Loading...Here is an interesting question I have received closely connected with the work I’ve been doing on the different views about the afterlife – what happens to us when we die? – in the early Christian tradition. It has to do with a key verse that has been much debated over the years, a verse found only in Luke’s Gospel, in which Jesus assures the “robber” being crucified with him, that he will that day awaken in paradise. Or *is* that what Jesus says?
QUESTION
Now that you mention about the differences in translations I would like to ask about how the Jehovah’s witnesses in their New World Translation bible Luke 23:43: And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.” They have inserted a comma after today because their bias is that the paradise is in the future not the day Jesus died. Besides their bias do you see any other indication that that rendition would be probable?
RESPONSE:
In my book I try to show that Luke has changed many of the teachings of Jesus as found in our earlier Gospel, Mark (and as found on the lips of the historical Jesus himself, in all probability) – in particular Luke has taken Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings that the end of all human history was to be brought to a crashing halt within the lifetime of his disciples and made them refer to things that would happen *later*, only after his disciples had died. I call this the “deapocalypticization” of Jesus teachings, the making of them less apocalyptic. But not completely “non” apocalyptic).
Luke still believes in a future Day of Judgment, even if, to some extent, he Jesus does not pronounce as strongly the immediate end of all things. But what is most significant is that, unlike the historical Jesus himself, who focused exclusively on the coming Kingdom of God as the time when the righteous would be rewarded with eternal life, Luke maintains that eternity begins immediately at a person’s death. Like Paul (as I will be arguing in my book) , but even more emphatically, Luke thinks that when a believer in Jesus dies, they go straight to heaven.
Nowhere is this indicated more clearly than in his account of Jesus’ own crucifixion. While he is hanging on the cross, Jesus has a brief conversation with one of the two robbers crucified beside him, who makes a request: “Remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Luke 23:42). This criminal is imagining that there will be a future event that could bring him salvation. But Jesus subtly corrects him with his famous saying, found only in Luke,: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (23:43). Remarkable words. The man will enter paradise immediately at the point of death. He does not need to wait for some future apocalyptic event, the coming of Christ’s kingdom.
Some readers over the years have suggested this saying of Jesus should be punctuated differently (hence this question), on the understanding that ancient Greek manuscripts did not use any punctuation at all, which is therefore supplied by modern translators. If we move the comma, then Jesus was instead saying: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.” In that case, Jesus was not telling the man that they will both end up in paradise that very day, as soon as the pain has ended.
On the surface this might make sense, but there are very good arguments against it. On one hand, on the very basic level, this understanding actually does not make any sense. If Jesus is talking to the man and telling him something about paradise, why would he indicate that he was saying it to him on that particular day? What other day would he be saying it?
But possibly more important, in Luke’s Gospel the word “today” is used some dozen times. In every case it indicates the day on which something significant is happening, often something involving salvation (e.g. 2:11; 4:21; 13:32-33; 19:9). It never, ever indicates simply the day on which something is said to be about to happen. And why would it? Here too, Jesus is saying something important will be happening on that very day: this other man (and Jesus) will soon be in Paradise.
The idea that paradise becomes available to the follower of Jesus immediately upon death for Luke is confirmed in his second volume in the account of the first Christian martyr, Stephen. Stephen has just antagonized his Jewish opponents by delivering a rather hostile long sermon (most of Acts 7), at the end of which he looks up to heaven and declares that he sees “the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God”(Acts 7:56). The Jewish leaders are incensed, thinking he has committed blasphemy, and in a mob effort break out the stones to execute him on the spot. Just before he dies, Stephen cries out “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (7:59). Again, that last word is pneuma. Stephen’s pneuma now will go to heaven to reside with the Lord when his body perishes.
This is Greek-influenced theology, less like the Jewish apocalyptic notion that eternity comes only at the end of time with the resurrection of the body. Rewards come to the righteous immediately at death. One does not need to wait for the coming apocalypse.
If you were a member of the blog, you could get posts like this just about every day — five days a week! Membership fees are not much — about two bucks a month — and every buck goes to charity. So why not join?
What Jesus said while being crucified of course grants it more weight. Even while hanging on the cross, he did not relent on the promise of salvation. The significance of the word “today” could underline the credibility that even modern law confers to deathbed confessions. While not conclusive, it does provide important context from all other instances where the word appears.
Very, very interesting. Thanks
Just considered in isolation, does the Greek sentence admit of the ambiguity?
και ειπεν αυτω αμην σοι λεγω σημερον μετ εμου εση εν τω παραδεισω
Yes, as you show, there was no punctuation in ancient manuscript (or even word divisions!), so editors have to decide the appropriate punctuation. In this case I think the case is pretty clear where the adverb goes, once punctuated correctly. (You have to base the decisions on context and exegesis generally)
English has word order available as a means of making semantic distinctions, but did Koine? I.e., if the σημερον adverb had been moved to a different place in the sentence, would it have been clearer whether it was modifying the “tell” or the “will be”?
Word order is much less important in Greek. The adverb could show up in a variety of places and still signify teh same thing.
Were there no non-Christian Jewish writer at any time during Hellenistic Judaism who espoused the view that eternity or post-mortem rewards begins immediately after death?
Yes, there were Jews who thought this. I’ll be laying out the evidence in my book.
The accounts of Jesus’ interaction with the two other condemned men have always fascinated me. Two questions:
1. Mark and Matthew have both men mocking Jesus. Did Luke modify Mark’s account for his own purposes, or could there have been sources with an alternate tradition (either oral or written)?
2. The other condemned are variously referred to in English translations as criminals, bandits, or insurgents. Could they have been petty criminals (e.g., burglars or pickpockets), or zealots who had defied Roman authority? Did Rome apply capital punishment for crimes other than sedition or treason?
Thanks
a. Luke probably altered the accoutns for his purposes; b. The term used for them in Greek suggests guerilla warriors opposing the Roman authorities.
“…Luke thinks that when a believer in Jesus dies…”
Its fals, sorry. Not “IN Jesus”, but “IN Christ”. Its very improtant difference. Paul never said “IN Jesus” only “In Christ”, therefore Luke either.
Your genial translation/exegezis (1Cor 11:23-24, the ‘paradidomi’ problem) we can understand this. According to Paul, Jesus died at the night, when he took the bread. Jesus (as Son of God) not on the cross died. Luke wants to say the same thing.
Luke many place change. I show three:
1. It happened in Gethsemane (Luk22:44)
2. Splitting the trim ( before Jesus death the split of carpet)
3. the centurion’s words at the cross (Luk23:47)
When Jesus died, he became a man (as antropos in Fil2:6-8). Therefore the Jesus it is not the son of God on the cross, at Luke. Same like Paul.
The Christ, is not Jesus, according to Paul, the Christ is not a person. The Christ God’s revealing secret, at the Paul. Anyone can see, who were baptized into Christ. In the mirror. Certainly. (2Cor10:12; 2Cor10:7; 1Kor13:12 here the new man, was hidden because the Christ).
In any event, there is no reason to think Jesus said anything to the thieves, or they to him. In Mark, they neither praise nor mock him–they are just hanging there on each side of him, dying the same death as him, which is Mark’s point–the Messiah nobody recognized in life is dying the same death as two common thieves.
People getting chatty while they’re being done to death in a protracted and unpleasant way might also be said to be a Greek thing. Anybody really believe Socrates was debating philosophy after ingesting what was meant to be a fatal dose of hemlock poison?
Googling the symptoms–
//Common symptoms of hemlock poisoning may include:
trembling
burning in the digestive tract
increased salivation
dilated pupils
muscle pain
muscle weakness or muscle paralysis
rapid heart rate followed by a decreased heart rate
loss of speech
convulsions
unconsciousness or coma//
Yeah, he could have talked for a bit, but Plato wasn’t even there, and nobody was writing it down that we know of.
However, to a Greek of philosophic bent (and I think you could say that includes the Greek-speaking Luke), it really matters how you face death. It may be the most important moment of your life–the final test. If you have a few moments of consciousness before the end, you should say and/or do something of significance, that illustrates who you were in life, what you were really about.
To Luke, it would be horrifying to think Jesus’ last words were an anguished complaint to God–worse than anything Job said under far more trying circumstances.
While the Old Testament is full of people meeting death bravely, they don’t tend to get very talkative while dying. It’s not a philosophic moment. Jesus’ lament in Mark is in that tradition (in fact, if he did say it, drawn directly from scripture). Jews call out to God, implore Him for mercy, forgiveness, or an explanation, at least.
In the Greek-speaking world Luke came from, you’re supposed to say something profound, to indicate your self-possession in the face of the ultimate catastrophe.
Wow how could I have miss this:
“If Jesus is talking to the man and telling him something about paradise, why would he indicate that he was saying it to him on that particular day? What other day would he be saying it?”
That really made me laugh because it is true.
>at the end of which he looks up to heaven and declares that he sees “the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God”(Acts 7:56).<
Do you think this counts as fulfilling the prophecy in Matthew 16:28?
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
I don’t think Luke sees it that way, no. He doesn’t see the kingdom of God but Jesus in heaven.
Let me see if I have this straight. I used to think early Christianity faced a considerable problem in transitioning from “all who believe shall be resurrected and enter the kingdom when it comes” to “the kingdom will be some time in coming, but all who believe will to to heaven.” Now I see that the transition was not that drastic and difficult to make, because Luke and even Paul (as early as five years after the crucifixion?) already held that “all who believe will go straight to heaven to join Jesus before he makes his return.” “Going to heaven when you die” was a part of the Christian gospel as conceived in early days by Paul and, presumably, others. Though the imminent coming of the kingdom did have to be somehow dispensed with, going to heaven when you die (if you believe) was there even in Paul’s teaching. And going to heaven for all eternity is a pretty good deal for the individual, even if the world and the individual’s time there isn’t transformed–even if the parousia is delayed indefinitely.
Have I got this straight now?
Yes, I would say the delay of the resurrection led to the idea of an interim state, which led then to the idea of postmortem rewards and punishments for all.
An obvious further question: was Jesus also a “straight to heaven” man? Or was it instead “we rot till the day of judgment/resurrection comes”?
My sense is that he didn’t think there would be much rotting, because the kingdom was coming sometime next month.
Is there any significance to the fact that the author used πνεῦμα instead of ψυχή to refer to the soul?
Much debated whether they are synonymous — it depends which author is involved. TEchnically the first means spirit and the other soul.
Perhaps then, Bart, you could share with us here in the blog your argument that Paul “thinks that when a believer in Jesus dies, they go straight to heaven”?
Many thanks! 🙂
Ah, it’s a long section in my forthcoming book! (But see Philippians 1:21-24)
It seems inconsistent for me to see how Paul would have changed his thinking that “believers in Jesus” go straight to heaven by what he wrote in Philippians. Paul wrote earlier in great detail about the transformation from an earthly body into a spiritual body only when Jesus returns. If Paul had changed his mind, would a simple statement be all that he would make? Would he not make a much stronger statement for people to believe in Jesus so that they could immediately be with Jesus upon their death? Perhaps Paul later began thinking that he (only Paul) was important enough to go directly to heaven upon his death (similar to what took place with Jesus).
He still very much believed in a transformation of the body — even (explicitly) in Philippians. But he also came to think that a believer would not be bereft of Christ’s presence if s/he died before it happened.
Dr. Ehrman, are you saying that when Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 that “For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first”, the dead would have already been in the presence of Christ, before they rise?
Apparently.
Did the message change to imediately going to heaven upon death due to the apocalypse not happening and people were dying?
Yup, that’s the shortest story!
How confident are we that we know what Luke meant by “paradise”? Do you think he had the same cosmology in mind as Paul, i.e., the “third Heaven”?
Thanks
He gives no indication he knows of multiple heavens, no. Paradise is a standard term for the eternal place of blessing for the righteous who have died.
1 of 2
My hypothesis — and, as far as I can tell, I’m the only one who thinks this — is that Jesus and his immediate Jewish followers believed that there were, at minimum, two types of “saved” people, but more likely three types. The first type were what Jesus and his followers called the Qodeshim, or “The Saints” as they’re called in scripture. These were especially holy men and women, such as the Patriarchs and Matriarchs and prophets of Jewish history, like Abraham and Jacob. Also included in “The Saints” were martyrs to the messianic cause, such as the seven sons martyred in 2 Maccabees.
Jesus’s followers probably believed that Jesus became a member of The Saints upon his martyrdom and that they, too, would become “Saints” via their connection to him. As part of their higher status, these Saints gained two benefits that are significant to this discussion. First, when they die their souls immediately go to be with God in heaven, and their souls remain with God until the Resurrection, at which point they can skip the line for Judgment, so-to-speak, and get a VIP ticket straight to Paradise. This is what I think Luke and Paul are referring to (think Rapture).
2 of 2
As to the other two types of “saved” people, they are called the Tzaddiqim and the Tzaddiqim ha-Goyim, or “The Righteous” and “The Righteous Among the Nations”. The first group are Jews saved because they have repented (think John the Baptist) or they have followed the Torah to the T, etc. They aren’t necessarily Christians of even followers of Jesus. They are simply Jews who have remained faithful to the God of Israel. The Righteous Among the Nations are similar except that they are not Jews. They are those gentiles that the Jews called “God-fearers” or they could simply be gentile allies of the Jews who help fight against the enemies of God and the Jews.
However, The Righteous are treated differently after death. For one, their souls don’t immediately go to be with God. Rather, they remain trapped here on earth (think of the classic ghost story). Also, they will have to stand in line at the Judgment with everyone else, and if judged righteous, they are saved to live in the new paradise on earth, ruled by The Saints. Paul’s re-interpretation of the Righteous Among the Nations seems to be that he allowed for non-Jews to be included within the first group of The Saints without having to actually become Jews simply by becoming followers of Jesus. That is, gentile Christians become Qodeshim via Jesus’s martyrdom the same way Jesus’s disciples became Qodeshim by remaining “faithful” to Jesus.
If you interpret everything I’ve said here back into the New Testament, it should all start to make a lot more sense.
interesting, Around the time I stopped believing I came to a similar conclusion based on reading revelations, and the times where jesus spoke to the rich, young, ruler.
Doesn’t the idea that Jesus would be in paradise that Friday contradict the harrowing of hell?
Maybe he went to both? That way he could have said to the other criminal: “I’ll see you in hell!”
Yes, Luke does not have a tradition of the Harrowing of Hell. And the texts that do have a tradition of teh harrowing of hell do not have this tradition from Luke.
Isn’t there a thought that Jesus went to hell for three days, then rose from the dead to go to heaven (Apostle’s creed)? If so how could he also be in paradise with the robber?
The traditions of his descent to hell are not found in Luke, and Luke’s tradition of him going straight to paradise aer not found in the traditions of his harrowing of hell.
The word Luke uses for paradise, ‘paradeisos’ (the origin of the English word), is derived from a Persian term for pleasure garden. When does the word come to connote an idealized place after death? Does this derive from Jewish philosophy?
It came to be used of the “original” garden — the Garden of Eden; afterlife was imagined as being a return to the life of Eden.
Yes, I know that ‘paradeisos’ is used to describe the Garden of Eden in the Septuagint. When is its earliest attestation as a reference to an afterlife?
That’s a great and relevant question! And off hand I don’t know!!
The Book of Enoch uses “Eden” (paradise) in an apparent reference to a “heavenly” paradise – chptrs 23, 24. Those chapters MAY have been written as early as 300 BCE — but, I think the work is generally dated between 200-170BCE. There are also Talmudic references to paradise, but, I’m not sure if any of those can be reliably dated.
You’ll find mention of paradise in the Erza-Esdras books, but, in those writings, “paradise” seems almost to refer to an “experience” of an Eden-like existence, and not necessarily having anything to do with the afterlife.
I think it’s important that one understands that in Jewish thought, it was only natural that the “desirable state to return to” (whether it applied on a nationalist or personal level) was the primitive “Eden” experience of Adam and Eve.
And, for this reason, I personally think it is a HUGE mistake to think of “Paradise” as the name of a place, but rather, the Title given an experience.
In the Talmud, Rab writes “In paradise there is no eating, no drinking, no cohabitation, no business, no envy, no hatred or ambition; but the righteous sit with crowned heads and enjoy the luster of the Shekinah, as it is written: ‘They saw God and did eat and drink'”
I mentioned in another post that Jesus said to the thief, “you will be *with me* in paradise”; Stephen cried out “Jesus, receive my spirit (ie, *with you*); Paul said “…absent from the body… present *with Jesus*”.
In the Talmud, Rab likened simply being “with God” as to be (essentially) equal to all experience of eating, drinking, cohabitation, etc… And, it may be that this is the type of Rabbinic thought that was being expressed in being “with Jesus” at death: to be with Jesus in death was to experience “paradise”.
Anyway, it seems that “paradise” as an afterlife concept came into play after – or perhaps even during – the Babylonian captivity, but as best as I can make out, the earliest reference to it as an afterlife concept is in Enoch. But – even there, that just represents (perhaps) the earliest usage of the term “paradise” as a reference to an afterlife experience; that afterlife experience may well have been referred to with other “titles” that we just don’t know about.
Dr Ehrman –
You said “Yes, I would say the delay of the resurrection led to the idea of an interim state, which led then to the idea of postmortem rewards and punishments for all.”
What “delay” do you mean?
The Jews (ie, Pharisees) that believed in a resurrection clearly had a concept of an “interim state” long before any NT writers wrote about it – Paradise was already a part of Jewish thought before the time of Jesus. After all, the idea of a “resurrection at the Last Day”, in itself, absolutely *requires* some concept of an interim state, because that resurrection wasn’t going to happen until the Last Day, which could have been a long, long time in the future. A “resting place for the righteous” – Paradise or Abrahams Bosom – was already a given by the first century. So, how could there be any “delay”, when there was no set expectation as to exactly when the resurrection was going to happen in the first place?
Or – are you saying that a delay in the “imminent resurrection” that early Christians believed in somehow led to an “interim state”, and ideas of post-mortem reward and punishment? If so, that would be a total disregard for the fact that an “interim state”, including Paradise, was already part of the after-death paradigm.
So, what delay are you talking about? I guess I just need some clarification here…
I mean that at the outset, the followers of Jesus thought the end of time was to arrive immediately, and that the dead would be raised (some time next month). When it didn’t happen right away, there was a “delay.” And that forced them to rethink many of their key beliefs.
OK. That’s what I thought you meant. Only, I don’t get it. The “interim” wasn’t somehow invented as something of Christian doctrine. It was always understood by the Pharisaic-types, even before Jesus came along, that there was an “interim”: people were going to die before the Last Day (the day of resurrection), so there was always that interim period. The concept of “paradise” basically just replaced (or augmented) Sheol (Hades). It was as Jewish thought turned toward the resurrection concept that such notions as “paradise” (as part of an afterlife belief) got developed in the first place.
Early Jesus-believers may have been dismayed that “the Last Day” hadn’t come as quick as they thought, and it may have led them to lean more heavily on the already-present ideas of “paradise”, but, I don’t see that there were any new “Christian doctrinal inventions” there, except one:
Jesus says “…today you’ll be *with me* in paradise”. Stephen cries out “Jesus, recieve my spirit” (so it’s *with you*). Paul says “..absent from the body, present with Christ”. Jesus didn’t die and go to the Netherworld of Sheol; he inhabits paradise. But, the idea that the “righteous” would go to paradise was already an established Jewish thought. And, therefore, believers would be *with Jesus*.
Or, at least, that’s how it looks to me. 🙂 I’d totally agree that the notions that most Christians have of Heaven and Hell, as they’re thought of today, are a lot more Greek – like, when you die, you “go to Heaven and get your reward”, as if “you” are just a “spirit being that once inhabited a body”. Consequently, “resurrection” is reduced to an afterthought, rather than being an absolute necessity for a “living soul” – a body plus a spirit – to actually experience not only an afterlife itself, but also, judgement.
In short, I don’t see how the later-than-expected Last Day caused any re-thinking that would be the *cause* of an “interim” invention; that already existed in common Pharisaic thought regarding the resurrection. It was a given. The later-than-expected advent of the Apocalypse could certainly have caused other changes, but, I fail to see how it could have led to an “interim” idea when that already existed anyway.
Or not. You tell me. 🙂
By “interim” I don’t mean simply that there was a time gap. there was, of course, always a time gap. I mean that the person *during* the time gap was already experiencing a reward or punishment. That is not something Jesus talked about. Paul at first didn’t either, until time dragged on and he had to explain that the dead were not simply unconscious. I give a fuller explanation in my book.
I feel certain that, given the scant biblical info offered at all regarding “what happens when you die”, someone can make a case for just about any position regarding what happens during that “interim period”.
Bart, so I understand this right, as I’m reading your book Heaven and Hell, do you think Luke’s reference to paradise would then be Abraham’s bosom? I believe you refer to this as the thief obtaining heaven.
I ask as later in your book you quote Justin Martyr about “so-called Christians” who believe in immediate heaven and hell as not being Christians at all. Did Martyr condemn a view that was in Luke or is Luke just calling Abraham’s bosom paradise?
Luke has teh story of Abraham’s bosom (in Lazarus and the RIch man) and the saying about being in Paradise (at the crucifixion); these probably came to him from different sources, and he treats them differently: the first is a parable and the other is meant as a literal description. So I suppose he imagined they were the same, but he doesn’t give any clear indication. It’s not clear how influenced Justin was by the Gospel of Luke: he doesn’t ever quote it as sacred SCripture, e.g., so I don’t know if he was intimately familiar with it or not.
“Like Paul (as I will be arguing in my book) , but even more emphatically, Luke thinks that when a believer in Jesus dies, they go straight to heaven.”
So Paul believed people would go to heaven immediately after death? But he also believed Jesus would establish his kingdom on earth, didn’t he? So he believed some people would live in heaven and others on earth in Jesus’ kingdom? Would anyone be resurrected to the earthly kingdom, or would they remain in heaven, in Paul’s opinion? How did that work exactly?
Yup, these are teh puzzles that have to be solved! I try to explain it all in my book.
I’m new to the blog (I actually joined because I heard this post read in your podcast and was hoping to pose a couple question regarding it). Other verses in the Bible such as Deut 6:6 “These words which I am commanding you today shall be on your heart” use the word today as a manner of expression implying that the promise was made on a certain day and would surely be kept. Does this have any bearing on interpreting use of “today”? Also Matt said “the Son of man will be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth” indicating Jesus did not go to some paradise that day so how could the word “today” spoken to the criminal have pertained to that specific day? Thanks.
1. Deut 6:6 is making the point I was trying to make: he’s emphazising the actino that was happening *that day*. 2. Yes, that’s a very important point: Luke doesn’t have the same view of things as the other Gospels, and uses traditions unavailable to Matthew.
I was looking at this text again and was wondering about something. Christians believed that Jesus was raised from the dead at the third day, considering that it is unlikely that the historical Jesus said the words in verse 43, why would christians put the words “today you will be with me in paradise” instead of something such as “at the third day you will be with me in paradise”?
Right! It’s because in *this* view Jesus went to paradise immediately at death! He came back to life from there.
Ok I see now that that was the christians’ believed at the moment that Jesus went to paradise immediately but why then did the writer of Luke write in chapter 24:46 that Jesus was raised on the third day as it was written? Was the writer maybe just passing on an older tradition? But how couldn’t he had seen the contradiction with his believe that on the same day Jesus went to paradise?
He thought Jesus died. Went to paradise in the spirit. Came back into his body on the third day and was raised from the dead.
The punctuation gives rise to a contradiction with John 20:17. Can it be said that Jesus on that very day went to heaven after his death on the cross and if yes then, assuming that Father is in heaven as well.
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.
With emphasis on “not yet” the question arises did Jesus make a round trip or not?
Could you please comment on this.
Yeah, looks like a round trip, since later he tells Thomas precisely to touch him!
The phrase “I say unto you this day” (or “…today”) is “a common Hebrew idiom which is constantly used for very solemn emphasis” (E. W. Bullinger, Appendix 173, from The Companion Bible). Thus, it would not have been that unusual for Jesus to have said, “Truly I say to you today…” instead of applying the word “today” to the phrase which followed. His statement to the dying thief would certainly constitute a declaration with “solemn emphasis”. Curtis Dickinson wrote, “The Greek adverb here rendered ‘today’ appears in the Septuagint and the New Testament 221 times. In 170 of these places the adverb follows the verb it modifies. For example: ‘I declare to you this day, that ye shall surely perish’ (Deut. 30:18). Therefore, it would be natural to punctuate Luke 23:43 as follows: ‘Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.’ Paul uses a similar turn of phrase in Acts 20:26 — ‘I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men'” (The Witness, Vol. 30, No. 8, August 1990).
Thanks! Yes, the issue is not so much how the phrase gets used elsewhere but how Luke uses adverbs, and what makes sense in his context. When the word “today” in the NT 221 times it is usually as a noun, not an adverb, and I’m afraid the citation of Acts 20:26 just doesn’t work precisely because the grammar / wording are not at all the same — there “today” is indeed a noun that is the object of a preposition, not an adverb modifying a verb.
disabledupes{3297cfb804bc12812cb27c4ec24ce263}disabledupes
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Do you think it’s historical that Jesus was crucified *next* to *two* robbers/lestoi?
Why would the Gospels invent a thing like that?
Thanks
Some scholars have suggested that it may have been invented to be yet one more fulfillment of Isa. 53 (v. 12) and / or Psalm 22 (v. 16)