spin

Here's the statement again:

The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately

Two parts:

1. a statement of purpose; and
2. a promise of a swift return.

The statement of purpose is that the lord needs the animal. The text doesn't say "I need the animal." Giving a third person statement in most languages means that a third person is involved. We've established from the LXX that there is cultural heritage regarding the use of the special κυριος indicating that the referent is god. This may have been broken down by the time Mark was written, but is there any evidence for this?--especially when we see the special κυριος at the end of the pericope, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord".

The language context suggests that we read it to mean that the animal serves god's purpose and he will make sure of its return.

We were talking about Paul in the other thread. Here we were talking about Mark.

I saw nothing in your conjecture to justify you saying 'I came up with a good reason for why a biological relationship could be referred to as "brother of the Lord"'. Perhaps you could elucidate in the appropriate thread.

TedM

Nonsense. It would be third person if Jesus himself went and got the colt and then referred to himself as "the Lord".

IF I send someone next door to get sugar and they ask who needs it, and the response is "Bob" needs it, most likely "Bob" refers to me. Common sense dictates that the person who does the sending is the person who needs what is retrieved, and is also the person who will return it. That's what 99% of people would assume. The only reason you interpret it an atypical manner is because of your pre-conceived notion that "the Lord" only means God.

I'm not saying you are wrong, although I think you are. But, your interpretation is way outside of the norm, IMO.

Ok, I'll responded there.

spin

Ummm, if Jesus tells his disciples to tell them that the lord needs it, he is referring to himself in the third person. All you need to do is read the text.

If the church sends you to Africa as a missionary, they might say to tell the Africans that the lord sent you.

...that when you are talking about not common issues common sense is inappropriate.

Who returned the colt?? Crash. Burn.

TedM

Presumably the one who needed to sit on it and who assured them it would be returned.

spin

Not in the text. We do know that the disciples were sent to get the animal. That does suggest that they may have returned it rather than the one who sat on it, so the text not only doesn't support you it suggests that your conclusion isn't right.

You're too used to equating "the lord" with Jesus in christian literature, so you don't read what the texts say. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.

TedM

I didn't mean he returned it himself. He returned it through the disciples, most likely. Sorry wasn't clear. You could be right. I suspect that the only reason you have this view is because you think Mark never referred to Jesus as "the Lord", even though he is referred to as "Lord" in 7:28, and not "Lord of" something. I know you think "Lord" is a title and not a name, but I think "the Lord" is a title too.. so for me there is virtually no difference. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

spin

Just to refresh your memory, in the o.p. I said,

Nobody else in the LXX is referred to in the third person as "the lord".

Mk 7:28, "Yes, lord," she replied. This is the second person. In the parables of Jesus the wealthy man, the man of power is called, "lord". Grammatically, it is the vocative, the form of a noun spoken to a person, frequently found used by people speaking to figures of power in the LXX (translating adonai, which is usually translated as "my lord" though just "lord" κυριε in the LXX). This is detail that I didn't think you would need to give me reason to provide, but like kicking an old habit one clutches at whatever will help one hold on.

In the LXX it's used purely for Yahweh, as a replacement for the name, and obviously derived from the Greek title. However, because of acting as the replacement for the name of god, it has now a name-like usage.

Do you think the early readers saw virtually no difference?

Stop with the lazy "We'll just have to agree to disagree." If you didn't want to think the thing through, why go through any of it?

The normal thing would be, when you send others to do something, to say, "tell them I need it." When Jesus tells them to say "the lord needs it", comfortably reads as though this is all part of god's plan and the animal is needed to fulfill a task in that plan. Just as god's minions appropriate the animal, they will also return it. There is no need to go against the trend set by the LXX and Paul by reading "the lord" here as Jesus. It makes perfect sense, reading it as god.

So, not even here did Mark refer to Jesus in narrative as "the lord".

aa5874

You are too used to equating "the lord" with God in the Septuagint so you forget that Galatians 1.19 is actually in the New Testament.

Now, when you equate the "lord" with God I hope you remember that Apollo and Zeus were considered Lords.

Examine the Lucian's Zeus Tragoedus.

The God Athene addresses Zeus as Lord of Lords.

See http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl3/wl307.htm

Was it Zeus, Apollo, Hermes, or Athene that needed the ASS?

May be it was ASclepius :angry: :banghead:

Surely in antiquity there were many "Lords" equated with Gods even Zeus and Jesus.

But, we know it was prophesied that the LORD Jesus would NEED ASSES according to Matthew!!

Matthew 21The Lord Jesus' ASS riding prophecy is found in Zechariah.

Zechariah 9:9 KJV It was the Lord Jesus that needed the ASSES for his prophesied donkey ride into Jerusalem.

Jesus was LORD when he rode his prophesied ASSES in gMatthew.

TedM

But once you start referring to someone in the second person in such a way "Teacher, what is 'truth'"? , then it is only logical that when you refer to them in the third person you'll put the word "the" before it: "The Teacher told me what 'truth' is".

Using Mark 7:28:

second person:
third person reference to this would be:

While it may be notable that nobody in the the LXX was referred to in the third person as "the Lord", that Psalms passage could have read "God said to the lord", had the context been clear that "the lord" was his earthly "lord" (ie 'my lord).

But in the case of the colt, the context is clear that Jesus needed the colt and that through him it would be returned. You say that he would have simply said 'I need the colt'. The word 'I' doesn't convey the authority that "the Lord" does. In the larger context of Mark Jesus was well known - so much so that the Syrophoenician woman called him Lord. If in the case of the colt the disciples had referred to their Teacher as "the Lord" it would not only be understandable why they should do so, but the background in Mark supports the idea that whoever he got the colt from would know that Jesus was known as "the Lord" -- they too may have addressed him directly as "Lord". When you think of "the Lord" as similar to "the Teacher" or "the Master" none of this is problematic. But when you think that only God can be called "the Lord" it's a problem. But, it's an unnecessary and illogical restriction.



It's notable, but not necessary significant to the point where we can make any meaningful predictions about it. I could also say that simply "Lord" as in 7:28, or the phrase Paul uses repeatedly "the Lord Jesus Christ" ALSO has a 'name-like' usage. You seem to see a wide gulf from going from "Lord" or "the Lord Jesus Christ" or "our Lord" to using "the Lord" in lieu of the name of Jesus. This is because traditionally God is the only one we see evidence of as being referred to as "the Lord". But surely if David or GMARK were to refer to his "my Lord" or "Lord" in the third person, he would say "the Lord"! It's a natural progression. It's normal second person/third person usage! Would he always have to keep saying "my Lord" or something like that in order to avoid any confusion with Yahweh? Of course not -- in reality its a tiny 'leap' to go from the title "Lord" to the title being used in lieu of a name in "the Lord" whenever the CONTEXT makes it clear. Remove the context and I totally agree with you...it would seem blasphemous. Put in the context and it is no big deal.

spin

You're just making things up for your own convenience now, TedM.

And again.

Wrong. I said, what would be normal.

Hmm, funny that, especially when one considers that "the lord" means "god" in the wake of the LXX.

Yup.

If you want to try to string an argument together without evidence into if conjectures, you know where that gets you.

Yes, an evidenceless argument. Next.

When the evidence up to Mk confirms that that was the usage, you have no counteroffer.

Ignoring strong evidence in order to propose conjecture based purely on your own desire:

If you could do so meaningfully, do it and stop pretending.

More of the same conjecture, well, repeating the same desire once again.

If it were normal you could show the precursors to it, but you know that you are speaking plain crap.

Try to put it into context, please, rather than this web of conjecture. I've pointed out that the LXX supports the usage of "the lord" for god and that reflects the earliest christian era. You've shown no evidence to allow you to think any differently here. Is this the stage where you go on self-ban rather than waste more time saying nothing?