Skip to content

Tag Archives: Acts

Acts 15:20

cwconrad wrote:
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

Acts 17:8

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

Acts 22:5


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

Acts 13:22

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

2 Peter 3:10

Jonathan Robie wrote:

May 23rd, 2017, 3:06 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:

May 23rd, 2017, 3:00 pm

Got a good laugh out of that. The suggestion assumes that I know enough coptic to correct the auto parsing mistakes.

Are you copting out?

Yeah, my objective with Sahidic is even less ambitious than a similar project with Syriac. I thought it would be useful to look at the architecture of the language and see to what extent the versions could be trusted in textual criticism. I thought it would be about as difficult as Syriac coming from Hebrew. I was wrong.

Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — May 23rd, 2017, 3:11 pm

Acts 2:38

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

Acts 20:28

cwconrad wrote:
several years ago … I posted a suggestion that the thanksgiving of 1 Cor 1:4-7

1 Corinthians 1:4 wrote:Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ δοθείσῃ ὑμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 5 ὅτι ἐν παντὶ ἐπλουτίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει, 6 καθὼς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐβεβαιώθη ἐν ὑμῖν, 7 ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι ἀπεκδεχομένους τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ·

is ironic or even sarcastic, in view of the attitudes and behavior of the Corinthian congregation which Paul goes on to critique in some detail throughout the letter.

Greek doesn’t seem to use “so called” as much as we do in English. The sense of λεγομένος “are said be” seems to be not so often used or perhaps only a part of the meaning of a broader “so called” in English.

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 24th, 2014, 8:30 am

Acts 13:46

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

Acts 19:39


Hey everyone Thanks for letting me join I want people to check out this part of a letter I had written. So now I want to read out of the New Strong’s concordance what it says on this word. ” was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens “gathered” to discuss the affairs […]

Acts 7:46


Dear all, Is there a way to tell when a dative form of X is used with the meaning “for X”? I have always taken it to be “to X” by default when used as an adverb of a verb unless the verb does not allow “to X”. Does the meaning of such a dative […]

Acts 10:36


Iver Larsen » September 7th, 2013, 12:29 am In another forum we have been discussing the awkward grammar of Acts 10:36 and its likely Aramaic background. I have a couple of questions about the text from verses 34-36:34 Ἀνοίξας δὲ Πέτρος τὸ στόμα εἶπεν, Ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας καταλαμβάνομαι ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν προσωπολήμπτης ὁ θεός, 35 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν […]

Acts 21:5


προπεμπόντων ἡμᾶς πάντων σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις ἕω PROPEMTONTWN hHMAS TANTWN SUN GUNAIXIn KAI TEKNOIS –Acts 21:5 I recently noticed a switch in translating SUN in Acts 21:35 from “and” to “including.” Since these are mutually exclusive meanings in English, I checked Perseus to see if Greek was any different. Sure enough: 8. including, “–” […]

Acts 22:3


I’ve see EGW EIMI carrying the following different meanings in English: – It is I – – I am he – – I am – This last dissipates the intensity of the Greek, but is understandable in a popular language translation. What I’m trying to figure out, though, is just what Paul was trying ot […]

Acts 17:28


Is any body interested to work through maybe a hundred lines of this is some form or another in this thread?

Here are the first four lines that set the background for the Biblical quote (together with a few pointers that I think might be helpful):

Aratus Solensis, Phaenomena, 1-4 wrote:ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν
ἄρρητον: μεσταὶ δέ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί,
πᾶσαι δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα
καὶ λιμένες: πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες.

ἀρχώμεσθα – let’s begin hortative subjunctive, ie. an invitation to join somebody in an action or endeavour that thay are undertaking or planning to undertake
τὸν … ἐάω … ἄρρητον – I let him be …, I am leaving him to be … a verb with two accusatives
ἄρρητος – not spoken of In speaking of his rapture, the Apostle uses ἄρρητος to describe what he heard in heaven – 2 Corrinthians 12:4 ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον, καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήματα, ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι.
μεστός – (stuffed) full adjective + genitive of what sth is filled with. It is used in the NT and survives into Modern Greek.
ἀγοραί – markets where people mean for commerce and social interaction, or the interactions that take place
Διὸς – of Zeus the meaning is the pantheistic all pervading world-soul, rather than the fickle olympian
ἀγυιαί – streets, highways a mostly Epic word that does not survive into Modern Greek
λιμήν – harbour the word is third declension masculine. It is used three times in the New Testament. As an illustration of the Modern Greek diglossia, it survives into literary Modern Greek as λιμένας, and has developed into colloquial Modern Greek as λιμάνι.
πάντη – in every way, altogether An adverbial form. It is used by Luke in Acts 24:2-3, Κληθέντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, ἤρξατο κατηγορεῖν ὁ Τέρτυλλος λέγων, Πολλῆς εἰρήνης τυγχάνοντες διὰ σοῦ, καὶ κατορθωμάτων γινομένων τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ διὰ τῆς σῆς προνοίας, 3 πάντῃ τε καὶ πανταχοῦ ἀποδεχόμεθα, κράτιστε Φῆλιξ, μετὰ πάσης εὐχαριστίας.
κεχρήμεθα – we long for (From LSJ χράω) in pf. κέχρημαι (with pres. sense) c. gen., desire, yearn after, the usual sense in Ep.

Any responses, translations or queries for me or the greater brains trust?

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — May 20th, 2017, 3:44 am

Acts 2:22


22 Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, ἀκούσατε τοὺς λόγους τούτους. Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον, ἄνδρα ⸂ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ⸃ εἰς ὑμᾶς δυνάμεσι καὶ τέρασι καὶ σημείοις οἷς ἐποίησεν διʼ αὐτοῦ ὁ θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, ⸀καθὼς αὐτοὶ οἴδατε, 23 τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ ⸀ἔκδοτον διὰ ⸀χειρὸς ἀνόμων προσπήξαντες ἀνείλατε,

It looks to me like the Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον in vs. 22 is the direct object of ἀνείλατε at the end of vs. 23.

Is that correct? If so, it looks like Luke is putting the emphasis on Who Died and Who Did The Killing.

Statistics: Posted by Rhoover60 — February 6th, 2017, 9:28 pm