Acts 2:42

Acts 2:42 RHutchin at aol.com RHutchin at aol.com
Mon Apr 24 20:26:19 EDT 2000

Previous message: Shepherd 7,1 Next message: Fwd: Eszter andorka /introducing herself/ Acts 2:42 reads–HSAN DE PROSKARTEROUNTES THi DIDAXHi TWN APOSTOLWN KAI THi KOINWNIA, [KAI?] THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU KAI TAIS PROSEUXAIS.1. Could one read this as fellowship with the apostles, breaking of bread with the apostles, and prayers with the apostles?2. How does the article before KOINWNIA, KLASEI TOU ARTOU, and PROSEUXAIS influence the translation? Could the article have been excluded without affecting the translation?3. KAI is left out before THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU. Does this make the sentence structure awkward?Roger HutchinsonRHutchin at AOL.com

Previous message: Shepherd 7,1Next message: Fwd: Eszter andorka /introducing herself/ More information about the mailing list

Acts 2:42 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Mon Apr 24 23:07:47 EDT 2000

Previous message: imperative moods? Next message: Luke 24.37 Roger Hutchinson wrote;>Acts 2:42 reads–> >HSAN DE PROSKARTEROUNTES THi DIDAXHi TWN APOSTOLWN KAI THi KOINWNIA, [KAI?]>THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU KAI TAIS PROSEUXAIS.> >1. Could one read this as fellowship with the apostles, breaking of bread>with the apostles, and prayers with the apostles?> >2. How does the article before KOINWNIA, KLASEI TOU ARTOU, and PROSEUXAIS>influence the translation? Could the article have been excluded without>affecting the translation?> >3. KAI is left out before THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU. Does this make the sentence>structure awkward?> 1. It seems to me that TWN APOSTOLWN refers specifically to THi DIDAXHi. Itwould be a stretch to apply it to the others.2. I think the article does what it does best here, makes each item morespecific. *The* teaching refers to a specific body of doctrine (as in thePastorals), *the* fellowship also as well as *the* bread and *the* prayers.Luke seems to refer by these to specific practices of the early believers.3. I do not think that the breaking of bread exhaust the practice ofKOINWNIA, but if the article is omitted (some good evidence supports it butit is easier to explain why diff. scribes would have added itindependently), then it would be possible to see THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU asbeing in apposition (modifying) to and explaining a form of KOINWNIA. Thatwould leave one to wonder why the last item is not also modified, as is theDIDAXHi, but it would make sense that way.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at speedgate.netwinbery at andria.lacollege.eduPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

Previous message: imperative moods?Next message: Luke 24.37 More information about the mailing list

Acts 2:42 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Apr 25 10:07:56 EDT 2000

Previous message: imperative moods? Next message: Acts 2:42 Roger Hutchinson wrote;>Acts 2:42 reads–> >HSAN DE PROSKARTEROUNTES THi DIDAXHi TWN APOSTOLWN KAI THi KOINWNIA, [KAI?]>THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU KAI TAIS PROSEUXAIS.> >3. KAI is left out before THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU. Does this make the sentence>structure awkward?>> Roger, I see no awkwardness, because in English we use pairs of pairs. Wemight write: “July fourth is a day of fireworks and frisbees, of flags andfestivities. The two conjunctions “and” forms two pairs of items which thennaturally link with one another.Yours,Harold Holmyard

Previous message: imperative moods?Next message: Acts 2:42 More information about the mailing list

Acts 2:42 Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Tue Apr 25 10:27:01 EDT 2000

Previous message: Acts 2:42 Next message: PARASKEUH Roger Hutchinson wrote;> > Acts 2:42 reads–> > HSAN DE PROSKARTEROUNTES THi DIDAXHi TWN> > APOSTOLWN KAI THi KOINWNIA, [KAI?] THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU KAI TAIS> > PROSEUXAIS.> > 3. KAI is left out before THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU. Does this make the> > sentence structure awkward? Carlton Winbery <winberyc at speedgate.net> responds:> 3. I do not think that the breaking of bread exhaust the practice of> KOINWNIA, but if the article is omitted (some good evidence supports> it but it is easier to explain why diff. scribes would have added it> independently), then it would be possible to see THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU> as being in apposition (modifying) to and explaining a form of> KOINWNIA. That would leave one to wonder why the last item is not also> modified, as is the DIDAXHi, but it would make sense that way. I’ve often explained this as a list of three items, not four, thefirst and last being: Apostolic teaching and many different prayers.The middle item I’ve glossed as ‘the participatory breaking of bread’which immediately requires some explanation.The immediate context of this verse forcefully–in fact, it is rathershocking to our individualistic, capitalistic ears–places in frontof us a highly communal life style (not necessarily the giving up ofprivate ownership, just a much liberated communal use of property).I say that to simply emphasize that the context emphasizes KOINWNIA.Furthermore, a man named Robert Jewett, whom I know nothing of (relyingon someone named B. Reicke, “Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos in Verbindungmit der altchristlichen Agapenfeier”) strongly links KOINWNIA and thelove feasts of the first several centuries. He says: “Several recent studies have explored the evidence of frequently shared common meals in the Pauline churches, which illuminates the social background of Gal. 2.14. A form-critical analysis of 2 Thess. 3.10 shows it to be a community regulation probably devised by tenement churches that relied on members to share their wages in support of daily love-feasts. The wording indicates that this regulation was part of the foundational catechism of the Thessalonian church, which indicates the central significance of these meals in congregational life.”This is from: “Gospel and Commensality: Social and TheologicalImplications of Galatians 2.14”, Robert Jewett. Unfortunately, I havea photocopy of this article with no citation.Whether you agree with all of what Jewett (or Reicke) says, they bringto the fore the strong association between KOINWNIA and the love-feast.Jewett goes on to say he believes the arthrous AGAPN in Romans 13:10refers to the love-feast. Which I find rather interesting given thecontext there of treating a weaker brother and the similarity of theflow of thought to the same in I Cor.–food for thought.I say all that to say I think THi KOINWNIA THi KLASEI TOU ARTO isclearly appositional and should nearly be thought of in the same wayEnglish hyphenates words–though it is difficult to think in terms ofhyphenating a word with a phrase. I think of hendiadys as the normalGreek way of doing the hyphenation but that can’t be done here sinceLuke is in the midst of a list, so he uses apposition.So, Luke is succinctly capturing the prominent characteristics of thevery early church: the Apostolic teaching, the participatory love-feast,and the many prayers. The careful choice of construction balances, links,and makes prominent *both* the KOINWNIA and the KLASEI TOU ARTO. I thinkthe participation was both horizontal and vertical as the centrality ofthe Christ Jesus was brought into the midst of their communal effortsto serve one another in word and deed, *and* as these early believersrehearsed a modified Passover Seder reconstructed around a risen Messiah.Finally, I think we need to be very careful of anachronism here. Itis easy for us to read back into these texts what we see today.– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.usLandisburg, Pa. There is no ‘do’ in faith, everywhere present within it is ‘done’.

Previous message: Acts 2:42Next message: PARASKEUH More information about the mailing list

Acts 2:42 RHutchin at aol.com RHutchin at aol.com
Tue Apr 25 20:02:28 EDT 2000

Previous message: Suetonius on the Web Next message: PARASKEUH Picking up on comments made on my question 3 re: Acts 2:42 HSAN DE PROSKARTEROUNTES THi DIDAXHi TWN APOSTOLWN KAI THi KOINWNIA, THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU KAI TAIS PROSEUXAIS.3. KAI is left out before THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU. Does this make the sentence structure awkward?Could we read the verse as KAI THi KOINWNIA (THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU KAI TAIS PROSEUXAIS) so that the KOINWNIA included both the breaking of bread and prayer? One person suggested this and I was wondering if his logic was correct. If not, how might one formulate the sentence to get this result. If we take THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU as being a part of THi KOINWNIA, is KAI specific enough to tell the reader to stop there and not include TAIS PROSEUXAIS also.Finally, could we take KAI THi KOINWNIA to be “…also the fellowship…” with the implication that it was with the apostles. Given that Luke is recounting a previous event, the use of the article would seem to identify this with the apostles or something else significant (but what?). Roger HutchinsonRHutchin at AOL.com

Previous message: Suetonius on the WebNext message: PARASKEUH More information about the mailing list

[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4? James Harvey jjharvey at ejama.com
Fri Oct 8 17:21:29 EDT 2004

[] 1 Fut. [] Acts 2:42–3 or 4? While I have some hesitancy in a first-time posting to ask a question thatmay not precisely fit the purpose of this list, I’d really appreciate somehelp. I came across the following bold statement, and wonder if anyone isable to confirm whether what is claimed of the meaning of the NT Greek iscorrect. I had, up to now, assumed that the early church had continued in 4things, but would value any comments can clarify. Luke reports in Acts 2:42 that the Notzrim were steadfast in three mainactivities: 1) The teaching of the apostles, 2) Fellowship in the Breakingof Bread, 3) Prayer. In many translations it appears as if there are fouritems in which the believers were steadfast. But the syntax of the Greektext allows for only three items. The conjunction, “kai” meaning “and”,does not separate “the fellowship” and “the breaking of bread.” Also thecase ending of the phrase “breaking of bread” is in the dative meaning “in”or “by means of” showing that the “breaking of bread” was the means to andthe occasion for “the fellowship.” The fellowship is regarded as anintegral and inseparable part of the breaking of bread. It is important tosee that the remembrance of Yeshua the Lord and Messiah, was the focus andthe center of their fellowship. When we see the nature of the breaking ofbread in its historical and cultural background we will understand why Lukereferred to the fellowship as being actualized in the Breaking of Bread. Thanks! James Harvey

[] 1 Fut.[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4?

[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4? Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Oct 8 17:56:38 EDT 2004

[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4? [] Acts 2:42–3 or 4? Dear James,>Luke reports in Acts 2:42 that the Notzrim were steadfast in three main>activities: 1) The teaching of the apostles, 2) Fellowship in the Breaking>of Bread, 3) Prayer. In many translations it appears as if there are four>items in which the believers were steadfast. But the syntax of the Greek>text allows for only three items. The conjunction, “kai” meaning “and”,>does not separate “the fellowship” and “the breaking of bread.” Also the>case ending of the phrase “breaking of bread” is in the dative meaning “in”>or “by means of” showing that the “breaking of bread” was the means to and>the occasion for “the fellowship.” The fellowship is regarded as an>integral and inseparable part of the breaking of bread. It is important to>see that the remembrance of Yeshua the Lord and Messiah, was the focus and>the center of their fellowship. When we see the nature of the breaking of>bread in its historical and cultural background we will understand why Luke>referred to the fellowship as being actualized in the Breaking of Bread.HH: I’m no expert, but I’ll get things started. It looks as if this interpretation is conceivable if one interprets THi KLASEI as a dative of means: “the fellowhip by the breaking of the bread.” I may be wrong. UBS, on the other hand, sees a parallelism between all the nouns in the dative case as signaling a series, four dative objects of the verb PROSKARTEREW. Your source may have been influenced by the absence of a copulative KAI after KOINWNIAi, but the UBS punctuators put a comma there. They see the series restarting after an absence of KAI. So Luke would mention two pairs of items. The interpretation you cite seems to require an odd handling of the Greek words. “The breaking of bread” elsewhere is a separate item, although KOINWNIA occurs nowhere else in Acts. The commentary on Acts by Mikeal Parsons and Martin Culy does not even mention the view you propose.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4?[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4?

[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4? Steve Puluka puluka at verizon.net
Fri Oct 8 19:26:47 EDT 2004

[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4? [] Acts 2:42–3 or 4? on 10/8/04 5:56 PM, Harold R. Holmyard III at hholmyard at ont.com wrote:> Dear James,> >> Luke reports in Acts 2:42 that the Notzrim were steadfast in three main>> activities: 1) The teaching of the apostles, 2) Fellowship in the Breaking>> of Bread, 3) Prayer. In many translations it appears as if there are four>> items in which the believers were steadfast.> > HH: UBS, on the other hand, sees a parallelism between all the> nouns in the dative case as signaling a series, four dative objects> of the verb PROSKARTEREW. Your source may have been influenced by the> absence of a copulative KAI after KOINWNIAi, but the UBS punctuators> put a comma there. They see the series restarting after an absence of> KAI. The Byzantine text here does have the additional kai making this a clearseries of four. As Mr. Holmyard points out, the UBS editors see this as aseries of four even without the kai.HSAN DE PROSKARTEROUNTES TH DIDAXH TWN APOSTOLWN KAI TH KOINWNIA, (KAI) THKLASEI TOU ARTOU KAI TAIS PROSEUXAIS.However, the Vulgate seems to take this in the sense described by Jamesabove.erant autem perseverantes in doctrina apostolorum et communicationefractionis panis et orationibus.My text critical notes say that the Syriac and coptic follow this Vulgatereading as well, but I don’t know these languages myself.So I suppose the text is ambiguous in the UBS text (which includes P45 oneof the earliest witnesses).– Steve PulukaMaster’s Student, SS Cyril & Methodius SeminaryCantor, Holy Ghost Church, Mckees Rocks PAhttp://www.geocities.com/spuluka

[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4?[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4?

[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4? Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Oct 8 20:16:46 EDT 2004

[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4? [] Subjunctive or indicative in Rom. 5:3 Dear James,I just looked at Thomas L. Constable’s Expository Notes, which are available online. He states that the teaching of the apostles and fellowship were the two most important activities of the newborn Church. He felt that the breaking of bread and prayers were the two most significant elements of fellowship.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Acts 2:42–3 or 4?[] Subjunctive or indicative in Rom. 5:3

[] Acts 2:42: Three or four concepts? Scott Stocking scottsox at conxxus.com
Sun Jul 9 17:30:51 EDT 2006

[] Another example of a qualitative QEOS [] Acts 2:42: Three or four concepts? The phrase “the apostle’s teaching KAI the fellowship, [KAI] the breaking ofbread KAI prayer” caught my eye this week as I was preparing a sermon. TheKAI in brackets is a textual variant (e.g., it appears in the TR, but not inUBS4). I was wondering, if in fact the UBS4 is correct to omit it, are therefour concepts divided up into two couplets separated by a comma (“the(1)apostle’s teaching and (2)fellowship, the (3)breaking of bread and(4)prayer”) or perhaps just three phrases (“the (1)apostle’s teaching andthe (2)fellowship in/of the breaking of bread and (3)prayer”). All phrasesare in the dative case because all are presumably indirect objects of theverb (as they have traditionally been translated, anyway), but the dativecase sometimes can function have other functions that may connect”fellowship” and “breaking of bread” (possessive, appositive, locative??) ina modifier relationship, so I wonder if that may be the reason why the KAIwas not repeated here. Metzger’s Textual Commentary says, “The Latin text ofcodex Bezae read, with vg, syr(p) cop(sa,bo), ‘in the fellowship of thebreaking of bread.'” My copy of the Vulgate doesn’t have punctuation, but itrenders the middle phrase “et communicatione fractionis panis,” so thatwould seem to suggest Jerome understood a possessive relationship here. MyLatin dictionary lists “joint partaking” as a meaning of “communicatio.” AmI on to something here? Three concepts make more sense to me, just becausegroups of three are common in the Bible, but the historical consensus seemsto be four concepts. Scott StockingPastor, Congregational Christian ChurchAdjunct Professor, Lincoln Christian CollegeInstructor, Heritage Preparatory Academy

[] Another example of a qualitative QEOS[] Acts 2:42: Three or four concepts?

[] Acts 2:42: Three or four concepts? Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Jul 10 08:45:44 EDT 2006

[] Acts 2:42: Three or four concepts? [] PEI, FEI, XEI, KSI, PSI (was pee or pie) Dear Scott,>The phrase “the apostle’s teaching KAI the fellowship, [KAI] the breaking of>bread KAI prayer” caught my eye this week as I was preparing a sermon. The>KAI in brackets is a textual variant (e.g., it appears in the TR, but not in>UBS4). I was wondering, if in fact the UBS4 is correct to omit it, are there>four concepts divided up into two couplets separated by a comma (“the>(1)apostle’s teaching and (2)fellowship, the (3)breaking of bread and>(4)prayer”) or perhaps just three phrases (“the (1)apostle’s teaching and>the (2)fellowship in/of the breaking of bread and (3)prayer”). All phrases>are in the dative case because all are presumably indirect objects of the>verb (as they have traditionally been translated, anyway), but the dative>case sometimes can function have other functions that may connect>“fellowship” and “breaking of bread” (possessive, appositive, locative??) in>a modifier relationship, so I wonder if that may be the reason why the KAI>was not repeated here. Metzger’s Textual Commentary says, “The Latin text of>codex Bezae read, with vg, syr(p) cop(sa,bo), ‘in the fellowship of the>breaking of bread.'” My copy of the Vulgate doesn’t have punctuation, but it>renders the middle phrase “et communicatione fractionis panis,” so that>would seem to suggest Jerome understood a possessive relationship here. My>Latin dictionary lists “joint partaking” as a meaning of “communicatio.” Am>I on to something here? Three concepts make more sense to me, just because>groups of three are common in the Bible, but the historical consensus seems>to be four concepts.> > > > Another possibility is that there are two groupings, 1) the teaching and 2) everything else, with everything else being a series of three things joined by “kai”: “Now they were devoted to the teaching of the apostles and to fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayers.”Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] Acts 2:42: Three or four concepts?[] PEI, FEI, XEI, KSI, PSI (was pee or pie)

[] Acts 2:42: Three or four concepts? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 10 12:35:01 EDT 2006

[] PEI, FEI, XEI, KSI, PSI (was pee or pie) [] PEI, FEI, XEI, KSI, PSI (was pee or pie) ACTS 2:42 HSAN DE PROSKARTEROUNTES THi DIDACHi TWN APOSTOLWN KAI THi KOINWNIAi [KAI] THi KLASEI TOU ARTOU KAI TAIS PROSEUCAIS.Barrett (Acts ICC) suggests that the inclusion of KAI between THi KOINWNIAi and THi KLASEI was intended to disambiguate the identification of four separate items in the list by making the separation between THi KOINWNIAi and THi KLASEI explicit. The reading KAI THi KOINWNIAi, THi KLASEI would be more difficult.The correction of Sinaiticus to include KAI is interesting. Does Sinaiticus often get corrected in the direction of of Byzantine text?Elizabeth Kline

[] PEI, FEI, XEI, KSI, PSI (was pee or pie)[] PEI, FEI, XEI, KSI, PSI (was pee or pie)