spin

Content carried back from a discussion of Paul's use of κυριος.

This in no way implies that Jesus is the one referred to here as "the lord". He is expressing god's need. There are easier ways to say what you want the writer to have said, eg 'Say "My lord has need of it"' or 'Say "My master has need of it"' or 'Say "Jesus has need of it"', etc. Sadly the writer doesn't support your desired reading.

I don't see the relevance.

I don't believe either Mark or Luke was written by a single writer. The evidence so firmly counsels against such a simplification. But Mark doesn't support your claim about it anyway, as you seem to have failed to understand your one hope. Without a single authorship of Luke, we have different uses of terminology where the writer of the birth narrative can use "lord" as one would expect of someone whose cultural heritage is that of the LXX usage. At what stage of the composition of Luke did the first use of the special κυριος get incorporated in the text?

TedM

That's quite a stretch there spin. Jesus sent the disciples to get the colt. God didn't. Jesus told them if questioned to assure them that it will be sent back. Are we to think the disciples were supposed to tell them that God would send the colt back? While that's possible it is a stretch. The most literal reading is that since Jesus rode on the colt, he was the one who needed it and would return it. Geez.. Here's the passage:


In 2 other places in Mark Jesus is clearly referred to as Lord. It's no big stretch to insert a 'the' even though you seem to think it is. If one is to refer to a master directly one says "Master". If it is indirect one says "the Master". What's the complication here?






Just pointing out that Jesus and God aren't one and the same -- similar conception that Paul had.


Ok

spin

I guess you need the exercise.

There's no implication of this in the text. You made it up.

There's no notion of sending it back. There is a greater purpose for the ass's colt, foreordained by the lord.

Yup, geez.

Referring to Jesus as lord is irrelevant here unless it is the special κυριος.

If it looks like the special κυριος then we have to treat it as such.

TedM

?? What part of "immediately he will send it back here" means there is 'no notion of sending it back'?

Calling it 'special' doesn't make it so.

Toto

Could someone clarify what this means?

I know the original did not have punctuation - but this reads as if the disciples are to say "the Lord has need of it." They are not to say it will be returned - that is what Jesus says, meaning that the colt will be immediately sent back to Jesus ("here") once the name of the Lord is invoked ??

andrewcriddle

There is a textual issue in Mark 11:3 if PALIN back is original (as in NA) then it means Jesus will return the colt immediately. If PALIN is omitted (as in TR compare Matthew) then it means that the colt will be sent immediately to Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

spin

There is no notion of sending it back involved in the use of kurios. Mentioning that the lord has need of the animal is a rationale for taking the ass's colt. You've invented the connection.

Are you the same person who showed understanding earlier the distinction between the usual usage and the special usage of kurios, ie in lieu of a name? If so, how is this case not an example of special kurios?

TedM

I didn't invent it. The text says 'send it back'. see Andrews post.

You missed the nuance. But, I consider "the Lord Jesus Christ" to be 'in lieu' of the name "Jesus". As such "the Lord" is not all that 'special'.

spin

Fuck this is getting annoying. You overtly made a connection between sending the animal back and Jesus saying "tell him the lord needs it." You saw it as an assurance. That is what you invented.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Either you've stopped understanding the terminology in play or you are not the same person I was talking to earlier.

TedM

Yes, I'm annoyed too that you can't see what seemed so obvious to me, even if I mis-interpreted it. IF you take out all quotes it reads as though Jesus tells them to tell the people that the Lord (Jesus) needs it, and that he will return it immediately when he is finished with it ("and immediately he will send it back here". 'Here' is the location the disciples would be at when they say this--ie where they got the colt from). Why did you act like you couldn't even fathom where I got this interpretation from, when that would be the most obvious way 99% of people would read it?



It was more of a snide remark. Nothing serious. No, believe me, I know that 'the Lord' is used for God overwhelmingly by Paul, and only in a few places do we see it used for Jesus. While that MAY be helpful in the analysis, it also may mean nothing. Even though we may say there is a 70% chance of rain today the reality is that either it rains (100%) or it doesn't(0%). Since I came up with a good reason for why a biological relationship could be referred to as "brother of the Lord" which would render the 'normal' linguistic usage by Paul irrelevant, it may be that the odds you might see (90-100% that it means 'God') are based on a false assumption that Paul was following his own linguistic rules. It might well be that the importance of the linquistic analysis of "the Lord" in Paul is 0%.