Ben C Smith

That is true; I have found at least one such example, to wit, Mark 2.25.

My own problem with the translation you offered is that its master has a need just does not sound right. What need? The need is usually spelled out with this idiom, even if indirectly. Notice, for example, that in Mark 2.25, just mentioned, the need is immediately expressed (it was hunger, need for food).

I think your translation is possible. I just simultaneously think that the other translation is more probable. We would usually expect the need to be expressed somehow (whether with a genitive, an infinitive clause, a hina clause, or indirectly as in Mark 2.25).

Ben.

Gamera

Can't autou be used adverbally to mean "at that place, there"? In which case the sentence can be translated "The Lord (back) there is in need."

There is a great deal of directionality in the passage, which points out that the village is ahead of Jesus' procession and that the apostles go in advance to get the animal for him. And doesn't that distinquish the real Lord, who is coming, from the secular "lords" who own the beast according to secular law.

Ben C Smith

As this word is situated between a noun which could take a genitive owner and an idiomatic phrase that routinely takes the genitive, I would say that a locative sense in this case is a stretch.

Ben.

spin

The idiom chreian echw typically has its object in the genitive, as in Mk 14:63, ti eti chreian echomen marturwn, "what further have we need of witnesses?", with "witnesses" (marturwn) in the genitive. Or Lk 9:11 "need healing" with healing in the genitive. Or Lk 15:7 "need repentance". Or Mt 6:8 "your father knows of what you have need", oiden o pathr umwn wn chreian exete. Or LXX Ps.16:2, "you have no need of my goodness", twn agaQwn mou. Under normal circumstances the idiom takes a genitive object.

To go outside the normal circumstances, you need indicators, cues, otherwise there is no reason to consider alternative approaches. And I see no indicators. I don't think an unindicated "his lord has need", where "his" can only mean the donkey, can convince. Assuming this for a moment, do you think the writer would really find that indicating Jesus as the lord of the donkey was useful?

The one thing that needs to be looked at is the syntactic ambiguity posed by autou, which quite normally could be taken as simple possessive. However, syntactical ambiguities are normally resolved through semantic means. Consider:

1. He was hard to please
2. He was happy to please

You know, despite the grammatical form, that someone was trying to please him in #1, while he was doing the pleasing in #2.

chreian echw wants the partitive, so go with it.


spin

Riverwind

Good discussion. I'm enjoying and learning.

This goes a long way toward showing its normality. Two things to note:

1) It seems that in most cases, the genitive normally follows rather than precedes the phrase.
2) The genitive normally follows that which possesses it.

Strictly following what you suggest would make for the following translation of 1Co 12:24: "...but the presentable things have no need of us..." (ta de eusxhmona hmwn ou chreian exei) Makes for a funny translation but hardly correct. So, there does seem to be some precedent for my translation.

I'm not sure what you mean by indicators because the donkey has already been mentioned, so the sentence merely references back to it by saying "It's lord has need", explaining why they are loosing the donkey. I'm not sure why you went with "his" except that it seems to make my translation seem less likely, but as I'm sure you know, "autou" can also mean "it" as it might here.

Yes. They were to tell "the lords" that they were loosing "the lord's" donkey because "he had a need" (in similar fashion to the verses mentioned by Ben where David "had a need".

Of course this is strange, but I don't find it any more clear the other way where they are told to tell the donkey's lords that the lord has a need of it {ie. the donkey}. What would it have mean for them to say to lords (of the donkey) that another lord (lord of what?) had need of their donkey (unless they knew him already, which the text doesn't seem to make clear, at least to me).

So, assuming the usual translation, what does it really clarify? What does it mean?

spin

And funnily enough, it's correct! The context should help you because the rationale is a little complex. Paul is talking about different parts of the body disowning other parts. V.21 says that the eyes can't say to the feet, "I don't need of you." Our pleasant parts have no need of us!

You've seen that grammatically a genitive object is desired and I'd say expected. The one example which Ben C found was an intrinsic need, ie the need came from within the person, whereas the need for the donkey is extrinsic. The lord has need of it.

No, I didn't imply anything other than in Greek the colt is masculine.

David's was a need from within (he was hungry) and that needed no further grammatical explanation. Such a need is not what we have here. The partitive is necessary.

The disciples are to tell the man that the lord (ie god) has need of the donkey.

If you look over the other partitives in the 1 Cor 12 passage that you noted earlier, you'll see how it works. It seems to be a grammatical requirement. The only examples I've found to the contrary involve intrinsic need (eg Acts 2:45).

Where's the bathroom? I have need.
Have you got any toilet paper? I have need of some.


spin

Riverwind

Again, good discussion, and I will agree with you and Ben that you have the more likely reading (and the reading that most Bible translators give). The reason I have brought this reading up as a confusing issue is because I have been reading through the book of Luke in Greek and when I read the verses in question, I initially read them as I translated them here. There was a reason I did this, however. As I mentioned to Ben, I recalled another verse that had "he had need" as a stand-alone phrase. When Ben pointed out the verse in Mark, I realized that it was the parallel in Luke that I had read. So, anyway, this is why I am making an issue of it. It seems like, although you and Ben have the "normal"/"majority" translation, that my translation is not impossible and, in fact, has at least a couple of precedents. Does that make it right? Perhaps not. Who really knows?

Were the verse I mentioned in 1Co a few verses back, I would agree with you. However, complex a context as it is, the verse I mentioned is actually referencing back to the "honor" context. In other words, "the dishonorable parts are honored, but our presentable parts have no need of that honor because they are already honorable/presentable.." And, so most translations have it. If you disagree then it seems that you hold up a minority position for this verse, just as I am for the verse in Luke.

Hmm...I'm not sure how much I buy the intrinsic need vs. extrinsic. Ben's example did have something following the phrase that one would be expected to infer as the object of the phrase. However, I would argue that the donkey, having just been mentioned in the previous verse in Luke, could be the obvious object of reference.

No problem.

But even if the verse were worded "It's {ie. the previously mentioned donkey's} lord has need," then it could mean the same thing. It could also have even more possible meaning.

I haven't adduced many examples for sure. If I find more time, perhaps I'll take a look. You are probably correct, but the "intrinsic need/extrinsic need" sounds a little questionable to me at the moment. Thanks for the effort at providing some sort of marker in the verse to make a decision upon, however.

Nazaroo

You have spoken of the masculinity of the Lord's ass, but have you considered the cuteness of it? I am thinking here for instance of Exodus 33:22-23.

Boro Nut

Well the thing that strikes me most about this story is Jesus' hypocrisy. Considering he had two good legs I think it was a bit cheeky him telling cripples to get off their ass and walk. It's one rule for the supreme beings and another rule for the poor if you ask me.

Boro Nut