he is truely saying) is the object of the first statement.

Weboh2:
The second statement by Jesus has to be about 'saymeron', because it is the object the object of the first statement.

As I mentioned above there is no reason to believe that saymeron is acting as a noun (and thus as the object of the first statement). It would be best to understand the second statement being about "lego" (I say) as if Jesus were quoting himself.

Weboh2:
I also don't like the translation of 'met' which is a shortform for 'meta'. "Truly I word this day to you. After me, you (yourself) will be in a paradise."

When used with an accusative noun or pronoun, "meta" takes on the meaning of "after". When used with a genative noun or pronoun it takes on the meaning of "with". In this case, "meta" is used on the genative pronoun "emou" (my or in this case me). A better translation would be something like "Truely I say to you this day, you will be in the paradise with me."

Weboh2:
The punctuation doesn't help the greek at all, though it can clarify it. Anyone who translates this as wrong as the JWs do is definitely grinding the wrong axe.

It can only clearify it if we get it in the right place. There was no punctuation (or even spaces for that matter) used in Greek when the New Testiment was written, so we must be very careful where we put them.

[Weboh2]

Weboh2:

There is no need (and no grammatical reason) to look at saymeron as a substantive. It is mearly acting as it always does in Koine Greek, as an adverb. Based on context I believe it is safe to say that it is an adverb to the word lego (I speak or say), and at the very least there is no reason from the text or context to translate it otherwise. I beg to differ when one considers how samperoV looks like a noun in an accusative and objective case. It also destroys the JWs case more quickly and accurately.

I agree, but I do not think we get that from this verse. The text simply doesn't support this interpretation. Saymeron in not the object of the first statement; it is the adverb. The second statement (what he is truely saying) is the object of the first statement. It's not an adverb. It is a substantive which is likely a pronoun.

As I mentioned above there is no reason to believe that saymeron is acting as a noun (and thus as the object of the first statement). It would be best to understand the second statement being about "lego" (I say) as if Jesus were quoting himself. But Jesus is not quoting himself, he worded what "this day" was meant to be.

When used with an accusative noun or pronoun, "meta" takes on the meaning of "after". When used with a genative noun or pronoun it takes on the meaning of "with". In this case, "meta" is used on the genative pronoun "emou" (my or in this case me). A better translation would be something like "Truely I say to you this day, you will be in the paradise with me." I means after in time or at back in physical location. The man wasn't Jesus's equal by any stretch.

It can only clearify it if we get it in the right place. There was no punctuation (or even spaces for that matter) used in Greek when the New Testiment was written, so we must be very careful where we put them. My translation doesn't need the punctuation because it knows where the accuasative case is, and where the first statement ends. You act like their should be punctuation in the originals.

[John Reece]

From The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible), by Joseph A. Fitzmyer:
The Lukan passion narrative is unique in having a scene in which one of the criminals crucified with Jesus joins in the mocking of Jesus explicitly. He is corrected by the other criminal, who acknowledges Jesus' innocence and begs to be remembered when Jesus comes into his kingly heritage. Jesus answers with the promise that he will be with him in Paradise that very day (23:39-43). — page 1507.

shmeron met' emou esh (sēmeron met' emou esē): today you shall be with me. The criminal phrased his request vaguely, "when you come ...," but Jesus' answer replies specifically, not when, but "today," with the adverb sēmeron placed emphatically immediately after the asseverative clause ["Believe me" = Fitzmyer's rendering of amhn soi legw (amēn soi legō) —JR]. "Today" refers not to "the calendar day of the crucifixion" (E. E. Ellis, "Present and Future," 37) but to the day of "messianic salvation inaugaurated by" the death of Jesus. The criminal will share the kingly condition of Jesus that very day. "For life is to be with Christ because where Christ is, there is the kingdom (Ambrose, Expos. ev. sec. Luc. 10:121) [...]. — page 1510.

[BoranJarami]

Weboh2:
I beg to differ when one considers how σαμπερος looks like a noun in an accusative and objective case. It also destroys the JWs case more quickly and accurately.

I'm not sure what you mean by "samperos" as it is not found in this verse (and I am not sure what the word means). If you mean "saymeron" (this day), while "saymeron" (this day) may appear to be similar to an accusative noun in form, it is only found in this form. If it were a noun, or even a pronoun, it would be found in different forms depending on the nature of the verb and the word's place in the sentence.

I am sure that this interpretation would be a quicker way to destroy the JWs but I don't think it is more accurate. Also, our intention when studying the Bible should be to learn the truth that God has provided for us in his word, not to destroy a belief system.

Weboh2:
It's not an adverb. It is a substantive which is likely a pronoun.

I find it hard to believe that a word meaning "this day" would be a pronoun. It is interesting to note that every lexicon I have looked at lists the word as an adverb.

Weboh2:
But Jesus is not quoting himself, he worded what "this day" was meant to be.

I only used this analogy to help simplify the situation. Apparently it didn't work.

If he were trying to say that the day was meant to happen, it would require a whole new phrase. The phrase "truely I say to you" is a complete sentence. So is "you will be in the pradise with me." They both have as subject, object, and verb. [The question is which sentence does "this day" go with]. To get the meaning you are suggesting, "today" would have to become the subject of another sentence "today is meant to be". These words do not exist in the text nor can they be implied. Or am I misunderstanding what it is you are trying to say?

Weboh2:
I means after in time or at back in physical location. The man wasn't Jesus's equal by any stretch.

But that interpretation simply can't come from the Greek. According to Biblical Greek grammar, meta must be interpreted as "with". This does not mean the thief was his equal, it means that they would both be in the paradise. It doesn't say which one would get their first.

Weboh2:
My translation doesn't need the punctuation because it knows where the accuasative case is, and where the first statement ends. You act like their should be punctuation in the originals.

The Greek had no need for punctuation. In the vast majority of cases the inflection of the words provided plenty of information for understanding the text. In some places, such as this, where a word falls into a crack of Biblical Greek grammar, the original reader would have easily understood the meaning by looking at the context. So when we go to putting punctuation in our English translations, we had better make sure that they fall in line with the grammar and context.

[timspong]

From The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible), by Joseph A. Fitzmyer:
The Lukan passion narrative is unique in having a scene in which one of the criminals crucified with Jesus joins in the mocking of Jesus explicitly. He is corrected by the other criminal, who acknowledges Jesus' innocence and begs to be remembered when Jesus comes into his kingly heritage. Jesus answers with the promise that he will be with him in Paradise that very day (23:39-43). — page 1507.

shmeron met' emou esh (sēmeron met' emou esē): today you shall be with me. The criminal phrased his request vaguely, "when you come ...," but Jesus' answer replies specifically, not when, but "today," with the adverb sēmeron placed emphatically immediately after the asseverative clause ["Believe me" = Fitzmyer's rendering of amhn soi legw (amēn soi legō) —JR]. "Today" refers not to "the calendar day of the crucifixion" (E. E. Ellis, "Present and Future," 37) but to the day of "messianic salvation inaugaurated by" the death of Jesus. The criminal will share the kingly condition of Jesus that very day. "For life is to be with Christ because where Christ is, there is the kingdom (Ambrose, Expos. ev. sec. Luc. 10:121) [...]. — page 1510.

Now that makes a lot of sense to me.

[Weboh2]

Weboh2:


I'm not sure what you mean by "samperos" as it is not found in this verse (and I am not sure what the word means). If you mean "saymeron" (this day), while "saymeron" (this day) may appear to be similar to an accusative noun in form, it is only found in this form. If it were a noun, or even a pronoun, it would be found in different forms depending on the nature of the verb and the word's place in the sentence. Perhaps the nominative case is useless.

If he were trying to say that the day was meant to happen, it would require a whole new phrase. The phrase "truely I say to you" is a complete sentence. So is "you will be in the pradise with me." They both have as subject, object, and verb. [The question is which sentence does "this day" go with]. To get the meaning you are suggesting, "today" would have to become the subject of another sentence "today is meant to be". These words do not exist in the text nor can they be implied. Or am I misunderstanding what it is you are trying to say?
There is a second sentence after semperoV which has eshi as a verb. There is probably three sentences considering how eipw and legw are abstract verbs. Amhn would be the direct object of eipen which is a morph of eip-.

But that interpretation simply can't come from the Greek. According to Biblical Greek grammar, meta must be interpreted as "with".And according to Thayer's, it can be call at, behind, or after. Thayer admitedly uses with mostly, but Greek has a preposition for with called proV. It's not impossible at all.

The Greek had no need for punctuation. Glad that you agree, yet inflection is not the determining factor, but rather grammar. I could be no other way. And there are many strange ways of making sentence or ending a sentence in greek, themselves which all related to grammar.

[BoranJarami]

John Reece :
From The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible), by Joseph A. Fitzmyer:

The Lukan passion narrative is unique in having a scene in which one of the criminals crucified with Jesus joins in the mocking of Jesus explicitly. He is corrected by the other criminal, who acknowledges Jesus' innocence and begs to be remembered when Jesus comes into his kingly heritage. Jesus answers with the promise that he will be with him in Paradise that very day (23:39-43). — page 1507.

In this quote it is simply claimed that the interpretation is a certain way. The author gives no reason why it should be interpreted as such

σημερον μετ' εμου εση (sēmeron met' emou esē): today you shall be with me. The criminal phrased his request vaguely, "when you come ...," but Jesus' answer replies specifically, not when, but "today," with the adverb sēmeron placed emphatically immediately after the asseverative clause ["Believe me" = Fitzmyer's rendering of αμην σοι λεγω (amēn soi legō) —JR]. "Today" refers not to "the calendar day of the crucifixion" (E. E. Ellis, "Present and Future," 37) but to the day of "messianic salvation inaugaurated by" the death of Jesus. The criminal will share the kingly condition of Jesus that very day. "For life is to be with Christ because where Christ is, there is the kingdom (Ambrose, Expos. ev. sec. Luc. 10:121) [...]. — page 1510.

In this quotation the author simply assumes that "saymeron" (this day) goes with this phrase. Again no reasoning is given in support of this assumption.

Besides this, the author gives such a poetic interpretation to the word "saymeron" that the idea of Jesus going to the paradise on physical day of his death is nearly excluded.

[BoranJarami]

Weboh2:
Perhaps the nominative case is useless.

There are far more cases then nominative and accusative. Also, I find it hard to believe that a pronoun that is used 41 times in the New Testament would only be used as a direct object.

If we were to take any word that is similar in structure to a noun to be a noun or pronoun (as you try to do here) then we must also take "phaneros" (outwardly) to be a noun or pronoun because it to is similar to the form of an accusative noun. This makes little sense.

Weboh2:
There is a second sentence after σεμπερος which has εσηι as a verb. There is probably three sentences considering how ειπω and λεγω are abstract verbs. Αμην would be the direct object of ειπεν which is a morph of ειπ-.

You are absolutely correct, there is a second sentence after "seymeron" and there are three sentences all togather.

"Aypen" (he said) is the verb of "And Jesus said to him".

"Lego" (I say) is the verb of "truely I say to you".

"esn" (you will be) is the verb of "you will be with me in paradise with me".

The words needed for the extra sentence you would like to read into the text are simply not there and the question still remains, which sentence does the word "saymeron" (this day) go with? With a lack of grammatical direction, we must depend on context to determine this and I come to the conclusion that "saymeron" explains when Jesus is speaking.

Weboh2:
And according to Thayer's, it can be call at, behind, or after. Thayer admitedly uses with mostly, but Greek has a preposition for with called προς. It's not impossible at all.

It is true that the word "meta" can take on this meaning, but only when used with an accusative noun or pronoun. In this case it is used with the genative pronoun "emou" (my or me), which means the word was used to convey the meaning of "with". In this case it is impossible for meta to mean after.

Weboh2:
Glad that you agree, yet inflection is not the determining factor, but rather grammar. I could be no other way. And there are many strange ways of making sentence or ending a sentence in greek, themselves which all related to grammar.

That's just the point. Unlike English grammar, Biblical Greek grammar is contained within the inflection of words, not the word order. Syntax was very loose and had little effect on the meaning of the sentence (with a few exceptions).

The problem is that adverbs have no inflection in Biblical Greek. They are the same no matter where or with what they are used. What creates the problem isn't that inflection was needed to understand the adverb, but that we try to understand their place from the wrong information. We often try to determine an adverb by it's place in the sentence structure since this is what we are used to. This, however, is pointless. The original readers would have known what verb they modified by the context. This is what we must look at.

[John Reece]

With a lack of grammatical direction, we must depend on context to determine this and I come to the conclusion that "saymeron" explains when Jesus is speaking.

:huh:

Why would Jesus state when he is speaking?

Why would Jesus have added — only in this instance — such a totally pointless statement to the formulaic words he used whenever he was about to say something especially important: amhn soi legw (amēn soi legō), "truly I tell you."

Those formulaic words were used by Jesus more than 70 times in the four Gospels.

What rationale can you give for asserting that Jesus' formulaic introduction in Luke 23:43. was supplemented — in only one of more than 70 instances — by a statement that he was not speaking yesterday or tomorrow but rather today?

[Weboh2]

:huh:

Why would Jesus state when he is speaking?
I stating the verse has three statements. Sorry, Reece, I didn't notice how 'eipen' is obviously a 3rd person singular verb morph.

[Weboh2]

There are far more cases then nominative and accusative. Also, I find it hard to believe that a pronoun that is used 41 times in the New Testament would only be used as a direct object. It's possible.

If we were to take any word that is similar in structure to a noun to be a noun or pronoun (as you try to do here) then we must also take "phaneros" (outwardly) to be a noun or pronoun because it to is similar to the form of an accusative noun. This makes little sense.I think manifestion would be a good translation of phaneros, if phaneros isn't a 3rd declension substantive. It's has verb which it is derived from.

You are absolutely correct, there is a second sentence after "seymeron" and there are three sentences all togather.

"Aypen" (he said) is the verb of "And Jesus said to him".The sentence might end with amen, but if I remember correctly, amen is a hebrew word.

"Lego" (I say) is the verb of "truely I say to you".
"Truly I word to you this day."

"esn" (you will be) is the verb of "you will be with me in paradise with me".
"You will be before me in a paradise." 'Before' is probably the meaning of meta with genitive substantives. Perhaps the thief didn't die first, whatever. But with is to ambiguous when you have pros.(no pun intended.)

The words needed for the extra sentence you would like to read into the text are simply not there and the question still remains, which sentence does the word "saymeron" (this day) go with?If "saymeron" is the object of legw which means to word something, and this is likely true because it word be given being an abstract object fiting the verb's meaning. So if it is part of the first sentence, then the next sentence has to describe it. If it is an adverb, it makes the meaning ambiguous, since punctuation can't clarify the inflections.

With a lack of grammatical direction, we must depend on context to determine this and I come to the conclusion that "saymeron" explains when Jesus is speaking.Which is a JW interpretation.

It is true that the word "meta" can take on this meaning, but only when used with an accusative noun or pronoun. In this case it is used with the genative pronoun "emou" (my or me), which means the word was used to convey the meaning of "with". In this case it is impossible for meta to mean after. It's not good to be so ambiguous. I need to study alot more entries on meta, and you should too.

That's just the point. Unlike English grammar, Biblical Greek grammar is contained within the inflection of words, not the word order. Syntax was very loose and had little effect on the meaning of the sentence (with a few exceptions). The syntax isn't loose, and Greek has many inflections to prove it. I do like how I learned what you meant by inflection.

The problem is that adverbs have no inflection in Biblical Greek.I think many substantives and infinitives in greek are mistaken for being plain adverbs, but translating them as adverbs still makes sense.

They are the same no matter where or with what they are used. What creates the problem isn't that inflection was needed to understand the adverb, but that we try to understand their place from the wrong information. Inflection is always important. Some words just don't have them obviously. 'De' is such an example and is both adverbial and conjuntive like 'kai'.

We often try to determine an adverb by it's place in the sentence structure since this is what we are used to. This, however, is pointless. The original readers would have known what verb they modified by the context. This is what we must look at.The original readers would have not known and ignored the granville sharp rule. I agree.

[BoranJarami]

Why would Jesus state when he is speaking?

Why would Jesus have added — only in this instance — such a totally pointless statement to the formulaic words he used whenever he was about to say something especially important: αμην σοι λεγω (amēn soi legō), "truly I tell you."

Those formulaic words were used by Jesus more than 70 times in the four Gospels.

What rationale can you give for asserting that Jesus' formulaic introduction in Luke 23:43. was supplemented — in only one of more than 70 instances — by a statement that he was not speaking yesterday or tomorrow but rather today?

As I said earlier, the thief asked to be remembered in the future, "when you come into your kingdom". Jesus modified his usual opening statement because he had something important to tell the thief. The thief did not have to wait for some future event to have the promise of salvation, Jesus was making that promise to him that very day.

In other words, Jesus used this single word to emphasize the contrast between the idea of a future hope that many (including the thief) had and the immediate promise of salvation that Jesus offers to all that believe.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

To have Jesus point out that He was sayikng something "today" is to place inanities in His mouth and is violently anticontextual.



I just discovered this thread today for some reason. In regards to this comment above, the Lord in the Old Testament did say things like "I declare among you this day," so I would exercise some caution in declaring it inane just because we wouldn't express ourselves that way.


EDIT: Just as an aside for those interested, I did say a few more technical things about this verse here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1779652&postcount=4) at TWeb a while back.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It's not an adverb. It is a substantive which is likely a pronoun.

OK, this is absurd. Sēmeron is not and cannot be a pronoun. John Reece, will you tell this guy that?

[BoranJarami]

Weboh2:
It's possible.

Yes, it is possible, but I see no reason to believe it.

Weboh2:
I think manifestion would be a good translation of phaneros, if phaneros isn't a 3rd declension substantive. It's has verb which it is derived from.

This is my point. We can look at these words as something else all we want, but that doesn't change the fact that they are always used as an adverb and they all only have one form.

Weboh2:
The sentence might end with amen, but if I remember correctly, amen is a hebrew word.

Actually, the second statement begins with "amayn" (surely, verily, truely, firm). It is the word that translates into truely or whatever your version happens to use. Yes it is Hebrew. There are a number of Hebrew and Aramaic words scattered throughout the New Testament.

Weboh2:
"Truly I word to you this day."

I could understand this if the verb were in the past tense. In which case Jesus would be saying that he had spoke of this day. It, however, is in the present tense "I say".

Weboh2:
"You will be before me in a paradise." 'Before' is probably the meaning of meta with genitive substantives. Perhaps the thief didn't die first, whatever. But with is to ambiguous when you have pros.(no pun intended.)

It is obvious that we are not going to come to an agreement on the subject of "meta" and it rely isn't important to the discussion (or at least I don't think so). I think we should just leave it alone, unless you think it is important.

Weboh2:
If "saymeron" is the object of legw which means to word something,

Lego means more then to simply word something. It means the actual action of speaking, and in this inflection means "I say or I tell". To write it any other way would be to strip it of the grammar.

Weboh2:
and this is likely true because it word be given being an abstract object fiting the verb's meaning.

Just because something would fit doesn't make it true.

Besides, if you were to take "this day" to be the object of the sentence, all the sentence would be saying is that Jesus said, "This day." [ Truely I say this day to you]. To get the meaning that this day must happen, words must be added [ Truely I say to you this day must happen] It makes far more sense and in keeping with the context to understand "this day" to be describing the action of talking. [truely I say to you this day.]

So if it is part of the first sentence, then the next sentence has to describe it.

No it doesn't, the second statement would be just as likely to describe the verb of the first sentence as it would the object, and I still see no reason to believe that "saymeron" is the object. Besides that, it would also be possible that it isn't connected in any way to the first statement since they are both complete sentences.

Weboh2:
If it is an adverb, it makes the meaning ambiguous, since punctuation can't clarify the inflections.

Ambiguous as far as grammar is concerned, which is why we must look at the context to understand it. The original audience, being quite familiar with Greek, would have known this and understood the meaning using the context. This is how Biblical Greek works. Or are there no adverbs in the language?

Weboh2:
Which is a JW interpretation.

Not exclusively. I am a Southern Baptist and I believe in an immediate life after death. I just don't think we can honestly get that from this verse.

It's not good to be so ambiguous. I need to study alot more entries on meta, and you should too.

I see nothing ambiguous about "meta". It is a hard rule of Biblical Greek. Pick up any Biblical Greek grammar book and it will tell you the same thing.

Weboh2:
The syntax isn't loose, and Greek has many inflections to prove it. I do like how I learned what you meant by inflection.

But it is.

Word order does not determine the function of words, but it can show the author's emphasis.

William D. Mounce Basics of Biblical Greek, pg 32

Syntax as we know it virtually doesn't exist in Biblical Greek.

Also, what does inflection have to do this syntax?

Weboh2:
I think many substantives and infinitives in greek are mistaken for being plain adverbs, but translating them as adverbs still makes sense.

This very well may be, but what reasons are there for believing that "saymeron" is one in these instance?

Weboh2:
Inflection is always important. Some words just don't have them obviously. 'De' is such an example and is both adverbial and conjuntive like 'kai'.

I would go one step further, inflection is the key to Biblical Greek grammar.

I love "de" and "kai". They make these kind of situations rare (and some people get tired of all the and's ;) ).

The original readers would have not known and ignored the granville sharp rule. I agree.

I am not familiar with this. What is it?

[John Reece]

OK, this is absurd. Sēmeron is not and cannot be a pronoun. John Reece, will you tell this guy that?

Of course sēmeron — an adverb of time — is not a pronoun.

Perhaps Weboh2 may not be aware of the exegetical fallacy known as 'the root fallacy'; consequently, he may misunderstand Thayer's note (in the entry for sēmeron) that Attic tēmeron derives from ēmera with pronominal prefix.

Of course the etymological datum of a pronominal prefix associated with the history of the word does not make sēmeron a pronoun.

Every lexicon, including Thayer, notes that sēmeron is an adverb; no lexicon notes sēmeron to be a pronoun.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Thanks John. I thought perhaps he might believe it coming from you.

[John Reece]

I see that the editors of The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation (The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel: The Bible Society, Jerusalem, 1986) have a punctuation mark after the semitic rendering (in both the Aramaic text and the Hebrew text) of the clause that corresponds to amēn soi legō ("truly I tell you").

The significance being that semitic as well as Greek scholars share a universal consensus with regard to the meaning of Luke 23:43.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Incidentally (not that any opinions are changed by such observations one way or the other), the Aramaic Bible Society's New Testament links sēmeron with lego, placing the comma after "today."

I suspect that people are much more likely to be moved by the reasons given by scholars for their translation decisions, rather than the mere decisions themselves. Or at least, I personally am much more moved by the former than the latter.

[John Reece]

Incidentally (not that any opinions are changed by such observations one way or the other), the Aramaic Bible Society's New Testament links sēmeron with lego, placing the comma after "today."

I suspect that people are much more likely to be moved by the reasons given by scholars for their translation decisions, rather than the mere decisions themselves. Or at least, I personally am much more moved by the former than the latter.

I should have added the qualifying adjective 'nearly' before 'universal consensus'. The exceptions to the consensus are few and far between, but not altogether absent.

Translations do not include statements of reasons for translation decisions; however, with regard to translations by scholars of the semitic languages, there are two who have won my respect by virtue of the quality of their life's oeuvre: Charles C. Torrey and Joseph Fitzmyer.

The comment of the latter (Fitzmyer) with regard to Luke 23:43. is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2265083&postcount=38).

The former (Torrey) did not publish a comment on Luke 23:43,. but my knowledge of the man's merit makes his rendering of the text more impressive to me than that of any anonymous translator taking exception to it: "He said to him, Verily I say to you, Today you shall be with me in Paradise."

[Weboh2]

This is my point. We can look at these words as something else all we want, but that doesn't change the fact that they are always used as an adverb and they all only have one form.

Actually, the second statement begins with "amayn" (surely, verily, truely, firm). It is the word that translates into truely or whatever your version happens to use. Yes it is Hebrew. There are a number of Hebrew and Aramaic words scattered throughout the New Testament. Here I agree with you, since "amayn" doesn't seem to have a greek equivalent, and is burrowed without declension into greek.

I could understand this if the verb were in the past tense. In which case Jesus would be saying that he had spoke of this day. It, however, is in the present tense "I say".

It is obvious that we are not going to come to an agreement on the subject of "meta" and it rely isn't important to the discussion (or at least I don't think so). I think we should just leave it alone, unless you think it is important. agreed.

Lego means more then to simply word something. It means the actual action of speaking, and in this inflection means "I say or I tell". To write it any other way would be to strip it of the grammar. To word something while speaking is to speak in itself. You are limiting the word legw and the verb word. This is where I most strongly disagree with you.

Just because something would fit doesn't make it true. It fits and you claim it is still an adverb. Yet it is interesting how an adverb is probably the latin infinitive.

Besides, if you were to take "this day" to be the object of the sentence, all the sentence would be saying is that Jesus said, "This day." [ Truely I say this day to you]. To get the meaning that this day must happen, words must be added [ Truely I say to you this day must happen] It makes far more sense and in keeping with the context to understand "this day" to be describing the action of talking. [truely I say to you this day.] Absolutely wrong, the later sentence has to directly describing the previous, if there is no conjunctions involved.

No it doesn't, the second statement would be just as likely to describe the verb of the first sentence as it would the object, and I still see no reason to believe that "saymeron" is the object. Besides that, it would also be possible that it isn't connected in any way to the first statement since they are both complete sentences. It's good style in english and greek to make the next sentence relevent to the previous by elaborating the previous sentence. Hence, if I say "he works today", I would then describe how he works today, or I'd use a conjunction to shift the perspective. Such is how Koine works at every step.

Not exclusively. I am a Southern Baptist and I believe in an immediate life after death. I just don't think we can honestly get that from this verse. I should look at 'saymheron' with more examples to prove it is an abstract object rather than a verb.

I see nothing ambiguous about "meta". It is a hard rule of Biblical Greek. Pick up any Biblical Greek grammar book and it will tell you the same thing. I find the translation of it ambiguous where it really means before in presence or before in time. Pros has no chronological use that I know of it.

But it is. It simply isn't given the greatness of its morphology.

Syntax as we know it virtually doesn't exist in Biblical Greek. No word order still exists, but isn't as important to syntax or 'grammar' as inflection is. The grammar is derived from knowing letter, but I use it as a synonym for syntax. Do I need to be corrected?

Also, what does inflection have to do this syntax? Inflection determines word order, and when sentences end or begin.

This very well may be, but what reasons are there for believing that "saymeron" is one in these instance?I don't think saymeron is every used as anything than an appositive or a substantive in accausative case. There maybe no nominative of it, because 'the day" or "this day" doesn't really doing anything other than happen. Same for saymeron.

I would go one step further, inflection is the key to Biblical Greek grammar. And syntax. You can't start a passive verb with an accausitive but rather a nominative thus reversing subject and object.

I love "de" and "kai". They make these kind of situations rare (and some people get tired of all the and's ;) ). "De" is a conjunction emphasizing irony and continuation of events when the second word of a sentence. It donotes continuation when used in lists. And "kai" seperates objects and unfortunately thru the use of apposition can break a singular substantive into 2 types thus making it plural.

The original readers would have not known and ignored the granville sharp rule. I agree.

I am not familiar with this. What is it? It is a silly rule of syntax which confuses english syntax with greek syntax. The inventor wanted the greek article to carry through a 'kai'-- which it doesn't do, because greek uses nothing but appositives for predicate nominatives and predicative accausitives. Basically he states the same object is mentioned whenever the article precedes a name and a 'kai' when both are substantives on each side of the 'kai', and thus a second article is unnecessary on the other side. Should I call it "syntax propaganda"?

But Granville Sharp didn't know Koine well. And it is easy to make mistakes with this language, if you ignore its vast morphology. A better case could be made for nomen rectum, genitive names which don't necessarily need the article.

[Weboh2]

I looked at my Liddel and Scott lexicon yesterday and shmeron is described as being a crasis of reflexive s and hmera. Attic and old greek has this word in a different form which a crasis of the demonstrative article and 'hmera'.

It is most certainly used like a noun.

[John Reece]

I looked at my Liddel and Scott lexicon yesterday and shmeron is described as being a crasis of reflexive s and hmera. Attic and old greek has this word in a different form which a crasis of the demonstrative article and 'hmera'.

It is most certainly used like a noun.

My copy of Liddel and Scott (LSJ) — New (ninth) edition published in 1940, 1982 reprint — defines shmeron as an adverb and gives absolutely no indication that it has ever been used like a noun.

[Weboh2]

Liddell and Scott: (hmera with s prefixed)

Does this clarify anything for you?

I also have the seventh edition itself a 2003 reprint.

[John Reece]

Liddell and Scott: [snip] I also have the seventh edition itself a 2003 reprint.

Just for the sake of factuality: the last reprint of the seventh (1882) edition was in 1890. The seventh edition was superseded by the eighth edition in 1897, and by the ninth edition in 1940.

The reason I noted the edition I have (the ninth) is that the entry for shmeron therein does not match the assertions you have made with reference to it.

You are grasping at etymological straws, not knowing that even if you were to get the etymology right you still would have no legitimate support for your assertion that shmeron "is most certainly used like a noun", because the etymology of a word determines neither its meaning nor its usage.

[Jaltus]

The 2003 reprint of the 7th edition would be the middle LS, not the big LSJ.

[John Reece]

The 2003 reprint of the 7th edition would be the middle LS, not the big LSJ.

Thanks for that.

[Weboh2]

You are grasping at etymological straws, not knowing that even if you were to get the etymology right you still would have no legitimate support for your assertion that shmeron "is most certainly used like a noun", because the etymology of a word determines neither its meaning nor its usage. Where does the prefixed sigma change hmeros/n to an adverb? The etymology contradicts the conclusion that "saymeron" is an adverb.

[Jaltus]

Where does the prefixed sigma change hmeros/n to an adverb? The etymology contradicts the conclusion that "saymeron" is an adverb.

Etymology never determines function and only occasionally determines significance. The article comes from the demonstrative pronoun, but the article is NOT a pronoun. In the same way, most nouns come from verbs in Greek, but nouns are not verbs. Thus, just because one type of word is the descendant of another word does not determine the function.

You are committing a fallacy, as John pointed out earlier. The word is and always has been an adverb in Koine Greek.

[Weboh2]

Etymology never determines function and only occasionally determines significance. The article comes from the demonstrative pronoun, but the article is NOT a pronoun. In the same way, most nouns come from verbs in Greek, but nouns are not verbs. Thus, just because one type of word is the descendant of another word does not determine the function. The etymology has not changed the inflection of the word, thus it is premature to call it an adverb when the evidence so far demonstrates it is inflected like a noun. Since logicly today itself doesn't do anything, a nominative form of the word would be useless, and a dative one is illigocal because you can't create today, and a genitive form would only replace the attic thmeron.

If it were an adverb it would be morelike this shmerwV.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The etymology has not changed the inflection of the word, thus it is premature to call it an adverb when the evidence so far demonstrates it is inflected like a noun. Since logicly today itself doesn't do anything, a nominative form of the word would be useless, and a dative one is illigocal because you can't create today, and a genitive form would only replace the attic τημερον.

If it were an adverb it would be more like this σημερως.Apparently it is painfully obvious to all but you - including people who are not, primarily, experts in Greek - the error you are making.

Explosion comes from explode. Explode is a verb. Therefore explosion is a verb.

Would you think this is reasonable? Etymology neither changes anything nor forces it to remain the same. Etymology only tells us a word's origins. No more, no less.

[Weboh2]

Apparently it is painfully obvious to all but you - including people who are not, primarily, experts in Greek - the error you are making.

Explosion comes from explode. Explode is a verb. Therefore explosion is a verb. It is painfully obvious that you don't have even a clue. I don't see how shmeron should be limited to adverb form when the english equivalent is both noun and adverb, especially when the greek word is inflected like an accusative noun. But of course, you don't even know anything about this, or do you?

[Weboh2]

Every lexicon, including Thayer, notes that sēmeron is an adverb; no lexicon notes sēmeron to be a pronoun. I have Thayer's at home. His definitions don't disclude shmeron from being a noun.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I have Thayer's at home. His definitions don't disclude shmeron from being a noun.
It's "exclude."

When you get home, check Thayer's work. See what Thayer calls the word. If you discover that Thayer calls it an adverb, post back here and say so. If he calls it a noun, be sure to note that as well.

I'll wait. This is especially interesting to me in light of your confidence that I have no clue, but you do.

[John Reece]

I don't see how shmeron should be limited to adverb form when the english equivalent is both noun and adverb, especially when the greek word is inflected like an accusative noun.

The Greek word shmeron is not inflected.

The Greek word shmeron is not limited to adverb form

Greek adverbs were originally case forms made from the stems of nouns and pronouns, so it's not uncommon for a Greek adverb to have a form like that of a noun (or a pronoun, or an adjective) = a fact that may be indicative of the history of the word but not of the function of the word.

[Weboh2]

The Greek word shmeron is not inflected.It is pretty convenient to say so especially when there is only the accusative case. Just by prefixing sigma to the beginning of the word changed the inflection of the second declension hmeros.

The Greek word shmeron is not limited to adverb form I am willing to say it is used as both. :teeth:

Greek adverbs were originally case forms made from the stems of nouns and pronouns, so it's not uncommon for a Greek adverb to have a form like that of a noun (or a pronoun, or an adjective) = a fact that may be indicative of the history of the word but not of the function of the word. This is not true in every case-- especially prepositional adverbs, which seem to be infinitives. But how would you translate a prepositional infinitive from hebrew? Outsideing? Insideing? I don't think duplicating the function here necessarily makes sense.

Edit: The prepositional adverbs in Greek seem to aorist participles or subjunctive verbs in greek, if they are besides being adverbs.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It's "exclude."

When you get home, check Thayer's work. See what Thayer calls the word. If you discover that Thayer calls it an adverb, post back here and say so. If he calls it a noun, be sure to note that as well.

I'll wait. This is especially interesting to me in light of your confidence that I have no clue, but you do.
Weboh2, did you go home and check Thayers?

[Cal_Minian]

No contradiction whatsoever in context. Mary was clinging to Him, clutching on as if He were leave her immediately. He was telling her that He was still there and would be there for a while longer. Any other interpretration makes no sense in toto.

To have Jesus point out that He was sayikng something "today" is to place inanities in His mouth and is violently anticontextual.

If the evildoer was with Jesus the same day, why did he not appear with Jesus when he appeared to his disciples? Did he leave him in Hades? :eek:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Weboh2, did you go home and check Thayers?Well? Weboh2?

[Cal_Minian]

According to BDF §474.2 An adverb which further defines an adjective (or verb) also takes second position.

Also BDF §473 Closely related elements in the sentence, e.g. noun and attributive, noun and dependant gen., several subjects or objects connected by KAI, etc., are usually padded together in simple speech.

in Luke 23:43 the adverb SHMERON directly follows the verb 'to say" and so therefore according to the Greek grammar it most naturally is to be taken with the first verb as in Truly I tell you today,


-Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Consider the Context of Luke 23:43

Advocates of the view that “today” should go with the last clause. To do this they need to overcome the context because their view requires that Jesus improves upon the request by the evildoer. This is in spite of the lack of any linguistic marker which denotes that Jesus has granted something different than what was asked for by the thief.

In reality to match the request of the evildoer to the response by Jesus which takes the word “today” as modifying the last clause we would need something like this:

42 And he [the thief] was saying “Jesus, I enjoyed our discussion, when can we do this again?” 43 And He [Jesus] said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

However what we really have is this:

42 And he [the thief] went on to say: "Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom." 43 And he [Jesus] said to him: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise."

But there is more… Three days later the thief says, “Where are you going?” Jesus replies, I am going back to earth for forty days and then I am going up to heaven. I really miss that place; I have not seen it for 33.5 years! (John 20:17) Then Jesus replies in a Greek idiom which is roughly translated into Spanish, “Hasta La Vista, Baby!” and “I’ll be back!” (in a couple thousand years or so).

-Cal

[Weboh2]

Well? Weboh2?
All I see you doing is giving hope to Calminian. Calminian has a dream where he is special, whereas alot christians think they are. But Calminian belongs to a cult which denies the ressurection.

Now if thayer is correct that 'this day' is a good rendering of shmeron, Calminian wouldn't have a case because the word would be both and an adverb and a noun. The word is both an adverb and a noun, somewhat similar to the english words today, and such.

Last Edit: I will even translate it for Calminian. "Truly, I word to you this day: you will be before me in a paradise."

[Sparko]

why the heck would Jesus have to (or bother to) point out in his sentence WHEN when he was saying the sentence? Of course he was saying it "today" - we always speak "today" - to mention that in the sentence is so inane as to be unbelievable. Was there a chance that someone hearing him would think he was speaking "tomorrow" or "yesterday"? Or perhaps he said something different yesterday and was saying that "today" he is going to change his mind? sheesh.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

All I see you doing is giving hope to Calminian. Calminian has a dream where he is special, whereas alot christians think they are. But Calminian belongs to a cult which denies the ressurection.What the heck are you talking about? I presented my question before Cal_minian piped up - or at least, before I was aware of his presence here.

My question related to your comment about Thayer, so I was asking if you had checked yet. This has nothing to do with Cal_Minian.
Now if thayer is correct that 'this day' is a good rendering of σημερον, Calminian wouldn't have a case because the word would be both and an adverb and a noun. The word is both an adverb and a noun, somewhat similar to the english words today, and such.
It's a noun? Did you get that from Thayer?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

why the heck would Jesus have to (or bother to) point out in his sentence WHEN when he was saying the sentence? Of course he was saying it "today" - we always speak "today" - to mention that in the sentence is so inane as to be unbelievable. Was there a chance that someone hearing him would think he was speaking "tomorrow" or "yesterday"? Or perhaps he said something different yesterday and was saying that "today" he is going to change his mind? sheesh.Sparko, this is not a wise approach. What you've effectively done is to erect a rule that literally prevents you from considering possible evidence from the greek, because you've assumed from the outset that of course only one option is possible.

The fact is, we already know that in the Old Testament God sometimes spoke in this "inane" (as you call it) way. Deuteronomy 6:6, Deuteronomy 19:9 and others. So it's best not to make yourself the judge of what is permissible. Saying something like "I tell you today" makes the saying more solemn, along the lines of "I'm telling you right now." There's no reason to write off the possibility before even considering the evidence.

[Cal_Minian]

why the heck would Jesus have to (or bother to) point out in his sentence WHEN when he was saying the sentence? Of course he was saying it "today" - we always speak "today" - to mention that in the sentence is so inane as to be unbelievable. Was there a chance that someone hearing him would think he was speaking "tomorrow" or "yesterday"? Or perhaps he said something different yesterday and was saying that "today" he is going to change his mind? sheesh.

Since your question is 100% speculative I will respond with 100% speculation. The day that Jesus spoke those words was inarguably the most important day for Christianity. It was the day that he paid the price for our sins and thus made future resurrection possible.

A very important day indeed, and one that in my mind cannot be emphasized in enough ways or enough times.