Luke 16:19 remains a parable

VIEW:411 DATA:2020-03-20

Some people try in every way to develop that the parable of the rich man and the Lazarus in the book of Luke is literal.

At this point they use totally meaningless analyzes. One is when they read the text.

Luk 16:19 Now there was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen, and every day he was splendidly enjoying himself.

So the person, when reading the term "there", determines that the parable is literal because he considers the term there was, as a symbol of physical existence. Now the term was used for any kind of parable. The parable is still a parable for the term there was. But even so the term (there was), is it really what you are reading?

If we use literal translation, we have:

Luk 16:19 `And - a certain man was rich, and was clothed in purple and fine linen, making merry sumptuously every day, ^[1]
Here he quotes (And a certain man was rich), so the (exist) is not about the man, but about that he was rich. But is this literal version correct?

Let's look at the Greek text.

Luk 16:19 ανθρωπος δε τις ην πλουσιος και ενεδιδυσκετο πορφυραν και βυσσον ευφραινομενος καθ ημεραν λαμπρως ^[2]
We have anthropos (ανθρωπος) [man] of (δε) [one], tis (τις) [right, alquém], which shows that version ^[1] . This is in line with the originals.

We can observe the syntactic forms.

Luk 16:19 ανθρωποςG444 N-NSM δεG1161 CC τιςG5100 X-V-ηνG1510 NSM IAI-3S-πλουσιοςG4145 The NSM καιG2532 IMI CC ενεδιδυσκετοG1737 V-3S-N-πορφυρανG4209 καιG2532 CC ASF ASF ευφραινομενοςG2165 βυσσονG1040 N-V-PPP NSM-PREP καθG2596 ημερανG2250 N-ASF λαμπρωςG2988 ADV
We have anthropes as a noun man, we have (de) genitive giving the characteristic then we have the pronoun (tis). In none of them do we have the verb. then we have the verb (to be) for the term rich. In other words, we have a man who was rich.

Why does it happen? Why the term (there was) appears in one text in front of the term (man) and in the other in front of the term (rich). The translation rules define that the translator tries to facilitate the reading of the text. So the translator didn't see that there is anything so important in the term (there was), because for the translator to say (there was a rich man) and (a man was rich), for the translator it doesn't make much difference. But for someone who determines that the term (there was) is a key point to say that the parable is not a parable. There is a difference.

Now if a translator imagined that the term (there was) would be used to analyze the basis of the text, then he would put the term literally, not in an easy way. The translation rules determine that when translating, there is a weight between the literal form and the form of facilitating reading. So the translator weighs whether it is important to make it more literal, or easier to read.

In the case of the more literal system, we have to have the term (to exist), referring to (to be rich).

The Greek text in question does not vary in codices

T = Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus.
S = Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
B = Byzantine Majority
A = Alexandrian

The written form in question (δε τις ην) such a form exists only twice in the bible once in Luke and once in acts Which literally translates as Act 9:36 And in Joppa there was a certain female disciple, by name Tabitha, (which interpreted, is called Dorcas,) this woman was full of good works and kind acts that she was doing;

Which in Greek it is.

Act 9:36 εν ιοππη δε τις ην μαθητρια ονοματι Bταβηθα TSAταβιθα η διερμηνευομενη λεγεται δορκας αητη ηνητο

We see term again (δε τις ην), we have (ιοππη) Jope, and we have (μαθητρια) {mathetria} disciple,

So (ιοππη δε τις ην μαθητρια) is the term exist for Joppa, or for disciple? (was there Jope) or (was there a disciple)? Now (there was a disciple)

Now let's compare, with Lucas

Thus (ανθρωπος δε τις ην πλουσιος), the term exist is for (man) (ανθρωπος), or for rich (πλουσιος), according to Acts 9:36, Luke 16:19 has to have the term exist falling back to the rich term .

What underlies all the analysis that:

1. The term (to exist) cannot be used to define the complexity of a subject, but its margins and the comparison with other texts.

2. The term (to exist) in a construction (δε τις ην), relates to the next term and not to the previous one.

We can also quote other translations that seek the greatest literalness of the text. Which is only necessary if someone wants to base concepts on a word. In common reading (there was a rich man) or (a man was rich), it would not make any difference, since the term (ην), is not understood as a divisor of theological analysis. But if that is the case, we have the texts:

Luke 16:19 "Now a certain man was rich, and dressed [in] purple cloth and fine linen, feasting sumptuously every day. ^[3]

(now, a certain man was rich)

^[4]

(a certain man was rich)

^[5]

[some man was rich]

The Wycliffe translation cites two modes, the reading mode, and the literal mode. Thus we can conclude that the term (to be, to exist), is related to that the man was rich, and not that he was man.

In a translation the translator can make choices, like the term (τις), ^[1] translates as the term (right), ^[5] uses ignoring the term in the form of reading and putting the term (someone) in the literal form. The point is that the idea of ​​the phrase generates the concept that the man is indeterminate because (τις) G5100 X-NSM (tis) X - indefinite pronoun NSM (nominal noun masculine), thus a term that is masculine indefinite pronoun, that manages the idea in the text can be placed.

For example, in the text of Acts 9:36 we have the same construction (δε τις ην) as Luke 16:19, but in none of them does the term (right) appear.

Version: Português: João Ferreira de Almeida Revised and Updated
Acts 9:36 There was a disciple in Joppa by the name Tabita, a name that, translated, means Dorcas; she was notable for her good works and alms.

Version: English: New Translation in Today's Language
Acts 9:36 In the city of Joppa there was a follower of Jesus named Tabitha. (This Greek name is Dorcas.) She spent all her time doing good and helping the poor.

Updated version: English: João Ferreira de Almeida
Acts 9:36 There was in Joppa a disciple by the name Tabita, which translated means Dorcas, who was full of good works and alms she did.

Version: Portuguese: João Ferreira de Almeida Corrected and Revised, Faithful
Acts 9:36 And there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which translated is called Dorcas. It was full of good works and alms he did.

Version: Portuguese: New International Version
Acts 9:36 In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabita, who in Greek is Dorcas [40], who dedicated herself to doing good works and giving alms.

So in a translation the idea that this is an undefined preposition, as the term (one) is enough.

In conclusion, we have to use a term to manage a parable or describe a concept is a totally wrong action. The textual analyzes must be comparative, with several other texts and connected with all the complexity of the books that are considered as foundation. The lack of knowledge of the proper Greek, Hebrew analyzes, and the meaning of the various translations, make people suppose concepts that are not correct, for not knowing how such things are done.

So before creating or generating an ideology, keep in mind to understand all the factors linked to this ideology, and whether the foundation of the analysis (Greek and Hebrew) supports your position. Always involving the concepts of Thesis, and the antithesis of different texts.

Knowing that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus remains a parable.

1. Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by JN Young, 1862, 1898 (Author of the Young's Analytical Concordance)

2. Greek New Testament with variants identified and tagged for reference to source of transmission and schools of emphasis.

3. Lexham English Bible LEB - The LEB complements your primary translation with its transparent design and literal rendering. It helps you see the text of God's Word from another angle.

4. Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE) - The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear ™ New Testament (MOUNCE) Copyright © 2011 by Robert H. Mounce and William D. Mounce. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. - “Reverse-Interlinear” is a trademark of William D. Mounce.

5. Wycliffe Bible (WYC) - 2001 by Terence P. Noble

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores