From: richard smith (rbsads@aol.com)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 19:52:20 EDT
hHMEIS DE HLPIZOMEN hOTI AUTOS ESTIV hO MELLWN LUTROUSQAI TOV ISRAHL
It seems obvious that Cleopas did not hope that Jesus was about to, or
destined to, pay Rome's price to free Israel politically. I am not sure
what price would be necessary to pay in order that Rome would free an
occupied territory, but I am sure that an itinerant peasant healer and
teacher would be perceived by all to be an unlikely prospect to come up
with such a sum.
But it also seems to me that this Lukan text portrays that Cleopas was
beginning to hope that Jesus was the one destined to set free Israel from
Rome.
My question is whether in NT and Hellenistic Greek had lost its technical
nuance of ransom and meant merely a setting free, with or without the
notion of payment, even though LUTROV may have retained the idea of
payment for release.
Am I correct in assuming that Cleopas is describing his hope that Jesus
was to bring about a political freeing of Israel? And I am asking this
with reference to however much lexical and contextual concerns can provide
an answer.
The understanding of the word has implications for knowing how the early
church understood the way by which the crucifixion effected salvation -
whether any payment was actually made, and who was paid?
I am not asking for a theological discussion, only help with the meaning
and 1st c Palestinean use of LUTROW and LUTRON.
Thanks,
Richard Smith
Chattanooga, TN
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:24 EDT