Palm Sunday

[Archaea]

brings discussion of Luke 19:33-38:

33As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, ‘Why are you untying the colt?’ 34They said, ‘The Lord needs it.’ 35Then they brought it to Jesus; and after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it. 36As he rode along, people kept spreading their cloaks on the road. 37As he was now approaching the path down from the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power that they had seen, 38saying,
‘Blessed is the king

Note in verse 33 the Greek word for owners or masters is Kurioi, and the word for Lord in 34, Kurios, or singular form of the exact same word. It is suggested that the disciples were suggesting to the "owners" who the true "owner" was.

But what's weird from this story is the omission of any further discussion. You're dealing with a livestock rich culture, a formerly nomadic culture with some agrarian roots, and somebody comes along and takes a Polwn, or young colt with no discussion of payment?

Strange don't you think?

Here's the Greek:

λυόντων δὲ αὐτῶν τὸν πῶλον εἶπαν οἱ κύριοι αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὐτούς τί λύετε τὸν πῶλον 34 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν ὅτι ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει 35 καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἐπιρίψαντες αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια ἐπὶ τὸν πῶλον ἐπεβίβασαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν 36 πορευομένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ὑπεστρώννυον τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ 37 ἐγγίζοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἤδη πρὸς τῇ καταβάσει τοῦ ὄρους τῶν ἐλαιῶν ἤρξαντο ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν μαθητῶν χαίροντες αἰνεῖν τὸν θεὸν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ περὶ πασῶν ὧν εἶδον δυνάμεων 38 λέγοντες εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰρήνη καὶ δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

brings discussion of Luke 19:33-38:



Note in verse 33 the Greek word for owners or masters is Kurioi, and the word for Lord in 34, Kurios, or singular form of the exact same word. It is suggested that the disciples were suggesting to the "owners" who the true "owner" was.

But what's weird from this story is the omission of any further discussion. You're dealing with a livestock rich culture, a formerly nomadic culture with some agrarian roots, and somebody comes along and takes a Polwn, or young colt with no discussion of payment?

Strange don't you think?

Here's my take:

1. This story was recorded decades later so obviously the details themselves and certainly the exact conversation were lost to time.

2. The play on words was a rhetorical tool employed by the written author to emphasize the role Jesus was claiming to his contemporaries.

3. If the donkey was indeed taken without just compensation, the disciples may well have invoked their teacher's name as part of their explanation. Jesus was nearing the end of his ministry, already well known, and his prominence and perceived promise to end the Roman occupation may well have been enough for these owners to grant him the use of their colt.

I know at Easter lessons in the past I've heard that this transaction may have been pre-arranged, the disciples' words simply serving as some kind of verification to the owners that they were entitled to take the donkey on behalf of Jesus.

Mark and Matthew have slightly different accounts of what transpired when the disciples were sent on donkey duty.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Archaea

alternatively, Palm Sunday brings to mind major tornado outbreaks of history

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ind/april111965.php

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Here's my take:

1. This story was recorded decades later so obviously the details themselves and certainly the exact conversation were lost to time.

2. The play on words was a rhetorical tool employed by the written author to emphasize the role Jesus was claiming to his contemporaries.

3. If the donkey was indeed taken without just compensation, the disciples may well have invoked their teacher's name as part of their explanation. Jesus was nearing the end of his ministry, already well known, and his prominence and perceived promise to end the Roman occupation may well have been enough for these owners to grant him the use of their colt.

I know at Easter lessons in the past I've heard that this transaction may have been pre-arranged, the disciples' words simply serving as some kind of verification to the owners that they were entitled to take the donkey on behalf of Jesus.

Mark and Matthew have slightly different accounts of what transpired when the disciples were sent on donkey duty.

They bought a donkey on credit?

If I was in the advertising business and VISA was one of my clients, I'd be all over this. Or MasterCard:

Blankets: 4 mites
Palms: 3 mites
Being King of the Jews: Priceless.

[BarbaraGordon]

Eh, you beat me to it, Il Pad!

I was going to ask whether they used a Jerusalem Express or the Master's Card.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Eh, you beat me to it, Il Pad!

I was going to ask whether they used a Jerusalem Express or the Master's Card.

Master's Card is excellent. You can claim credit - get it? - as well.

[Solon]

Nice find, Archaea.

I think you make a good point with the repetition of kurios. It's a legal word that means master, but also carries a notion of ownership. For instance, in ancient Greece a slaveowner was called the slave's kurios and all (respectable) Athenian women were always under the legal protection and jurisdiction of a male kurios - father, husband, brother, etc.

Whether or not this conversation happened in Greek is unknowable, but Luke definitely wants to characterize the conversation the way that Archaea identifies:

"Hold it right there. We're the kurioi of that colt."

"Oh yeah, well the BIG KURIOS needs it."

Also, polon can mean a young foal, ass, or similar animal. Riding a mule or donkey into Jerusalem was a symbol of kingship for the ancient Hebrews. (see 1 Kings 1.33 and Zechariah 9.9)

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Solon

Nice find, Archaea.

Definitely.

-

Il Pad: Thanks for the joke "credit." I owe you one!

[MikeWaters]

How come no one every pees or takes dumps in the Bible, books, and movies?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Here's my take:

1. This story was recorded decades later so obviously the details themselves and certainly the exact conversation were lost to time.

2. The play on words was a rhetorical tool employed by the written author to emphasize the role Jesus was claiming to his contemporaries.

3. If the donkey was indeed taken without just compensation, the disciples may well have invoked their teacher's name as part of their explanation. Jesus was nearing the end of his ministry, already well known, and his prominence and perceived promise to end the Roman occupation may well have been enough for these owners to grant him the use of their colt.

I know at Easter lessons in the past I've heard that this transaction may have been pre-arranged, the disciples' words simply serving as some kind of verification to the owners that they were entitled to take the donkey on behalf of Jesus.

Mark and Matthew have slightly different accounts of what transpired when the disciples were sent on donkey duty.

I vote for 1. and 2. Nice explanations.