Acts 2:46 daily common meal? Laurence Schell laurenceschell at yahoo.co.uk Wed May 14 17:55:56 EDT 2003  ASQENESTERWi in 1Peter 3  Acts 2:46 daily common meal? To the list members: Does kaq in Acts 2:46: kaq hmeran te proskarterountes omoqumadon en tw ierw, klwntes te kat oikon arton, metelambanon trofhs en agalliasei kai…
 “The Passion” and Koine Greek James Jackson jajackso at excite.com Wed Sep 17 16:11:05 EDT 2003 WARNING:  petros/ptr homonym to petros/keph  “The Passion” and Koine Greek Mel Gibson has made a film (scheduled for release ca. Easter 2004) called The Passion. He stated that he wanted it to be historically accurate and…
Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu Tue May 11 06:30:28 EDT 1999 Greek Vocabulary Builder Mark 3.1 At Acts. 1:10 POREUOMENOU AUTO is consistently taken as a genitiveabsolute with temporal connotation “as He went up” (NKJV). It seems abit awkward since the verse already has a temporal expression hWSATENIZONTES. My question: could…
 Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Tue Apr 27 17:11:28 EDT 2004  Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament_  Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive? Forwarded for: “Hessel + Coby Visser” <hessel.visser at sil.org>To: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>Subject: Acts 2:17 dream: deponens…
Acts 20:28 Whose blood? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Tue Mar 30 11:38:27 EST 1999 the usage of PROGINOSKW in 1 Pet 1:2&20 Perseus fonts From: GregStffrd at aol.comDate: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:33:15 ESTTo: cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduCc: church at elp.rr.com, at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Subject: Re: Acts 20:28 Whose blood?Since I discuss this text at length…
 Acts 17,16 Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com Thu Apr 1 22:54:59 EST 2004  Deponents (was 2nd aorsit … FOLLOW UP)  Acts 17,16 EN DE TAIS AQHNAIS EKDECOMENOU AUTOUS TOU PAULOU,PARWXUNETO TO PNEUMA AUTOU EN AUTWi QEWROUNTOSKATEIDWLON OUSAN THN POLINWallace lists OUSAN as “indirect discourse” perParsons/Culy (I don’t have the source they…
APAGW in ACTS 12:19 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net Sat Jul 4 08:32:54 EDT 1998 Jn.3:8 PNEUMA, PNEI, FONHN Wisdom of Sirach The most common way to understand the phrase EKELEUSEN APACQHNAI in Acts 12:19is that Herod gave an order for the guards to be executed. I don’t think thelexical evidence or the…
IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net Mon Jul 13 15:00:00 EDT 1998 Taped NT Rom. 1:4 EN DUNAMEI adverbial or adjectival F.F. Bruce suggests rather tentatively that John (Mark) might have beenperforming a service somewhat beyond that of a water boy when he was with Pauland Barnabas in SALAMINI. The…
Pat Ferguson wrote:
ΑΠΟΦΕΡΕΣΘΑΙ (αποφερεσθαι) appears in some mss (P38 P74 01 02 03 08 33 323 945 1175 1241 1739; cp. N-A²⁸), and EPIΦΕΡΕΣΘΑΙ (επιφερεσθαι) appears in other source documents (05 18 020 044 424 614 1505).
Also, αποφερεσθαι appears in the translations of Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles at Acts 19:12. But επιφερεσθαι is seen in TR, and in the works of Griesbach and Scholz. Both words are pres. inf. pass. according to Moulton, Analytical Greek Lexicon-Revised (Bagster & Sons, London 1977; Zondervan, Grand Rapids 1978).
Personally, I read Acts 19:12 to say something like: so that even handkerchiefs or aprons from his skin were brought [and applied]* to those who were sick.
* Cp. Moulton, et al.
I assume by “translations of Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles” you are referring to their edited critical texts of the NT.
Looks like the New Living Translation is in agreement with my reading ot the text in Bezae. I am sure they didn’t use Bezae as their vorlage. The idea being a transfer of some object which made physical contact with the miracle worker to physical contact with the person needing the miracle.
Acts 19:12 NLT When handkerchiefs or aprons that had merely touched his skin were placed on sick people, they were healed of their diseases, and evil spirits were expelled. Source: BibleGateway
It seems to me this is the plain meaning of the text, not a fanciful extrapolation.
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — January 11th, 2014, 9:54 pm
I am questioning whether the verb παραβαλεῖν εἰς τόπον actually means come (sail) to the land as suggested by LSJ and apparently all English translations (The English word “touch” in this context means “stop or dock briefly at”).
It seems to me that it means sail along the land, but in a special technical sense when used of an open sea voyage with the preposition εἰς. That is to say that παραβαλεῖν εἰς τόπον (when used of sailing) is “to sail over open water till one sights land and then sail along parallel to the land without landing”.
[The word is used in the NT twice and only once in this sense.]
The verse it is used in is
Acts 20:15 (Byz2005) wrote:
τῇ δὲ ἑτέρᾳ παρεβάλομεν εἰς Σάμον· καὶ μείναντες ἐν Τρωγυλλίῳ
And on the next day we sailed across to Samos then along the coast and waited (for some time) on the Trogylium Promontory
LSJ gives the meaning in this sense as:
LSJ παραβάλλειν B.II wrote:
go by sea, cross over, “παρέβαλε νηυσὶ ἰθὺ Σκιάθου” Hdt.7.179, cf. Philipp. ap. D.12.16, Arist.Mir.836a29; of ships, “ναῦς Πελοποννησίων ἐς Ἰωνίαν π.” Th.3.32.
Now, the usual sense of παραβάλλειν is “to lie parallel to”, “run parallel to”, and in reference to boats it can mean “to bring a boat alongside”.
It seems to me that the meaning “to go by sea”, “to cross over” is a very general translation for a rather specific manoeuvre, specifically that one would sail across the open ocean in the direction (as best as it was possible to judge it) to find landfall and then to sail parallel to the coast in the intended direction to get to the destination.
In this case, leaving Chios, they sailed south across the open ocean till they caught sight of the coast of Samos, then they would turn to port (left) and sail along the coast till they could see Mount Mycale and then navigate from that down through the Straits of Samos till they reached a suitable spot on the Trogyllium Promontory (on the mainland of Asia Minor) to do whatever it is they did there.
Aparently, from that understanding, the verb implies that they never put into Samos. The εἰς refers to the landfall that they expected to see (not “to land at”) at the end of the open sea and the παραβάλειν refers to the running parallel after sighting land.
I want to put it up for discussion because the standard reference work doesn’t explain it, and none of the English translations seem to have captured the sense of that, and usually when that is the case…
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 6th, 2014, 3:59 pm
Stephen, perfect explanation. I got it.
In the case of Acts 26:16b-17, I should have known that
the relative pronoun, as an anaphoric pronoun like “this”, “that”, “it”, “they”, etc,
can refer to anything that has been introduced to the context so far,
as long as the reader can identify the referent.
I should have remembered the class I once took about “discourse analysis” ^^
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 10th, 2014, 5:20 am
Louis L Sorenson wrote:
Stephen wroteσυμφέρω in the next verse suggests movement.
Yes, that is what I thought. Movement is surely involved because they all brought their magical books to the same pile to burn.
But I also think ‘ἦλθον ὀμολογούμενοι’ is odd. It’s missing something (εἰς, πρός, κτλ. The default usage is like Mk 1.45 ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτόν.). Perhaps the problem (where I’m led astray) is the English use where ‘began’ has to be a modal auxiliary verb.
Carl wrote:And to underscore that, wouldn’t an imperfect for ἄρχομαι here be odd? “They kept on beginning”?
But cf. Thucydides 1.25.4(ᾗ
καὶ μᾶλλον ἐξηρτύοντο τὸ ναυτικὸν καὶ ἦσαν οὐκ ἀδύνατοι·
τριήρεις γὰρ εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν ὑπῆρχον αὐτοῖς ὅτε ἤρχοντο
— would not we read that as ‘when they began to fight’? or is it ‘when they came to the fight’?
But then again, Luke likes to be ambiguous where he can. There are no textual variants here – so I guess I would go with the traditional rendering. For those who are trying to recreate a spoken Koine, this may be an example to avoid or rule to follow. i.e. use the aorist of ἄρχομαι with the infinitive, not the imperfect.
(1) Thucydides’ account of the buildup to the Peloponnesian War is vivid in its description of the ongoing process, and the imperfects contribute to that: “And they kept outfitting the fleet all the more (and they were not wanting in military might: in fact, they had a hundred and twenty triremes at the time when they were just starting hostilities.”
(2) Luke’s description of this process is vivid too, although I don’t personally think it’s ambiguous. I’m reminded of vivid literary descriptions of Savonarola’s great conflagration of books in Florence’s Piazza della Signoria. Awesome and frightening, as is the course of events in Ukraine right now.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — March 2nd, 2014, 10:37 am
I had read somewhere — and can’t recall where now — that there are four kinds of impurities from which the rabbis insisted that Gentiles should abstain if they were to associate with Jews.
For example Craig Keener: the legendary The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Also Hard Sayings of the Bible explains similarly, but doesn’t mention rabbinical opinions. The idea is that those things mentioned are not about morality but necessary compromises so that in mixed congregations both Jews and Gentiles could co-exist and celebrate the Lord’s Supper together.
If you can wait for couple of months, this is the way to go: Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 3. If it’s not there (with every imaginable detail), it’s nowhere. (Despite the name it’s not a full exegetical commentary but about the social and historical background. Yes, 3 vols over 1000 pages each!)
Statistics: Posted by Eeli Kaikkonen — July 14th, 2014, 3:16 am
Ἐτάραξαν δὲ τὸν ὄχλον καὶ τοὺς πολιτάρχας ἀκούοντας ταῦτα
Robert Emil Berge wrote:
The participle doesn’t need to indicate another causality, and if it did it would be strange, and at least there should have been a hint at what that was.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Why would the participle indicate a different causality?
The addition of the ταῦτα suggests that meaning may be bigger than the grammatical structures or to say that another way there is a certain ungrammaticalness about the sentence.
If ταῦτα refers to the Ἐτάραξαν δὲ τὸν ὄχλον (a summary (or topicalising restatement) of all that went on before in the previous few verses), then the verb – in an implied form is in καὶ τοὺς πολιτάρχας ἀκούοντας ταῦτα would need to be in the second half too.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
what they were hearing was the actual cause for their being upset (if we were convert this to some kind of passive construction)
For the second half of the sentence, conversion to a passive makes sense.
The unbelieving Jews aggitated the crowd – they are the first causality and the result is the crowd’s aggitation, then upon hearing about these things, the rulers were upset too – the first cause and result is the second causality. That has been harmonised into a string of accusatives following Ἐτάραξαν, rather than re-stating the verb again in another form (perhaps ἐταράχθησαν). The sense of the text moves on to the city-rulers with the λαβόντες τὸ ἱκανὸν παρὰ τοῦ Ἰάσονος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς. It seems that that picks up on the implied passive construction.
This seems to be a convoluted form of verb ommission involving syntactic rearrangement, without loss of the change of the flow of the sense.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — September 9th, 2016, 9:01 pm
At least for certain types of verbs, the future ptc is the ‘normal’ way, in literary classical Gk,of expressing purpose. From when I was taught Gk many years ago I remember this as a sort of default setting, as in
ὡρμησαντο ἐπι το τειχισμα ἐπιθησομενοι – they rushed towards the fortification so as to attack it
Statistics: Posted by Dan King — February 13th, 2014, 1:48 am
David Lim wrote:Alan Patterson wrote:Barry wrote:Well, then, what do you think it means? Yes, it’s God’s heart, but it describes David as being a man after God’s heart, following God. How can it mean otherwise than being devoted to God?
It is not DAVID’s devotion to, but it is GOD’s appreciation of…. At least, that’s how it appears on the surface, imo.
I don’t see “appreciation” written in that phrase, but I see the same that Barry says. The phrase just means “a man who does things according to God’s heart”. That is pretty much the same as “a man devoted to God”.
Right. It’s telling us what David is like, not what God is like.
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — May 2nd, 2014, 7:47 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote:
As a matter of logic, “If you do X and Y, you will get Z” means that X and Y are sufficient for Z, not that they are necessary for Z. Occasionally, people imply “only if” with their conditionals (which makes it necessary rather than sufficient), but that is a matter of context and, I’m afraid in this case, theology. As a matter of language, it is not precise enough to settle without looking beyond the construction.
Imperative -> if -> only if, that is a lot of scafolding already.
Can anyone recall an example of this in Greek, which is very clearly not requiring both things (only if). Perhaps something like, “Smoke 5 packs of cigarettes per day, eat as much saturated fat as you can, never do exercise, and you will die before you’re 60”. Or an example that does seem to require them like, “Put the key in the lock, and turn the key, and the door will open”.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 31st, 2014, 2:54 am
Thank you, for answers. I’ve met in christianity teaching: once saved, always saved (in sense: believe in Jesus and you will be saved instantly). I thougt that this text may be bear out so teaching. But the words of Jonathan are important: “It’s not telling us when this salvation occurs, it’s telling us that it can occur by the grace of Jesus Christ, without circumcision, for both Jews and Greeks.”
Statistics: Posted by romanjaro — March 24th, 2017, 2:43 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote:cwconrad wrote:At any rate, the likelihood of the sense intended in the proposed Englishing of this text in Codex Bezae seems low to me; I still find it easier to think that ἀναγκαῖον was negligently omitted by the scribe.
The theory of the text of Acts that Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger follow is that the Codex Bezae D text of Acts is more likely to be authorial than that of the Codex Vaticanus B text of Acts. As a result, they are wont to read as intelligible what may appear to other textual critics as scribal nonsense.
Right. I am cautions about accepting the readings (interpretations of Bezae) of Acts in Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger for precisely that reason.
BTW, I have another Text Critical project going on behind the scenes which will eventually see the light of day but at this time is kind of under wraps due to copyright negotiations. Wondering if there is anyone here who would like to do a little work in text of Acts in support of a worthy cause. It could be anywhere from a hours work to a big project depending on how much interest you have in it. All you would need is the ability to read the critical apparatus in UBS4. A copy of NA27 and Swanson for Acts would be nice but not essential. I have a rather full apparatus for Acts in a word file I can send you.
My immediate need is for someone to simply look through the the full apparatus for Acts and mark (color highlighting or some sort of marking) any variant that is found in the UBS4 apparatus. A simple task should not take more than hour. I don’t have UBS4. If anyone has an interest in a project like this send me a PM and I will give you more detail.
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — December 13th, 2013, 5:18 pm
Louis L Sorenson » May 8th, 2013, 10:30 pm 34 Ἀνοίξας δὲ Πέτρος τὸ στόμα εἶπεν· ἐπʼ ἀληθείας καταλαμβάνομαι ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν προσωπολήμπτης ὁ θεός, 35 ἀλλʼ ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει ὁ φοβούμενος αὐτὸν καὶ ἐργαζόμενος δικαιοσύνην δεκτὸς αὐτῷ ἐστιν. 36 τὸν λόγον [ὃν] ἀπέστειλεν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ εὐαγγελιζόμενος εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὗτός ἐστιν πάντων κύριος,…