Acts 2:17

[] 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 or passive?Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:46:24 +0200hOI PRESBUTEROI hUMWN ENUPNIOIS ENUPNIASQHSONTAI(Acts 2:17)The word ENUPNIASQHSONTAI is usually taken as a deponens, so the meaningwould be “they dream”. But in a translation I found “”I will make themdream” – apparently based on the interpretation as a (divine) passive. Whichinterpretation is the more probable one? I would welcome your ideas.For your interest: Bauer says it is a “Deponens seit Hippokrates”.It is interesting that the LXX (in Joel) has the accusative for “dreams”(“they will dream dreams”), while Acts 2:17 has a dative (“they will be madeto dream with dreams”)! So I have the impression that Luke may have seen itas a passive.Hessel Visser**************************P.O. Box 500GantsiBotswanatel/fax 6596103hessel.visser at sil.org**************************

[] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament_[] Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive?

[] Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 27 17:32:12 EDT 2004

[] Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive? [] What was actually meant?? At 5:11 PM -0400 4/27/04, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>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 or passive?>Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:46:24 +0200> >hOI PRESBUTEROI hUMWN ENUPNIOIS ENUPNIASQHSONTAI>(Acts 2:17)> >The word ENUPNIASQHSONTAI is usually taken as a deponens, so the meaning>would be “they dream”. But in a translation I found “”I will make them>dream” – apparently based on the interpretation as a (divine) passive. Which>interpretation is the more probable one? I would welcome your ideas.Except that it’s a future: “they WILL dream”; sounds to me like the versionyou cite is an interpretative extension of the opening of the cited Joelpassage, inasmuch as the prophesied behavior is a consequence of thespirit-empowerment which God says he will perform in the latter days. Thatversion certainly cannot be justified on the basis of the Greek text assuch.>For your interest: Bauer says it is a “Deponens seit Hippokrates”.Yes, and LSJ cites only Aristotle as using it in the active voice.>It is interesting that the LXX (in Joel) has the accusative for “dreams”>(“they will dream dreams”), while Acts 2:17 has a dative (“they will be made>to dream with dreams”)! So I have the impression that Luke may have seen it>as a passive.I hardly think Luke understands it as passive; more likely he views it asan intransitive and construes it with an instrumental dative after themanner of CRAOMAI: “will dream with dreams.” To be sure the LXX regularlyuses it with an accusative direct object.Hessel, if you are new to the list you probably haven’t been aware of myrecurrent harangues against the misguided notion of “deponent” verbs; thisis simply a verb regularly found in the middle voice and commonly taking anaorist and future with -QH- forms. The verb clearly falls into one of thosecategories of verbal notions which commonly fall into the middle voice:voluntary or involuntary physical or mental processes.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Acts 2:17 dream: deponens or passive?[] What was actually meant??

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Sun May 9 19:50:21 EDT 2010

[] Justify- Diakioun [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read: “I will pour out My Spirit” However, the LXX translation renders it:”I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit” and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit, and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit, and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2. – – -Eric S. Weiss

[] Justify- Diakioun[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Sun May 9 20:20:51 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? This is a good question Eric. I had noticed it before and wondered about it.One thought is that the LXX translators have a tendency to preserve the transcendence of God a bit more, to make Hima little more remote and less anthropomorphic, perhaps inaccordance with Platonic philosophy. Shedding out a littlesomething from of his Spirit, may have struck the translators as moreworthy of God than pouring out his whole Spirit. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS________________________________From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 5:50:21 PMSubject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read: “I will pour out My Spirit” However, the LXX translation renders it:”I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit” and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit, and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit, and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2. – – -Eric S. Weiss — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sun May 9 21:10:27 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? On May 9, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Eric S. Weiss wrote:> The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read: > > “I will pour out My Spirit” > > However, the LXX translation renders it:> > “I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit” > > and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.> > So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit, > and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition > of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.> > Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit, > and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.> > So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of > EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and > the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX > addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2.Conybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek, §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό [APO] in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f). Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Sun May 9 21:56:21 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of interpretation.Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested? I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it would in fact be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so they added the qualifying “some of”? – – -Eric S. Weiss From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.comConybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek, §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό [APO] in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f). Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Sun May 9 22:27:33 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? On May 9, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Eric S. Weiss wrote:> That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of > interpretation.> > Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested?> > I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it > would in fact> be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so > they added> the qualifying “some of”?I would suggest that the so-called partitive genitive not be interpreted too narrowly. Of interest is certainly the long list of uses Smyth groups under the heading of “partitive genitive” (§§ 1341-1371). As I see it, the point the LXX underscores is simply that God, rather than giving away his spirit, is making humans to share in it. While the Hebrew may be less explicit than the Greek, its sense would seem to be the same.Al P.> > – – –> Eric S. Weiss> > From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com> > Conybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek, §92. ἀπό. a. > ἀπό [APO] in the> LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our > English ‘of,’ provided that> the genitive be partitive.> > That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some > of my spirit.”> See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen.> … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO > TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f).> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/—Albert Pietersma PhD21 Cross Street,Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.caHomepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun May 9 22:54:57 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? I don’t think that the LXX translators were stepping away from the idea that it would be God’s Spirit. It rather seems that they were emphasizing the fact that it was not the whole of God’s Spirit. That is why a partitive is used. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 6:56:21 PMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of interpretation.Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested? I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it would in fact be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so they added the qualifying “some of”? – – -Eric S. Weiss From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.comConybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek, §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό [APO] in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f). Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired) — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon May 10 05:31:12 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? On May 9, 2010, at 10:54 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> I don’t think that the LXX translators were stepping away from the idea that it would be God’s Spirit. It rather seems that they were emphasizing the fact that it was not the whole of God’s Spirit. That is why a partitive is used.I think the reason for the partititive is simpler: PNEUMA is thought of a substance (one with which one can be “full”, something that has PLHRWMA). One does not drink OINON or hUDWR but OINOU or hUDATOS.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> ________________________________> From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>> To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 6:56:21 PM> Subject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?> > That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of interpretation.> > Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested? > > I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it would in fact > be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so they added > the qualifying “some of”?> > – – –> Eric S. Weiss > > From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com> > Conybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek, §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό [APO] in the > LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that > the genitive be partitive.> > That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”> See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. > … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f).

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? dlpost at comcast.net dlpost at comcast.net
Mon May 10 06:34:55 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew usage of Spirit. Moreover, for those believing in the inspiration of Scripture, the Greek of Acts 2:17-18 defines and applies Joel 2:28-29 for us. Something the Spirit would supply – being either genitive of source/ablative. Doug Post —– Original Message —– From: “Eric S. Weiss” <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 7:50:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read: “I will pour out My Spirit” However, the LXX translation renders it: “I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit” and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading. So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit, and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew. Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit, and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit. So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2. – – – Eric S. Weiss — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Kevin Riley klriley100 at gmail.com
Mon May 10 07:53:14 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Some of us believe in the inspiration of all of Scripture and don’t believethat Acts defines Joel, or any other portion of Scripture, as if it weresomehow deficient until Luke wrote Acts to give it a definitive meaning.There are also members of this list who do not believe Scripture isinspired, and I am not sure that your “moreover” adds anything to thediscussion for them either. I am not convinced that whether one believes ininspiration – of any sort – actually changes the basic meaning of the textin any way. When Greek grammar supplies an answer, why turn to divisivetheology?Kevin RileyOn 10 May 2010 20:34, <dlpost at comcast.net> wrote:> > > It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew> usage of Spirit. Moreover, for those believing in the inspiration of> Scripture, the Greek of Acts 2:17-18 defines and applies Joel 2:28-29 for> us. Something the Spirit would supply – being either genitive of> source/ablative.> > > > Doug Post> > > > —– Original Message —–> From: “Eric S. Weiss” <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 7:50:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern> Subject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU> PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?> > The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read:> > “I will pour out My Spirit”> > However, the LXX translation renders it:> > “I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit”> > and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.> > So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit,> and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition> of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.> > Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit,> and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.> > So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of> EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and> the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX> addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2.> > – – –> Eric S. Weiss> > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon May 10 08:21:21 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? On May 10, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Kevin Riley wrote:> Some of us believe in the inspiration of all of Scripture and don’t believe> that Acts defines Joel, or any other portion of Scripture, as if it were> somehow deficient until Luke wrote Acts to give it a definitive meaning.> There are also members of this list who do not believe Scripture is> inspired, and I am not sure that your “moreover” adds anything to the> discussion for them either. I am not convinced that whether one believes in> inspiration – of any sort – actually changes the basic meaning of the text> in any way. When Greek grammar supplies an answer, why turn to divisive> theology?In fact, the question of the inspiration of scripture lies outside the parameters of admissible discussion. Let’s keep the focus upon the Greek text as Greek text, please.BG-FAQ: Our FAQ (ttp://www.ibiblio.org//faq.html) states:” is not a forum for general Bible issues, except insofar as they may bear specifically upon interpretation of a particular Greek text, Neither is it a forum for general or specific hermeneutical or theological issues.”Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, List> On 10 May 2010 20:34, <dlpost at comcast.net> wrote:> >> >> >> It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew>> usage of Spirit. Moreover, for those believing in the inspiration of>> Scripture, the Greek of Acts 2:17-18 defines and applies Joel 2:28-29 for>> us. Something the Spirit would supply – being either genitive of>> source/ablative.>> >> >> >> Doug Post>> >> >> >> —– Original Message —–>> From: “Eric S. Weiss” <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>>> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 7:50:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern>> Subject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU>> PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?>> >> The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read:>> >> “I will pour out My Spirit”>> >> However, the LXX translation renders it:>> >> “I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit”>> >> and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.>> >> So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit,>> and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition>> of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.>> >> Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit,>> and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.>> >> So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of>> EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and>> the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX>> addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2.>> >> – – –>> Eric S. Weiss

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 08:50:20 EDT 2010

[] Justify- Diakioun [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Doug Post wrote: > It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew> usage of Spirit. By “the metonymy of the Hebrew usage of Spirit” (I guess to refer to the person him/herself and not to the person’s spirit?), are you saying that the OT references to God’s Spirit were really references to God Himself, and that this fact of Hebrew usage explains/supports the use of APO here in the LXX translation of Joel 3? I.e., it means “I will pour out from Myself”? – – -Eric S. Weiss

[] Justify- Diakioun[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? dlpost at comcast.net dlpost at comcast.net
Mon May 10 09:11:42 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? No, not at all. Just the opposite. I am saying that typically the term “Spirit” stands, not for the Spirit Himself, but that which comes from the Spirit, namely miraculous activity. For instance, “And the Spirit came upon him and he prophesied.” The Spirit supplied the ability to prophesy. For your consideration. Doug Post —– Original Message —– From: “Eric S. Weiss” <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:50:20 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Doug Post wrote: > It seems to me the Greek text simply supports the metonymy of the Hebrew > usage of Spirit. By “the metonymy of the Hebrew usage of Spirit” (I guess to refer to the person him/herself and not to the person’s spirit?), are you saying that the OT references to God’s Spirit were really references to God Himself, and that this fact of Hebrew usage explains/supports the use of APO here in the LXX translation of Joel 3? I.e., it means “I will pour out from Myself”? – – – Eric S. Weiss — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?
[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 08:50:20 EDT 2010

[] Justify- Diakioun[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 09:41:30 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? I noticed Zech. 12:10 does not include APO in describing the Spirit of grace. So it seems, (assuming Spirit of grace is equivalent to the Spirit in Joel), the LXX translators did not have the same concern they had concerning the Spirit in Joel. If that is the case, could not another possibility be that we simply have a different underlying Hebrew text in Joel than that which the Masoretic text supplies? Do the Dead Sea Scrolls help us at all? On the other hand, if that is not the case, I just thought of this, (going back to the thoughts of George Somsel and Carl Conrad), could Isa. 11:2 perhaps, shed some light of this thought? If the Spirit was thought to be symbolized by various graces or attributes, could not the thought, indeed, be that graces are poured out upon all flesh and not the entirety of the Spirit? – (*Some of my Spirit* as Carl Conrad suggested). KAI ANAPAUSETAI EP᾽ AUTON PNEUMA TOU QEOU PNEUMA SOFIAS KAI SUNESEWS PNEUMA BOULHS KAI ISCUOS PNEUMA GNWSEWS KAI EUSEBEIASIsa 11:2 Perhaps, in Jewish thought the entirety of the Spirit was reserved only for the Messiah, (the *whole of God’s Spirit,* as George Somsel said). hON GAR APESTEILEN hO QEOS, TA hRHMATA TOU QEOU LALEI• OU GAR EK METROU DIDWSIN hO QEOS TO PNEUMA. Joh 3:34 Byzantine text For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. KJV Sincerely,Blue Harris________________________________From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 7:54:57 PMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?I don’t think that the LXX translators were stepping away from the idea that it would be God’s Spirit. It rather seems that they were emphasizing the fact that it was not the whole of God’s Spirit. That is why a partitive is used. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 6:56:21 PMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of interpretation.Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested? I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it would in fact be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so they added the qualifying “some of”? – – -Eric S. Weiss From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.comConybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek, §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό [APO] in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f). Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired) — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 09:59:42 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? As in French one would ask whether one wishes “du café” rather than simply “café” since one does not drink “all of the coffee (in existence)” but “some coffee.” georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>Cc: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 2:31:12 AMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?On May 9, 2010, at 10:54 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> I don’t think that the LXX translators were stepping away from the idea that it would be God’s Spirit. It rather seems that they were emphasizing the fact that it was not the whole of God’s Spirit. That is why a partitive is used.I think the reason for the partititive is simpler: PNEUMA is thought of a substance (one with which one can be “full”, something that has PLHRWMA). One does not drink OINON or hUDWR but OINOU or hUDATOS.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> ________________________________> From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>> To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 6:56:21 PM> Subject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?> > That suggests to me that the LXX translators engaged in a bit of interpretation.> > Maybe for something like the “remoteness” reason Mark L. suggested? > > I.e., they wanted to take a bit of a step away from the idea that it would in fact > be God’s Spirit – period – that He would pour out on His people, so they added > the qualifying “some of”?> > – – –> Eric S. Weiss > > From: Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com> > Conybeare and Stock’s little Grammar of LXX Greek, §92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό [APO] in the > LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that > the genitive be partitive.> > That suggests that the LXX translator had the sense in mind, “some of my spirit.”> See also BDAG: s.v. APO 1.f as a substitute for the partitive gen. > … ἐκχεῶ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματός μου [EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU] Ac 2:17f (Jo 3:1f).

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? nebarry at verizon.net nebarry at verizon.net
Mon May 10 11:08:39 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Original Message:—————–From: George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.comDate: Mon, 10 May 2010 06:59:42 -0700 (PDT)To: cwconrad2 at mac.com, papaweiss1 at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?>As in French one would ask whether one wishes “du cafÃ©” rather thansimply “cafÃ©” since one does not drink “all of the coffee (in existence)”butÂ “some coffee.”<I always ask just for “cafe,” since I really, literally want all the coffeein the world.BarryÂ ——————————————————————–mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 12:55:29 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? I don’t think Peter is doing much more with these verses from Joel than quoting them to explain that what happened at Pentecost was its fulfillment. I.e., “This is that….” I.e., the reason Peter says APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of TO PNEUMA MOU is because that’s how Joel 3:1-2 reads in his and his hearers’ Bible, the LXX.(Or, if one is so inclined, that’s how Joel 3:1-2 reads in Luke’s Bible so when he records Peter’s quotation of Joel 3 on the day of Pentecost, he transcribes what LXX Joel 3:1-2 says.)And why would Christian editors change a Septuagintal TO PNEUMA MOU (which is a literal translation of the Hebrew) to APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU (assuming we have any evidence of such a textual variant in Joel 3:1-2), esp. since other passages in Acts indicate that the Spirit, not “part” of the Spirit, fell upon or filled or was received by people? – – -Eric S. Weiss —– Original Message —-From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon at historian.net>To: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 11:40:44 AMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?The Hebrew, even in the DSS, is wehaya ahary-ken eshepok et-ruhy, “and it shall come to pass afterward I will pour out my spirit..” and ET is a marker that signifies “spirit” is an accusative case. The Acts version has Peter saying, instead of “afterward,” that “In the last days..” and “I will pour out OF MY SPIRIT..” (genitive case) indicating that of the whole spirit, only part is poured out.I am always on the look-out for Christian editing in the LXX since the Christians were essentially the curators of the LXX and this particular prophecy is important to Christians regarding Pentacost. Does the LXX translation derive from Acts rather than the reverse?Jack Kilmon

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Mon May 10 12:40:44 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Justify- Diakioun The Hebrew, even in the DSS, is wehaya ahary-ken eshepok et-ruhy, “and it shall come to pass afterward I will pour out my spirit..” and ET is a marker that signifies “spirit” is an accusative case. The Acts version has Peter saying, instead of “afterward,” that “In the last days..” and “I will pour out OF MY SPIRIT..” (genitive case) indicating that of the whole spirit, only part is poured out.I am always on the look-out for Christian editing in the LXX since the Christians were essentially the curators of the LXX and this particular prophecy is important to Christians regarding Pentacost. Does the LXX translation derive from Acts rather than the reverse?Jack Kilmon————————————————–From: “Eric S. Weiss” <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 6:50 PMTo: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?> The Hebrew text of Joel 2:28-29 (Joel 3:1-2 LXX) seems to read:> > “I will pour out My Spirit”> > However, the LXX translation renders it:> > “I will pour out from (APO) My Spirit”> > and Acts 2:17-18 keeps the LXX reading.> > So whereas the Hebrew text has God pouring out His Spirit,> and not merely [something] “from” His Spirit, the LXX addition> of APO seems to diminish the meaning/effect of the Hebrew.> > Other places in Acts indicate that people received the Spirit,> and not simply [something] “from” the Spirit.> > So why does the LXX add APO here? I did some searching of> EKCEW plus APO in the LXX and Philo and Josephus and> the Apostolic Fathers, but couldn’t find a reason for the LXX> addition of APO to EKCEW in Joel 3:1-2.> > – – –> Eric S. Weiss> > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Justify- Diakioun

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 13:39:06 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? THi DEXIAi OUN TOU QEOU hUYWQEIS, THN TE EPAGGELIAN TOU PNEUMATOS TOU hAGIOU LABWN PARA TOU PATROS, EXECEEN TOUTO hO hUMEIS [KAI] BLEPETE KAI AKOUETE.Act 2:33 KAI EXESTHSAN hOI EK PERITOMHS PISTOI hOSOI SUNHLQAN TWi PETRWi, hOTI KAI EPI TA EQNH hH DWREA TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS EKKECUTAI• Act 10:45 MHTI TO hUDWR DUNATAI KWLUSAI TIS TOU MH BAPTISQHNAI TOUTOUS, hOITINES TO PNEUMA TO hAGION ELABON hWS KAI hHMEIS; Act 10:47 What is interesting is that it seems we have a dual understanding of this phenomenon. Apart from the question concerning the understanding of LXX translators, and/or the underlying Hebrew text, it is interesting how Luke understood APOTOU PNEUMATOS. He does not say in verse Acts 2:33 *he poured out the Spirit,* but he poured out *TOUTO,* which you both see and hear. This seems to go along with part of what Doug Post suggested. The *this* would be the ability to prophesy, in this case, through the medium of tongues. Nevertheless, when Luke writes about the account of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10:45, he has Peter identifying the gift of the Spirit poured out upon the Gentiles, (like was done to them at Pentecost, vs. 47), to be none other than the Spirit Himself and not something *from* or *of* the Spirit. It seems there is something else going on in this concept that we do not fully understand. I wonder if the imagery of fire (Acts. 2:3) taken from the whole without diminution, contributes anything to the idea. Regards,Blue Harris ________________________________From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon at historian.net>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 9:55:29 AMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?I don’t think Peter is doing much more with these verses from Joel than quoting them to explain that what happened at Pentecost was its fulfillment. I.e., “This is that….” I.e., the reason Peter says APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU instead of TO PNEUMA MOU is because that’s how Joel 3:1-2 reads in his and his hearers’ Bible, the LXX.(Or, if one is so inclined, that’s how Joel 3:1-2 reads in Luke’s Bible so when he records Peter’s quotation of Joel 3 on the day of Pentecost, he transcribes what LXX Joel 3:1-2 says.)And why would Christian editors change a Septuagintal TO PNEUMA MOU (which is a literal translation of the Hebrew) to APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU (assuming we have any evidence of such a textual variant in Joel 3:1-2), esp. since other passages in Acts indicate that the Spirit, not “part” of the Spirit, fell upon or filled or was received by people? – – -Eric S. Weiss —– Original Message —-From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon at historian.net>To: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 11:40:44 AMSubject: Re: [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?The Hebrew, even in the DSS, is wehaya ahary-ken eshepok et-ruhy, “and it shall come to pass afterward I will pour out my spirit..” and ET is a marker that signifies “spirit” is an accusative case. The Acts version has Peter saying, instead of “afterward,” that “In the last days..” and “I will pour out OF MY SPIRIT..” (genitive case) indicating that of the whole spirit, only part is poured out.I am always on the look-out for Christian editing in the LXX since the Christians were essentially the curators of the LXX and this particular prophecy is important to Christians regarding Pentacost. Does the LXX translation derive from Acts rather than the reverse?Jack Kilmon — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 19:53:32 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEWAPOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Here is another verse to throw into the mix. KAI KATABHSOMAI KAI LALHSW EKEI META SOU KAI AFELW APO TOU PNEUMATOS TOU EPI SOI KAI EPIQHSW EP᾽ AUTOUS KAI SUNANTILHMYONTAI META SOU THN hORMHN TOU LAOU KAI OUK OISEIS AUTOUS SU MONOS Numbers 11:17 Blue Harris

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEWAPOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Tue May 11 01:25:04 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APO TOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> > As in French one would ask whether one wishes “du café” rather than simply “café” since one does not drink “all of the coffee (in existence)” but “some coffee.”> georgeThanks George,Now I have a much clearer idea on a Korean word we use. I put in ourword order ‘COFFEE A LITTE (jom) GIVE’. The verb comes at the end of asentence. Of course, ‘me’ omitted unless it’s emphatic (i.e. it’s measking, not others) since usually it’s known. The Korean word is’jom’ or ‘jogum’ means ‘a little’.I always thought of it as a polite way of asking, but it seemsactually something closer to ‘du’ of ‘du café’ as shown, and may bereplaced with ‘a lot’, if one wishes.Oun Kwon.

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEWAPOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue May 11 05:31:58 EDT 2010

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU? [] PNEUMA hAGION as a proper name On May 10, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Blue Meeksbay wrote:> Here is another verse to throw into the mix.> > > KAI KATABHSOMAI KAI LALHSW EKEI META SOU KAI AFELW APO TOU PNEUMATOS TOU EPI SOI KAI EPIQHSW EP᾽ AUTOUS KAI SUNANTILHMYONTAI META SOU THN hORMHN TOU LAOU KAI OUK OISEIS AUTOUS SU MONOS Numbers 11:17Well, if your intent is simply to add another instance of LXX usage of APO with genitive in a partitive sense, I might as well cite the relevant Conybeare & Stock entry for APO:§92. ἀπό. a. ἀπό in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.Ex 12:46 καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ.Josh 9:8 οὐκ ἦν ῥῆμα ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν ἐνετείλατο Μωυσῆς τῷ Ἰησοῖ ὃ οὐκ ἀνέγνω Ἰησοῦς.3 K. [2 Kings.] 18:13 ἔκρυψα ἀπὸ τῶν προφητῶν Κυρίου ἑκατὸν ἄνδρας.Joel 2:28 ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός μου.2 Esd. [Ezra] 11:2 εἷς ἀπὸ ἀδελφῶν μου.So in N.T. -Lk 6:13 ἐκλεξάμενος ἀπ’ αὐτῶν δώδεκα.Jn 21:10 ἐνέγκατε ἀπὸ τῶν ὀψαρίων ὧν ἐπιάσατε νῦν.[§92. APO. a. APO in the LXX is often little more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the genitive be partitive.Ex 12:46 KAI OSTOUN OU SUNTRIYETE AP’ AUTOU.Josh 9:8 OUK HN hRHMA APO PANTWN hWN ENETEILATO MWUSHS TWi IHSOI hO OUK ANEGNW IHSOUS.3 K. [2 Kings.] 18:13 EKRUYA APO TWN PROFHTWN KURIOU hEKATON ANDRAS.Joel 2:28 EKCEW APO TOU PNEUMATOS MOU.2 Esd. [Ezra] 11:2 hEIS APO ADELFWN MOU.So in N.T. -Lk 6:13 EKLEXAMENOS AP’ AUTWN DWDEKA.Jn 21:10 ENEGKATE APO TWN OYARIWN hWN EPIASATE NUN.]For what it’s worth, English “of” is in fact etymologically cognate with Greek APO, according tot he dictionary:”ORIGIN Old English , of Germanic origin; related to Dutch af and German ab, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin ab and Greek apo.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Joel 3:1-2 (LXX) & Acts 2:17-18 – Why EKCEW APOTOUPNEUMATOS MOU instead of EKCEW TO PNEUMA MOU?[] PNEUMA hAGION as a proper name

People who read this article also liked:

Leave a Reply