Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Brian Swedburg brian at discoveryhills.org
Wed Nov 7 03:21:23 EST 2001
2 Samuel 13:15, LXX 2 Samuel 13:15, LXX > > Yes, I am aware of how most translations have interpreted it, and the main> reason for my post is to disagree with this common notion. Both are> grammatically possible, but I have presented my reasons for preferring one> to the other.> You are quite right that v. 34-37 has the topic of resurrection and for this> Luke uses either ANESTHSEN AUTON EK NEKRWN as in v. 34 or hO QEOS HGEIREN in> v. 37.> V. 30-31 also has the topic of resurrection with the expression hO QEOS> HGEIREN AUTON EK NEKRWN.> > But as I have said earlier, Paul like others with a Semitic background> naturally goes in circles, so there is no problem in seeing v. 32-33 as> having a different topic from the resurrection. The overall topic of the> speech is to prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was indeed the promised> Messiah, and therefore the promise from Deut is important.> I take 33b (Ps 2:7) to refer to the incarnation of Jesus, that is God> sending forth or raising up for the sons of the forefathers Jesus as that> promised Prophet.> It is the fronted hHMIN together with the use of ANISTHMI that makes me lean> towards the interpretation I have suggested, in view of the parallels.> ANISTHMI is a common Greek verb and not a technical term for resurrection,> so it needs a phrase like EK NEKRWN to take this specific sense. That phrase> is missing in v. 33, and in addition the hHMIN is present. If hHMIN were to> be in apposition to TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN it should have preceded it, not> followed it.> > Iver Larsen> >> > Iver and List, greetings, I haven’t posted a question or response in so long I just had to postsomething! I have only glanced at the various verses in Acts 13 today, beingas crazy busy as usual. So I just want to say thanks. I appreciate the question you raise, andthe potential distinctions. Just following a thread sometimes when I don’thave time to join it is a great stimulus and escape from the daily grind.Grateful for ,Brian SwedburgStudent>
2 Samuel 13:15, LXX2 Samuel 13:15, LXX
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Nov 7 07:51:28 EST 2001
2 Samuel 13:15, LXX 2 Samuel 13:15, LXX
2 Samuel 13:15, LXX2 Samuel 13:15, LXX
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Alex / Ali alexali at surf.net.au
Wed Nov 7 08:35:15 EST 2001
2 Samuel 13:15, LXX Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 [Acts 13:32-33]>KAI hUMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQA THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIAN GENOMENHN>hOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN>hHMIN ANASTHSAS IHSOUNIver, the hUMEIS should be hHMEIS.>and WE announce to YOU (concerning) the promise which came to the/ourfathers>that this (promise) God has (now) fulfilled for their children (you and me)(by)>having raised up Jesus for us> >The difficult phrase is hHMIN ANASTHSAS, and which other words hHMIN>connects with.>First, does “raise up” refer to raising from the dead or raising up in the>sense of sending forth?>It is interesting that we find the same phrase in all three major speeches>to a Jewish audience in Acts.[snip]>Any thoughts?Just one quick thought (it’s midnight here, have just come home after a latenight, and can’t give this more time now), but why not take hHMIN as inapposition to TOIS TEKNOIS, rather than closely with ANASTHSAS? This wasthe way I construed before reading on in your message to look at theinteresting parallel passages you cite, and I acknowledge I haven’t weighedtheir full significance for this text. (I do note that NIV, at least, takeshHMIN as being in apposition.) The hOTI DE ANESTHSEN AUTON EK NEKRWN KTL ofv34 suggests to me on first reading that here it is raising from the deadthat is in mind (and verse 35, too, does nothing to contradict thisunderstanding of the text), rather than the ‘sending forth’ sense seenelsewhere; but I don’t offer hOTI KTL as being conclusive, since thecitation of Psalm 2:7 in 33b, hUIOS MOU EI SU, EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE,could be taken as in parallel to the ‘send forth’ sense. How are you takingthat clause? Regards,Alex HopkinsMelbourne, Australia
2 Samuel 13:15, LXXTopic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Nov 7 14:33:00 EST 2001
Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 > Just one quick thought (it’s midnight here, have just come home> after a late> night, and can’t give this more time now), but why not take hHMIN as in> apposition to TOIS TEKNOIS, rather than closely with ANASTHSAS? This was> the way I construed before reading on in your message to look at the> interesting parallel passages you cite, and I acknowledge I> haven’t weighed> their full significance for this text. (I do note that NIV, at> least, takes hHMIN as being in apposition.) The hOTI DE ANESTHSEN AUTONEK> NEKRWN KTL of v34 suggests to me on first reading that here it is raisingfrom the dead> that is in mind (and verse 35, too, does nothing to contradict this> understanding of the text), rather than the ‘sending forth’ sense seen> elsewhere; but I don’t offer hOTI KTL as being conclusive, since the> citation of Psalm 2:7 in 33b, hUIOS MOU EI SU, EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE,> could be taken as in parallel to the ‘send forth’ sense. How are> you taking that clause? Regards,Yes, I am aware of how most translations have interpreted it, and the mainreason for my post is to disagree with this common notion. Both aregrammatically possible, but I have presented my reasons for preferring oneto the other.You are quite right that v. 34-37 has the topic of resurrection and for thisLuke uses either ANESTHSEN AUTON EK NEKRWN as in v. 34 or hO QEOS HGEIREN inv. 37.V. 30-31 also has the topic of resurrection with the expression hO QEOSHGEIREN AUTON EK NEKRWN.But as I have said earlier, Paul like others with a Semitic backgroundnaturally goes in circles, so there is no problem in seeing v. 32-33 ashaving a different topic from the resurrection. The overall topic of thespeech is to prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was indeed the promisedMessiah, and therefore the promise from Deut is important.I take 33b (Ps 2:7) to refer to the incarnation of Jesus, that is Godsending forth or raising up for the sons of the forefathers Jesus as thatpromised Prophet.It is the fronted hHMIN together with the use of ANISTHMI that makes me leantowards the interpretation I have suggested, in view of the parallels.ANISTHMI is a common Greek verb and not a technical term for resurrection,so it needs a phrase like EK NEKRWN to take this specific sense. That phraseis missing in v. 33, and in addition the hHMIN is present. If hHMIN were tobe in apposition to TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN it should have preceded it, notfollowed it.Iver Larsen
Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Nov 8 05:06:16 EST 2001
Luke 8:9 Luke 8:9 At 8:33 PM +0100 11/7/01, Iver Larsen wrote:>> Just one quick thought (it’s midnight here, have just come home>> after a late>> night, and can’t give this more time now), but why not take hHMIN as in>> apposition to TOIS TEKNOIS, rather than closely with ANASTHSAS? This was>> the way I construed before reading on in your message to look at the>> interesting parallel passages you cite, and I acknowledge I>> haven’t weighed>> their full significance for this text. (I do note that NIV, at>> least, takes hHMIN as being in apposition.) The hOTI DE ANESTHSEN AUTON>EK>> NEKRWN KTL of v34 suggests to me on first reading that here it is raising>from the dead>> that is in mind (and verse 35, too, does nothing to contradict this>> understanding of the text), rather than the ‘sending forth’ sense seen>> elsewhere; but I don’t offer hOTI KTL as being conclusive, since the>> citation of Psalm 2:7 in 33b, hUIOS MOU EI SU, EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE,>> could be taken as in parallel to the ‘send forth’ sense. How are>> you taking that clause? Regards,> >Yes, I am aware of how most translations have interpreted it, and the main>reason for my post is to disagree with this common notion. Both are>grammatically possible, but I have presented my reasons for preferring one>to the other.>You are quite right that v. 34-37 has the topic of resurrection and for this>Luke uses either ANESTHSEN AUTON EK NEKRWN as in v. 34 or hO QEOS HGEIREN in>v. 37.>V. 30-31 also has the topic of resurrection with the expression hO QEOS>HGEIREN AUTON EK NEKRWN.> >But as I have said earlier, Paul like others with a Semitic background>naturally goes in circles, so there is no problem in seeing v. 32-33 as>having a different topic from the resurrection. The overall topic of the>speech is to prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was indeed the promised>Messiah, and therefore the promise from Deut is important.>I take 33b (Ps 2:7) to refer to the incarnation of Jesus, that is God>sending forth or raising up for the sons of the forefathers Jesus as that>promised Prophet.>It is the fronted hHMIN together with the use of ANISTHMI that makes me lean>towards the interpretation I have suggested, in view of the parallels.>ANISTHMI is a common Greek verb and not a technical term for resurrection,>so it needs a phrase like EK NEKRWN to take this specific sense. That phrase>is missing in v. 33, and in addition the hHMIN is present. If hHMIN were to>be in apposition to TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN it should have preceded it, not>followed it.I have two comments here after doing a quick search on ANISTHMI/ANISTAMAIin the 3d sg. in GNT:(1) Although I was initially in doubt, I think now that Iver is quite rightin understanding ANESTHSAS here of “raising up” in the sense of raising upa leader rather than of resurrection; I think that the two-fold directcitation of the passage from Deuteronomy strongly supports this.(2) Nevertheless, with regard to the diction, I think Iver has overstatedthe differentiation between ANISTHMI/ANISTAMAI and EGEIRW/EGEIROMAI (it wasthe realization that HGERQH is essentially equivalent to ANESTH as anintransitive 3d sg. aorist for resurrection that initiated my investigationof -QH- voice forms). Both verbs are used frequently for resurrection aswell as for other kinds of “raising/risings up.” For ANISTHMI/ANISTAMAI Iget the following figures and texts in 3d sg. instances:ANISTHMI causative(a) of resurrection (4x: Acts 2:24, 32; 9:41; 13:34; in only two of theseis there an explicit indication of “from death” but the sense in context isclear)(b) in other senses (3x: Mt 22:24, 3:22; Acts 7:37)ANISTAMAI intransitive(a) ANESTH with reference to resurrection (7x: Mk 5:42, 9:27; Lk 8:55, 9:8,19; Acts 9:34; 1 Th 4:14; in only one of these is there an explicitindication of “from death” but the sense in context is clear)(b) ANESTH in other senses (8x: Mk 3:26, Lk 4:16, 10:25; Jn 11:31; Acts5:36, 37, 7:18, 26:30)– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Luke 8:9Luke 8:9
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Warren Fulton warren at inlingua.at
Thu Nov 8 05:50:53 EST 2001
Luke 8:9 Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Iver larsen wrote:>It seems to me that most translations have misunderstood the Greek text>of Acts 13:32-33.KAI hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQA THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIANGENOMENHNhOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN hHMIN ANASTHSASIHSOUN>The difficult phrase is hHMIN ANASTHSAS, and which other words hHMIN>connects with.> >First, does “raise up” refer to raising from the dead or raising up in>the sense of sending forth?> >It is interesting that we find the same phrase in all three major>speeches to a Jewish audience in Acts. First in Peter’s speech on>Pentecost:> >Acts 3:23: PROFHTHN hUMIN ANASTHSEI KURIOS “The Lord will raise up for you>a prophet”This is actually from Peter’s second homily. In his first homily, onPenetcost, the whole middle section (2:22-2:36) is framed by: TOUTON … ANESTHSEN (23-24) and TOUTON … ANESTHSEN (32)While the first TOUTON … ANESTHSEN clearly refers to resurrection,the second one (vs. 32) might, at a stretch, go as one of your casesof “sent forth,” except that it lacks the fronted hUMIN. It isinteresting that both assertions of raising up, though, are balancedby accusations of killing: ANEILATE (23) ESTAURWSATE (36)Thus, the first homily, also to a Jewish audience, seems to toppleyour theory of “the prophet sent forth” as a recurrent motif in thesespeeches.Moving over to Paul’s speech in Antioch of Pisidia, your translationof hHMIN ANASTHSAS (13:33) is also favored by Vine, who states thatthe verb is “not here of Resurrection, but with reference to theIncarnation.” Vine sees the EK NEKRWN in the next verse as stressingANESTHSEN “by way of contrast,” meaning perhaps that the “send forth”notion might be the first association conjured up by this verb inconnection with prophets. On the other hand, BAGD lists this verseunder the special sense of ANISTHMI as referring to the resurrectionof Jesus.I think you are right that the fronted hUMIN is a stong echo of the”send forth” theme, but I’m not so sure that the surrounding EK NEKRWNqualifiers attached to EGEIRW and ANISTHMI in 30 and 34 are reallystressed, as Vine maintains, with the effect of setting ANASTHSAS in33 apart and lending it another sense altogether. I sympathize thoughwith you translators when you hear these strong echoes in thebackground of the original and can only choose a single renderingdevoid of any resonances.Warren FultonInlingua School of LanguagesVienna, Austria
Luke 8:9Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Nov 8 05:54:58 EST 2001
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Carl said:> I have two comments here after doing a quick search on ANISTHMI/ANISTAMAI> in the 3d sg. in GNT:> > (1) Although I was initially in doubt, I think now that Iver is> quite right> in understanding ANESTHSAS here of “raising up” in the sense of raising up> a leader rather than of resurrection; I think that the two-fold direct> citation of the passage from Deuteronomy strongly supports this.> > (2) Nevertheless, with regard to the diction, I think Iver has overstated> the differentiation between ANISTHMI/ANISTAMAI and> EGEIRW/EGEIROMAI (it was> the realization that HGERQH is essentially equivalent to ANESTH as an> intransitive 3d sg. aorist for resurrection that initiated my> investigation> of -QH- voice forms). Both verbs are used frequently for resurrection as> well as for other kinds of “raising/risings up.” For ANISTHMI/ANISTAMAI I> get the following figures and texts in 3d sg. instances:> > ANISTHMI causative> (a) of resurrection (4x: Acts 2:24, 32; 9:41; 13:34; in only two of these> is there an explicit indication of “from death” but the sense in> context is clear)> (b) in other senses (3x: Mt 22:24, 3:22; Acts 7:37)> ANISTAMAI intransitive> (a) ANESTH with reference to resurrection (7x: Mk 5:42, 9:27; Lk> 8:55, 9:8,> 19; Acts 9:34; 1 Th 4:14; in only one of these is there an explicit> indication of “from death” but the sense in context is clear)> (b) ANESTH in other senses (8x: Mk 3:26, Lk 4:16, 10:25; Jn 11:31; Acts> 5:36, 37, 7:18, 26:30)> —You are probably right that I overstated the case. I have in the meantimelooked more at the difference between EGEIRW and ANISTHMI.In view of our earlier discussion of active, middle and passive, I find itinteresting that EGEIRW occurs in active in the transitive sense of “causeto get up” whereas it occurs commonly in the middle/passive form in eitherthe middle sense of “get up” or the passive sense of “being raised up”.ANISTHMI is quite different. It never occurs in the morphological passiveparadigm and it is rare in the middle. The middle form may have either themiddle or passive meaning.In the future tense the active forms of ANISTHMI are apparently transitivein meaning “raise up” but the middle forms are intransitive “rising up”.Outside the future we have active forms in the vast majority of cases, butthe meaning of this active form is either semantically active “raise up” orsemantically middle “rise”, depending on context.Both Acts 3:22 and 7:37 use the future active tense as they are quotes fromDeut 18 about a future happening which has now become past.In Acts 3:26 and 13:33 we find the active participle – hUMIN ANASTHSAS – asPaul is referring to the promise as already having been fulfilled. In bothinstances we have the dative pronoun as we also find it in 3:22 and 7:37.It is really this dative pronoun that got my attention, and I find itdifficult to construe the constructions in 3:22,26 and 7:37 with theresurrection. 13:33 is on the borderline, and it is the occurrence of thedative pronoun plus the promise to the fathers that cause me to lean in thedirection of raising up Jesus as a fulfillment of the promise to the”fathers” through Moses.Iver Larsen
Acts 13:32-33 the ProphetActs 13:32-33 the Prophet
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Alex / Ali alexali at surf.net.au
Thu Nov 8 06:07:09 EST 2001
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Just in case it may be of some help, Iver, I’ll offer a couple more thoughtson the Acts 13:32-33 passage (and maybe Brian might get some amusement inthe continuing thread – greetings! – and thanks for joining in.) In myreply to your original post I mentioned that hHMIN can be taken asappositional to TOIS TEKNOIS rather as working closely than with TOISTEKNOIS, and that the raising from the dead is suggested but notconclusively proven from verses 34 and 35. In your response you said>Yes, I am aware of how most translations have interpreted it, and the main>reason for my post is to disagree with this common notion.My understanding from this is that your own mind is leaning quite firmly infavour of the words in the passage having the sense of sending forth aprophet, so I imagine what you’re after is just some feedback from us as tohow we would view the ‘common notion’ now, in the light of your suggestionwhich you back up with other citations and argument. (It might be worthmentioning that the view I put was simply according to my understanding frommy reading of the text and wasn’t based on any ‘common notion’; I didafterwards look at the NIV and saw that it has taken the sense as I did, butneither that translation nor ‘common notion’ was the basis of my note.)>But as I have said earlier, Paul like others with a Semitic background>naturally goes in circles, so there is no problem in seeing v. 32-33 as>having a different topic from the resurrection.I don’t see a problem in there being a different topic in the differentverses, either; it’s a question of whether there is. The reference to Pau’sSemitic circles takes me back to my doctoral days working in Euripideandrama, and what may legitimately be assumed about the meaning of a textbased on assumptions about the author. It’s a hermeneutical question ratherthan a translational one; in general I tend to be perhaps a little morewary of allowing such factors weight than your comment suggests to me.>It is the fronted hHMIN together with the use of ANISTHMI that makes melean>towards the interpretation I have suggested, in view of the parallels.Well, I suppose hHMIN is fronted if we take it in relation to ANASTHSAS, butit isn’t fronted if taken with TOIS TEKNOIS. I tend to think of Greek wordorder as being a fairly nebulous beast which is resistant to efforts to pinit down, so I don’t see the word order being determinative here.>ANISTHMI is a common Greek verb and not a technical term for resurrection,Agreed.>so it needs a phrase like EK NEKRWN to take this specific sense.Haven’t looked into this, Iver; have you checked that ANISTHMI when usedelsewhere in the sense of resurrection from death is used in conjunctionwith EK NEKRWN or the like? If that’s so, that would be more persuasive forme than the former two arguments.>If hHMIN were to be in apposition to TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN it should havepreceded it, not>followed it.I myself wouldn’t use the word ‘should’ but my expectation tends to be asyou say (though, as mentioned above, I wouldn’t put a great deal of weighton this).Some last points.When I’m teaching students, I sometimes tell them that a knowledge of theGreek often enough doesn’t enable us to be certain of the exact meaning of apassage but it does allows us to discern the boundaries within which themeaning lies, so that in these instances we can determine what is areasonable interpretation and what is not, though we may not be able to becertain of one interpretation to the exclusion of all others. (I have hadstudents who start with the impression that a knowledge of Greek will lay torest each and every question of interpretation they’ve ever had, and it’sinteresting to watch them begin to realise that this isn’t so.) I havecertainly profited from your raising this text for discussion, though I’mnot yet convinced of your understanding to the exclusion of the commonnotion. (You may, as it were, be forced to make a call if you’re working onthe passage for the translation you mentioned to us some weeks ago; perhapsmine is a luxury in not having to be definitive one way or another.)When I read the Acts 13:32-35 passage another Biblical passage came to mind,PERI TOU hUIOU AUTOU TOU GENOMENOU EK SPERMATOS DAUID KATA SARKA, TOUORISQENTES hUIOU QEOU EN DUNAMEI KATA PNEUMA hAGIWSUNHS EX ANASTASEWSNEKRWN, IHSOU CRISTOU TOU KURIOU hHMWN KTL (Romans 1:3-4). The declarationof Jesus as Son of God is on the basis of his resurrection from the dead,which may parallel the citation of hUIOS MOU EI SU, EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKASE in the context of the resurrection at Acts 13:33-34. I am not sayingthat the Acts passage should be read in the light of the Romans, justconfessing an inclination to eisegesis on my own part!For an interpretation of these verses consistent with Iver’s, see FFBruce adloc. (I’m not sure if you’ve seen his remarks, Iver, but he cites some ofthe texts you adduce in support of your understanding.)I see that Carl has had a look at ANISTHMI/ANISTAMAI and thinks now ‘thatIver is quite rightin understanding ANESTHSAS here of “raising up” in the sense of raising up aleader rather than of resurrection’ (in a post received as I’ve been writingthis).I feel my leaning shifting … But isn’t that the beauty of BGreek?!With thanks and best wishes,Alex HopkinsMelbourne, Australia
Acts 13:32-33 the ProphetActs 13:32-33 the Prophet
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Nov 8 06:22:02 EST 2001
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet EGEIRW and ANISTHMI–Intransitive, Middle, and Passive > This is actually from Peter’s second homily. In his first homily, on> Penetcost, the whole middle section (2:22-2:36) is framed by:> > TOUTON … ANESTHSEN (23-24) and> TOUTON … ANESTHSEN (32)> > While the first TOUTON … ANESTHSEN clearly refers to resurrection,> the second one (vs. 32) might, at a stretch, go as one of your cases> of “sent forth,” except that it lacks the fronted hUMIN. It is> interesting that both assertions of raising up, though, are balanced> by accusations of killing:> > ANEILATE (23)> ESTAURWSATE (36)> > Thus, the first homily, also to a Jewish audience, seems to topple> your theory of “the prophet sent forth” as a recurrent motif in these> speeches.Yes, I realized my mistake shortly after having sent off the post. It isstill a common motif but not occurring in all speeches.I would not stretch 2:32 to talk about sending forth. Here the context makesit clear that the resurrection of Jesus is the topic, and this was the keyproof that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.Iver Larsen
Acts 13:32-33 the ProphetEGEIRW and ANISTHMI–Intransitive, Middle, and Passive
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet C.A. (Kees) Langeveld langeveld at solcon.nl
Sat Nov 10 06:37:22 EST 2001
Fonts for Mac 2Cor 4:3-4 In the Dutch translation (so called ‘TELOS translation’) used by me vers 32has ‘verwekt’ (in English: generated, caused, brought forth) and vers 34 has’opgewekt’ (raised up (from de death)). So in Dutch we have two nice verbs’verwekken’ and ‘opwekken’ being used in my favorite translation to indicatethe different senses and I think that these two senses do apply here.Kees Langeveld, Bennekom, Netherlands.—–Original Message—–From:Iver Larsen [mailto:iver_larsen at sil.org]Sent:woensdag 7 november 2001 13:51To:Biblical GreekSubject:[] Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet>From Iver Larsen to B-greek:It seems to me that most translations have misunderstood the Greek text of13:32-33.KAI hUMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQA THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIAN GENOMENHNhOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWNhHMIN ANASTHSAS IHSOUNand WE announce to YOU (concerning) the promise which came to the/ourfathersthat this (promise) God has (now) fulfilled for their children (you and me)(by)having raised up Jesus for usThe difficult phrase is hHMIN ANASTHSAS, and which other words hHMINconnects with.First, does “raise up” refer to raising from the dead or raising up in thesense of sending forth?It is interesting that we find the same phrase in all three major speechesto a Jewish audience in Acts. First in Peter’s speech on Pentecost:Acts 3:23: PROFHTHN hUMIN ANASTHSEI KURIOS “The Lord will raise up for you aprophet”Then in Stephen’s speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:37:PROFHTHN hUMIN ANASTHSEI hO QEOS “God will raise up for you a prophet”The promise from Deut 18,15-18 to Moses about God raising up another prophetlike him some time in the future was apparently a very well known Messianicprophecy that a speaker would tag into when speaking to a Jewish audience.We can assume that the Jewish audience in Antioch that Paul was addressingwere very familiar with this prophecy. As soon as he said “raise up for us”they would make the connection.Any thoughts?Iver Larsen— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/You are currently subscribed to as: [langeveld at solcon.nl]To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu
Fonts for Mac2Cor 4:3-4
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Sat Nov 10 13:01:07 EST 2001
2Cor 4:3-4 SBL paper posted (Adapting Technology to Teach Koine Greek) Iver Larsen posted:> From Iver Larsen to B-greek:> It seems to me that most translations have misunderstood the Greek text of> 13:32-33.> > KAI hUMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQA THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIAN GENOMENHN> hOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN> hHMIN ANASTHSAS IHSOUN> and WE announce to YOU (concerning) the promise which came to the/our> fathers> that this (promise) God has (now) fulfilled for their children (you and me)> (by)> having raised up Jesus for us> > The difficult phrase is hHMIN ANASTHSAS, and which other words hHMIN> connects with.> First, does “raise up” refer to raising from the dead or raising up in the> sense of sending forth?> It is interesting that we find the same phrase in all three major speeches> to a Jewish audience in Acts. First in Peter’s speech on Pentecost:> > Acts 3:23: PROFHTHN hUMIN ANASTHSEI KURIOS “The Lord will raise up for you a> prophet”> > Then in Stephen’s speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:37:> PROFHTHN hUMIN ANASTHSEI hO QEOS “God will raise up for you a prophet”> > The promise from Deut 18,15-18 to Moses about God raising up another prophet> like him some time in the future was apparently a very well known Messianic> prophecy that a speaker would tag into when speaking to a Jewish audience.> We can assume that the Jewish audience in Antioch that Paul was addressing> were very familiar with this prophecy. As soon as he said “raise up for us”> they would make the connection.> > Any thoughts?> > Iver LarsenMy thoughts are:If ANASTHSAS doesn’t mean raised from the dead then Ps. 2:7 is sayingthat Jesus became the Son of God by being born in the flesh. And ifANASTHSAS does mean raised from the dead then Jesus would havebeen begotten from the dead. My cousin and many othersbelieve the first way. That is, that Christ became the Son of God bybeing born in the flesh.Just a few thoughts.Harry Jones
2Cor 4:3-4SBL paper posted (Adapting Technology to Teach Koine Greek)
[] Acts 13:32-33 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Sep 4 12:55:59 EDT 2007
[] John 2:15 [] Acts 13:32-33 We have the following text from Paul’s speech in the synagogue in Antioch inPisidia:καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμεθαKAI hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQAAnd WE are telling YOU the good news (about)τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην,THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIAN GEGOMENHNthe promise that came to our forefathersὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν]hOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS (AUTWN)that God has fulfilled this very (promise) for the(ir) children,ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας ἸησοῦνhHMIN ANASTHSAS IHSOUNhaving raised up Jesus for US (by raising up…)Two questions:1) Should hHMIN not be taken with ANASTHSAS rather than as an apposition toTOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN?2) What is the meaning in this context of ANASTHSAS?It seems to me that the raising here has the sense of “bringing onto thescene”, i.e. the incarnation of Jesus as the next verse says “You are myson, I have fathered you today”. There is a similar construction in 13:22where God raised up David as a king for the people:ἤγειρεν τὸν Δαυὶδ αὐτοῖςHGEIREN TON DAVID AUTOIShe raised up David for themThe relevant promise to the forefathers is Deut 18:18(and 15), which in theLXX reads:προφήτην ἀναστήσω αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶνPROFHTHN ANASTHSW AUTOIS EK TWN ADELFWN AUTWNThe verb to raise up with a dative beneficiary is used in all cases to meanto bring onto the scene for someone’s benefit. This is one reason that Iprefer to take hUMIN in 13:33 with ANASTHSAS, because the promise to theforefathers from Deuteronomy must have been very wellknown to Peter,Stephen, Paul and Luke and the original audience. It is quoted or alluded toseveral times in Acts, see below.Another reason is the word order.If the text was supposed to mean “for us, their children”, then hUMIN oughtto have preceded TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN. It is more likely that the hUMIN isfronted before ANASTHSAS to indicate that whereas the promise came to theforefathers, it was actually fulfilled for their “children”, when God raisedup for US Jesus (as the saviour and king and Messiah).There are a number of examples of “raising up” connected with a dativepronoun, e.g.Luk 1:69: καὶ ἤγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυὶδ παιδὸς αὐτοῦKAI HGEIREN KERAS SWTHRIAS hHMIN EN OIKWi DAVID PAIDOS AUTOUAct 3:22 (Peter): Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριοςMWUSHS MEN EIPEN hOTI PROFHTHN *hUMIN ANASTHSEI* KURIOSAct 3:26: (Peter) ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεναὐτὸν*hUMIN PRWTON ANASTHSAS* hO QEOS TON PAIDA AUTOU APESTEILEN AUTONAct 7:37 (Stephen) οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Μωϋσῆς ὁ εἴπας τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, Προφήτηνὑμῖν ἀναστήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέhOUTOS ESTIN hO MWUSHS hO EIPAS TOIS hUIOS ISRAHL: PROFHTHN *hUMINANASTHSEI* hO QEOS EK TWN ADELFWN hUMWN hWS EME (not an exact quote from theHebrew text or LXX, but very much like Acts 13:33)Why do so many commentators and translations take hUMIN with TOIS TEKNOISand assume that this refers to raising Jesus from the dead when the patternsand context in Acts so strongly suggest a fronted dative pronoun with thisverb? (I suppose the answer is that the KJV got it wrong, so others follow.)I have had a hard time finding a good English translation. Probably JBP isthe closest, but still not quite right: “And as for us we tell you the good newsthat the promise made to our forefathers has come true—that, in raising upJesus, God has fulfilled it for us their children.”Iver Larsen
[] John 2:15[] Acts 13:32-33
[] Acts 13:32-33 Webb webb at selftest.net
Tue Sep 4 14:20:56 EDT 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] Acts 13:32-33 Dear Iver,Thanks for the proposal. Your analysis seems possible, particularly given the pattern of hOTI beginning v. 33 and resumed with hOTI DE in v. 34. These verses seem capable of being taken as two elements of the fulfillment of the promise mentioned in v. 32: (1) the giving (raising up for us) of the Prophet/Messiah and (2) his raising up from among the dead. If this reading is preferred, a clash of sorts results between the two senses of ANISTHMI in vv. 33 and 34, which goes a long way to explaining the confusion of translators and copyists (often reading AUTWN in v. 33 in place of hHMIN. One could speculate that Luke, attempting to give a précis of Paul’s presentation of the good news to Jewish audiences, unwittingly compressed things to the point that it left a stumbling-block for his Gentile readers, who would not so automatically see in the words hHMIN ANASTAS a reference to Deut. 18:15, 18.Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Iver LarsenSent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:56 AMTo: BGSubject: [] Acts 13:32-33We have the following text from Paul’s speech in the synagogue in Antioch inPisidia:καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμεθαKAI hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQAAnd WE are telling YOU the good news (about)τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην,THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIAN GEGOMENHNthe promise that came to our forefathersὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν]hOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS (AUTWN)that God has fulfilled this very (promise) for the(ir) children,ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας ἸησοῦνhHMIN ANASTHSAS IHSOUNhaving raised up Jesus for US (by raising up…)Two questions:1) Should hHMIN not be taken with ANASTHSAS rather than as an apposition toTOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN?2) What is the meaning in this context of ANASTHSAS?It seems to me that the raising here has the sense of “bringing onto thescene”, i.e. the incarnation of Jesus as the next verse says “You are myson, I have fathered you today”. There is a similar construction in 13:22where God raised up David as a king for the people:ἤγειρεν τὸν Δαυὶδ αὐτοῖςHGEIREN TON DAVID AUTOIShe raised up David for themThe relevant promise to the forefathers is Deut 18:18(and 15), which in theLXX reads:προφήτην ἀναστήσω αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶνPROFHTHN ANASTHSW AUTOIS EK TWN ADELFWN AUTWNThe verb to raise up with a dative beneficiary is used in all cases to meanto bring onto the scene for someone’s benefit. This is one reason that Iprefer to take hUMIN in 13:33 with ANASTHSAS, because the promise to theforefathers from Deuteronomy must have been very wellknown to Peter,Stephen, Paul and Luke and the original audience. It is quoted or alluded toseveral times in Acts, see below.Another reason is the word order.If the text was supposed to mean “for us, their children”, then hUMIN oughtto have preceded TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN. It is more likely that the hUMIN isfronted before ANASTHSAS to indicate that whereas the promise came to theforefathers, it was actually fulfilled for their “children”, when God raisedup for US Jesus (as the saviour and king and Messiah).There are a number of examples of “raising up” connected with a dativepronoun, e.g.Luk 1:69: καὶ ἤγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυὶδ παιδὸς αὐτοῦKAI HGEIREN KERAS SWTHRIAS hHMIN EN OIKWi DAVID PAIDOS AUTOUAct 3:22 (Peter): Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριοςMWUSHS MEN EIPEN hOTI PROFHTHN *hUMIN ANASTHSEI* KURIOSAct 3:26: (Peter) ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεναὐτὸν*hUMIN PRWTON ANASTHSAS* hO QEOS TON PAIDA AUTOU APESTEILEN AUTONAct 7:37 (Stephen) οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Μωϋσῆς ὁ εἴπας τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, Προφήτηνὑμῖν ἀναστήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέhOUTOS ESTIN hO MWUSHS hO EIPAS TOIS hUIOS ISRAHL: PROFHTHN *hUMINANASTHSEI* hO QEOS EK TWN ADELFWN hUMWN hWS EME (not an exact quote from theHebrew text or LXX, but very much like Acts 13:33)Why do so many commentators and translations take hUMIN with TOIS TEKNOISand assume that this refers to raising Jesus from the dead when the patternsand context in Acts so strongly suggest a fronted dative pronoun with thisverb? (I suppose the answer is that the KJV got it wrong, so others follow.)I have had a hard time finding a good English translation. Probably JBP isthe closest, but still not quite right: “And as for us we tell you the good newsthat the promise made to our forefathers has come true—that, in raising upJesus, God has fulfilled it for us their children.”Iver Larsen— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Acts 13:32-33[] Acts 13:32-33
[] Acts 13:32-33 Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Tue Sep 4 14:27:20 EDT 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] Acts 13:32-33 Iver,I will take a shot at addressing the pronoun question. I would agree that it makes sense to understand hHMIN as part of the participial clause rather than as an appositive. If it were the primary indirect object of the main verb, one expect it to find it immediately following the verb. If these two phrases were in apposition, I would have expected hHMIN to be the primary IO, with TOIS TEKNOIS (AUTWN) as the thematic appositive, not the other way around. Semantically redundant appositives often recharacterize the referent in a specific way that is salient in the context. Alternatively, if the pronoun were indeed intended to function as an appositive to TOIS TEKNOIS (AUTWN) as the primary IO, the addition of an ascensive KAI would be the most likely way of unambiguously marking this (‘even TO US’).I did a search in OpenText’s syntax database, based on how they analyzed things, to look for similar structures. They construe hHMIN as appositional, so I looked for other places where a pronoun played a similar role. Thus the following list should be viewed as representative rather than exhaustive. Searching for NPs that have a similar structure with a pronominal modifier following an adjectival modifier of some kind, there are only 8 in the GNT: Lk 15:30, 32; 19:27; Acts 8:22; 13:33; Rom 7:24; 1 Cor 8:9; and 1 Pet 5:10. With the exceptions of Acts 13:33 and 1 Pet 5:10, the pronominal appositives/modifiers are all demonstratives. This would make sense, as the demonstrative helps to highlight the thematic salience of the NP. In 1 Pet 5:10, the pronoun AUTOS is used as an intensive pronoun, accomplishing a similar task to the demonstrative. As Act 13:33 is written, I would say that the function of hHMIN is technically ambiguous, but I would cast my vote against it being read as an appositive in favor of your reading, based on usage elsewhere I could find.FWIW,Steven Runge, DLitt (Biblical Languages)Scholar-in-ResidenceLogos Research Systems, Inc.http://www.logos.com/academic/bio/runge —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Iver LarsenSent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:56 AMTo: BGSubject: [] Acts 13:32-33We have the following text from Paul’s speech in the synagogue in Antioch inPisidia:καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμεθαKAI hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQAAnd WE are telling YOU the good news (about)τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην, THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIAN GEGOMENHN the promise that came to our forefathersὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν] hOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS (AUTWN) that God has fulfilled this very (promise) for the(ir) children,ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας ἸησοῦνhHMIN ANASTHSAS IHSOUNhaving raised up Jesus for US (by raising up…)Two questions:1) Should hHMIN not be taken with ANASTHSAS rather than as an apposition to TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN?2) What is the meaning in this context of ANASTHSAS?It seems to me that the raising here has the sense of “bringing onto the scene”, i.e. the incarnation of Jesus as the next verse says “You are my son, I have fathered you today”. There is a similar construction in 13:22 where God raised up David as a king for the people:ἤγειρεν τὸν Δαυὶδ αὐτοῖςHGEIREN TON DAVID AUTOIShe raised up David for themThe relevant promise to the forefathers is Deut 18:18(and 15), which in the LXX reads:προφήτην ἀναστήσω αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν PROFHTHN ANASTHSW AUTOIS EK TWN ADELFWN AUTWNThe verb to raise up with a dative beneficiary is used in all cases to mean to bring onto the scene for someone’s benefit. This is one reason that I prefer to take hUMIN in 13:33 with ANASTHSAS, because the promise to the forefathers from Deuteronomy must have been very wellknown to Peter, Stephen, Paul and Luke and the original audience. It is quoted or alluded to several times in Acts, see below.Another reason is the word order.If the text was supposed to mean “for us, their children”, then hUMIN ought to have preceded TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN. It is more likely that the hUMIN is fronted before ANASTHSAS to indicate that whereas the promise came to the forefathers, it was actually fulfilled for their “children”, when God raised up for US Jesus (as the saviour and king and Messiah).There are a number of examples of “raising up” connected with a dative pronoun, e.g.Luk 1:69: καὶ ἤγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυὶδ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ KAI HGEIREN KERAS SWTHRIAS hHMIN EN OIKWi DAVID PAIDOS AUTOU Act 3:22 (Peter): Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος MWUSHS MEN EIPEN hOTI PROFHTHN *hUMIN ANASTHSEI* KURIOS Act 3:26: (Peter) ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν *hUMIN PRWTON ANASTHSAS* hO QEOS TON PAIDA AUTOU APESTEILEN AUTON Act 7:37 (Stephen) οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Μωϋσῆς ὁ εἴπας τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ hOUTOS ESTIN hO MWUSHS hO EIPAS TOIS hUIOS ISRAHL: PROFHTHN *hUMINANASTHSEI* hO QEOS EK TWN ADELFWN hUMWN hWS EME (not an exact quote from the Hebrew text or LXX, but very much like Acts 13:33)Why do so many commentators and translations take hUMIN with TOIS TEKNOIS and assume that this refers to raising Jesus from the dead when the patterns and context in Acts so strongly suggest a fronted dative pronoun with this verb? (I suppose the answer is that the KJV got it wrong, so others follow.) I have had a hard time finding a good English translation. Probably JBP is the closest, but still not quite right: “And as for us we tell you the good news that the promise made to our forefathers has come true—that, in raising up Jesus, God has fulfilled it for us their children.”Iver Larsen— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Acts 13:32-33[] Acts 13:32-33
[] Acts 13:32-33 Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Tue Sep 4 14:38:09 EDT 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] John 2:15 Dear Iver,I am more inclined to view the following:1. hOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS [AUTWN] hHMIN as completing thestatement of promise in verse 32.2. hHMIN goes with TOIS TEKNOIS not with ANASTHSAS.3. My translation would be “that this [promise ( referring to EPANGELIAN byagreement in vs. 32)] God has fulfilled to us their children..”4. This also reflects the fact that I am taking the AUTWN hHMIN as being thecorrect reading in the text versus AUTWN hHMWN. “And we bring to you the goodnews that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us theirchildren having raised Jesus; …”5. AVASTHSAS as the participle is Ist Aor. Act. Nom. Sing. Masc. I take it thatsince the main verb is EKPEPLHRWKE[N], which is Perfect Active 3rd Sing ofEKPLHROW, that AVASTHSAS should be translated as “having raised” reflecting thatPerfective force.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “BG” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:55 AMSubject: [] Acts 13:32-33> We have the following text from Paul’s speech in the synagogue in Antioch in> Pisidia:> > καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμεθα> KAI hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQA> And WE are telling YOU the good news (about)> > τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην,> THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIAN GEGOMENHN> the promise that came to our forefathers> > ὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν]> hOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS (AUTWN)> that God has fulfilled this very (promise) for the(ir) children,> > ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν> hHMIN ANASTHSAS IHSOUN> having raised up Jesus for US (by raising up…)> > Two questions:> 1) Should hHMIN not be taken with ANASTHSAS rather than as an apposition to> TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN?> 2) What is the meaning in this context of ANASTHSAS?> > It seems to me that the raising here has the sense of “bringing onto the> scene”, i.e. the incarnation of Jesus as the next verse says “You are my> son, I have fathered you today”. There is a similar construction in 13:22> where God raised up David as a king for the people:> > ἤγειρεν τὸν Δαυὶδ αὐτοῖς> HGEIREN TON DAVID AUTOIS> he raised up David for them> > The relevant promise to the forefathers is Deut 18:18(and 15), which in the> LXX reads:> προφήτην ἀναστήσω αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν> PROFHTHN ANASTHSW AUTOIS EK TWN ADELFWN AUTWN> > The verb to raise up with a dative beneficiary is used in all cases to mean> to bring onto the scene for someone’s benefit. This is one reason that I> prefer to take hUMIN in 13:33 with ANASTHSAS, because the promise to the> forefathers from Deuteronomy must have been very wellknown to Peter,> Stephen, Paul and Luke and the original audience. It is quoted or alluded to> several times in Acts, see below.> Another reason is the word order.> If the text was supposed to mean “for us, their children”, then hUMIN ought> to have preceded TOIS TEKNOIS AUTWN. It is more likely that the hUMIN is> fronted before ANASTHSAS to indicate that whereas the promise came to the> forefathers, it was actually fulfilled for their “children”, when God raised> up for US Jesus (as the saviour and king and Messiah).> There are a number of examples of “raising up” connected with a dative> pronoun, e.g.> Luk 1:69: καὶ ἤγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυὶδ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ> KAI HGEIREN KERAS SWTHRIAS hHMIN EN OIKWi DAVID PAIDOS AUTOU> Act 3:22 (Peter): Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος> MWUSHS MEN EIPEN hOTI PROFHTHN *hUMIN ANASTHSEI* KURIOS> Act 3:26: (Peter) ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν> αὐτὸν> *hUMIN PRWTON ANASTHSAS* hO QEOS TON PAIDA AUTOU APESTEILEN AUTON> Act 7:37 (Stephen) οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Μωϋσῆς ὁ εἴπας τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, Προφήτην> ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ> hOUTOS ESTIN hO MWUSHS hO EIPAS TOIS hUIOS ISRAHL: PROFHTHN *hUMIN> ANASTHSEI* hO QEOS EK TWN ADELFWN hUMWN hWS EME (not an exact quote from the> Hebrew text or LXX, but very much like Acts 13:33)> > Why do so many commentators and translations take hUMIN with TOIS TEKNOIS> and assume that this refers to raising Jesus from the dead when the patterns> and context in Acts so strongly suggest a fronted dative pronoun with this> verb? (I suppose the answer is that the KJV got it wrong, so others follow.)> I have had a hard time finding a good English translation. Probably JBP is> the closest, but still not quite right: “And as for us we tell you the good> news> that the promise made to our forefathers has come true—that, in raising up> Jesus, God has fulfilled it for us their children.”> > Iver Larsen> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> ——————————————————————————–No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.5/988 – Release Date: 09/04/07 9:14 AMFor your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!
[] Acts 13:32-33[] John 2:15
[] Acts 13:32-33 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Sep 5 11:40:24 EDT 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] Acts 13:32-33 —– Original Message —– From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>> Iver,> > I will take a shot at addressing the pronoun question. I would agree that > it makes sense to understand hHMIN as part of the participial clause > rather than as an appositive.> > If it were the primary indirect object of the main verb, one expect it to > find it immediately following the verb.> > If these two phrases were in apposition, I would have expected hHMIN to be > the primary IO, with TOIS TEKNOIS (AUTWN) as the thematic appositive, not > the other way around. Semantically redundant appositives often > recharacterize the referent in a specific way that is salient in the > context.> > Alternatively, if the pronoun were indeed intended to function as an > appositive to TOIS TEKNOIS (AUTWN) as the primary IO, the addition of an > ascensive KAI would be the most likely way of unambiguously marking this > (‘even TO US’).This is also how I understand it, but you express it better.> > I did a search in OpenText’s syntax database, based on how they analyzed > things, to look for similar structures. They construe hHMIN as > appositional, so I looked for other places where a pronoun played a > similar role. Thus the following list should be viewed as representative > rather than exhaustive.> > Searching for NPs that have a similar structure with a pronominal modifier > following an adjectival modifier of some kind, there are only 8 in the > GNT: Lk 15:30, 32; 19:27; Acts 8:22; 13:33; Rom 7:24; 1 Cor 8:9; and 1 > Pet 5:10. With the exceptions of Acts 13:33 and 1 Pet 5:10, the > pronominal appositives/modifiers are all demonstratives. This would make > sense, as the demonstrative helps to highlight the thematic salience of > the NP. In 1 Pet 5:10, the pronoun AUTOS is used as an intensive pronoun, > accomplishing a similar task to the demonstrative.IL:For those with the demonstrative, I would say that the demonstrative is not an apposition, but functions as a modifier within the noun phrase. So none of these are comparable to Acts 13:33, nor is 1 Pet 5:10.I found it hard to search for similar structures since I don’t have a database with apposition tagged.The most similar I could find in the GNT were:Luk 11:42,3 OUAI hUMIN TOIS FARISAIOISwhere the pronoun precedes the noun.I cannot imagine the pronoun following the noun.Even in English, all translations change the order to: “us, their children” rather than “their children, us”, but that is not much of an argument.> As Act 13:33 is written, I would say that the function of hHMIN is > technically ambiguous, but I would cast my vote against it being read as > an appositive in favor of your reading, based on usage elsewhere I could > find.> > FWIW,Nice to know that we agree on this one.Iver Larsen
[] Acts 13:32-33[] Acts 13:32-33
[] Acts 13:32-33 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Sep 5 17:33:41 EDT 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] Acts 13:32-33 ACTS 13:30 hO DE QEOS HGEIREN AUTON EK NEKRWN, 31 hOS WFQH EPI hHMERAS PLEIOUS TOIS SUNANABASIN AUTWi APO THS GALILAIAS EIS IEROUSALHM, hOITINES [NUN] EISIN MARTURES AUTOU PROS TON LAON. 32 KAI hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQA THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIAN GENOMENHN, 33 hOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS [AUTWN] hHMIN ANASTHSAS IHSOUN hWS KAI EN TWi YALMWi GEGRAPTAI TWi DEUTERWi: hUIOS MOU EI SU, EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE. 34 hOTI DE ANESTHSEN AUTON EK NEKRWN MHKETI MELLONTA hUPOSTREFEIN EIS DIAFQORAN, hOUTWS EIRHKEN hOTI DWSW hUMIN TA hOSIA DAUID TA PISTARE: the question about the referent of ANASTHSASMy first take on this was to agree with Ivar, that ANASTHSAS in ACTS 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection. Looking at the more recent commentaries on Acts, Barrett (ICC) builds a case for that reading sell also Bruce (NICNT 2nd ed.). However, the older works like Meyer and Alford state in absolute terms that ANASTHSAS in ACTS 13:33 must refer to the resurrection using the obvious arguments based on ACTS 13:30 hO DE QEOS HGEIREN AUTON EK NEKRWN and 34 hOTI DE ANESTHSEN AUTON EK NEKRWN.The biggest problem with the Alford, Meyer, … reading is the presence of the quotation from Psalm 2:7. At first glance this seems to be a strange citation if ANASTHSAS refers to the resurrection. However, looking into the treatment of Hebrews 1:5a TINI GAR EIPEN POTE TWN AGGELWN: hUIOS MOU EI SU, EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE; C.Koester (Heb. AB p191) “… most interpreters connect this text with Christ’s resurrection and exaltation, since the quotation supports the exaltation of the Son mentioned in 1:2b … [long list of references] and since in 5:5 (cf.7:28) it refers to the eternal high priest in heaven … Similarly Acts 13:15-41 relates Ps 2:7 to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 13:33) … and in Rom 1:4 … ” [end quote]ROM. 1:3 PERI TOU hUIOU AUTOU TOU GENOMENOU EK SPERMATOS DAUID KATA SARKA, 4 TOU hORISQENTOS hUIOU QEOU EN DUNAMEI KATA PNEUMA hAGIWSUNHS EX ANASTASEWS NEKRWN, IHSOU CRISTOU TOU KURIOU hHMWN,In our text Acts 13:30-34 we are dealing with a speech of Paul’s (reported by Luke) and this Romans passage seems relieve some of the difficulty associated with the Psalm 2:7 quote and ANASTHSAS referring to the resurrection.Elizabeth Kline
[] Acts 13:32-33[] Acts 13:32-33
[] Acts 13:32-33 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Sep 6 02:14:52 EDT 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] Acts 13:32-33 Dear Elizabeth,Thank you for researching some of the commentators. My comments below:—– Original Message —– From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: “greek ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:33 AMSubject: Re: [] Acts 13:32-33> ACTS 13:30 hO DE QEOS HGEIREN AUTON EK NEKRWN, 31 hOS WFQH EPI> hHMERAS PLEIOUS TOIS SUNANABASIN AUTWi APO THS GALILAIAS EIS> IEROUSALHM, hOITINES [NUN] EISIN MARTURES AUTOU PROS TON LAON. 32> KAI hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQA THN PROS TOUS PATERAS EPAGGELIAN> GENOMENHN, 33 hOTI TAUTHN hO QEOS EKPEPLHRWKEN TOIS TEKNOIS [AUTWN]> hHMIN ANASTHSAS IHSOUN hWS KAI EN TWi YALMWi GEGRAPTAI TWi DEUTERWi:> hUIOS MOU EI SU, EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE. 34 hOTI DE ANESTHSEN> AUTON EK NEKRWN MHKETI MELLONTA hUPOSTREFEIN EIS DIAFQORAN, hOUTWS> EIRHKEN hOTI DWSW hUMIN TA hOSIA DAUID TA PISTA> > RE: the question about the referent of ANASTHSAS> > My first take on this was to agree with Ivar, that ANASTHSAS in ACTS> 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection. Looking at the more recent> commentaries on Acts, Barrett (ICC) builds a case for that reading> sell also Bruce (NICNT 2nd ed.). However, the older works like Meyer> and Alford state in absolute terms that ANASTHSAS in ACTS 13:33 must> refer to the resurrection using the obvious arguments based on ACTS> 13:30 hO DE QEOS HGEIREN AUTON EK NEKRWN and 34 hOTI DE ANESTHSEN> AUTON EK NEKRWN.It is important to remember that the words EGEIRW and ANISTHMI do not inthemselves refer to the resurrection. That is why in every case where theresurrection is in view either we have a direct specification like EK NEKRWNor it is abundantly clear from context that the resurrection is the topic.V. 34 is introduced by a DE and there is a different quote connected withthis topic than the quote in v. 33. The themes in v. 32-33 and v. 34 are twodifferent themes.One of the most overlooked features of hortatory discourse is that thethemes of such texts are not ordered chronologically, and Western thinkers,being linear, tend to impose a non-existent step-by-step chronology on thetext. The Hebrew pattern is to use overlapping circles, and this often comesacross even if the text is in Greek, because such patterns are connected tothe level above the sentence, a level that was not well understood by oldercommentators, because they lived before the age of discourse studies.In Acts 13 we have a long speech from v. 16b to 41. It would take too longto present a detailed literary (or discourse) analysis of the whole text,but first we have an address in v. 16b. Then we have the first round(circle) in 17-23. The final theme in v. 23 is that God brought Jesus as thesaviour as he had promised (the forefathers). 24-25 is a digression aboutJohn the Baptist with his two messages: 1) repent and 2) the one comingafter me is greater than me. All of this is an exposition that builds up tothe hortatory (persuasive) elements, which usually start off being indirectbefore becoming direct. The first indirect appeal is in v. 26 with apersonal address building rapport followed by the key statement “It is to USthis word of salvation was sent”. Notice the highlighted hHMIN here.V. 27 to 31 is another round of background exposition, telling about how theJewish leaders refused to believe that Jesus was the Saviour.V. 32-33 is the next indirect appeal where again hHMEIS, hUMAS and hHMIN arehighlighted. It connects back to v. 23 and v. 26 and has the same themeabout God sending Jesus to be our Saviour (and King, being the Messiah).This sending of the Messiah is fulfilling the promises to the forefathers.Although the suffering and death of the Messiah was prophesied in Isa 53,there is no promise of a resurrection anywhere in the OT as far as I know,and Paul does not refer to Isa 53 anyway. To connect vs. 32-33 to 30-31 and34 rather than to vs. 23 and 26 indicates a failure to appreciate thehortatory discourse structure of the speech.Vs. 34-37 has another exposition about the resurrection of Jesus from thedead. It is introduced as a new theme by the DE in v. 34 and a differentquote. The DE is ignored or rendered by “and” in most translations, but theNET does have a “but”. NASB says “As for the fact that He raised Him up fromthe dead..” and NRSV says: “As to his raising him from the dead..” Sincethere is no direct and clear prophecy about the resurrection, Paul has tobend over backwards in order to extend Ps 16:10 from David to Jesus.vs. 38-41 is now the final appeal which in common fashion contains both apromise of a reward (salvation and forgiveness) if the advice to believe inJesus as the Messiah is followed and a warning if the advice is notfollowed.> > The biggest problem with the Alford, Meyer, … reading is the> presence of the quotation from Psalm 2:7. At first glance this seems> to be a strange citation if ANASTHSAS refers to the resurrection.> However, looking into the treatment of Hebrews 1:5a TINI GAR EIPEN> POTE TWN AGGELWN: hUIOS MOU EI SU, EGW SHMERON GEGENNHKA SE;> C.Koester (Heb. AB p191) “… most interpreters connect this text> with Christ’s resurrection and exaltation, since the quotation> supports the exaltation of the Son mentioned in 1:2b … [long list> of references] and since in 5:5 (cf.7:28) it refers to the eternal> high priest in heaven … Similarly Acts 13:15-41 relates Ps 2:7 to> Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 13:33) … and in Rom 1:4 … ” [end quote]How “most interpreters” can connect Heb 1:5a with the resurrection is beyondme, since there is no mention of the resurrection in the whole chapter.Rather, the theme is the superiority of Jesus over the angels, and Psalm 2:7is quoted for its first part: “You are my Son”, even though the next versedoes talk about God bringing his firstborn into the world, which isapparently how Ps 2:7 was normally exegeted by the first Christians asdescribed in Acts.In Heb 5:5 there is again no mention of or hint to the resurrection. Thepoint there is that Christ was a special and different high priest, partlybecause he was the Son of God as no other high priest could be.> > ROM. 1:3 PERI TOU hUIOU AUTOU TOU GENOMENOU EK SPERMATOS DAUID KATA> SARKA, 4 TOU hORISQENTOS hUIOU QEOU EN DUNAMEI KATA PNEUMA> hAGIWSUNHS EX ANASTASEWS NEKRWN, IHSOU CRISTOU TOU KURIOU hHMWN,This is clearly about the resurrection as we have NEKRWN. This is a kind ofproof that helped to define (hORIZEIN) Jesus as the Son of God, but there isno thematic relationship to Acts 13:33Iver Larsen
[] Acts 13:32-33[] Acts 13:32-33
[] Acts 13:32-33 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Fri Sep 7 14:55:16 EDT 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] Acts 13:32-33 On Sep 5, 2007, at 11:14 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:> It is important to remember that the words EGEIRW and ANISTHMI do > not in> themselves refer to the resurrection. That is why in every case > where the> resurrection is in view either we have a direct specification like > EK NEKRWN> or it is abundantly clear from context that the resurrection is the > topic.> V. 34 is introduced by a DE and there is a different quote > connected with> this topic than the quote in v. 33. The themes in v. 32-33 and v. > 34 are two> different themes.ACTS 3:22 MWUSHS MEN EIPEN hOTI PROFHTHN hUMIN ANASTHSEI KURIOS hO QEOS hUMWN EK TWN ADELFWN hUMWN hWS EME: AUTOU AKOUSESQE KATA PANTA hOSA AN LALHSHi PROS hUMAS. 23 ESTAI DE PASA YUCH hHTIS EAN MH AKOUSHi TOU PROFHTOU EKEINOU EXOLEQREUQHSETAI EK TOU LAOU. 24 KAI PANTES DE hOI PROFHTAI APO SAMOUHL KAI TWN KAQEXHS hOSOI ELALHSAN KAI KATHGGEILAN TAS hHMERAS TAUTAS. 25 hUMEIS ESTE hOI hUIOI TWN PROFHTWN KAI THS DIAQHKHS hHS DIEQETO hO QEOS PROS TOUS PATERAS hUMWN LEGWN PROS ABRAAM: KAI EN TWi SPERMATI SOU [EN]EULOGHQHSONTAI PASAI hAI PATRIAI THS GHS. 26 hUMIN PRWTON ANASTHSAS hO QEOS TON PAIDA AUTOU APESTEILEN AUTON EULOGOUNTA hUMAS EN TWi APOSTREFEIN hEKASTON APO TWN PONHRIWN hUMWN.Webb already noted of the possible connection between ANISTHMI in Deut. 18:15,18 and Acts 13:33. In Acts 3:22 PROFHTHN hUMIN ANASTHSEI KURIOS hO QEOS hUMWN there is no doubt about this. For this reason, I wonder why Danker 3d ed. (ANISTHMI 2) appears to read hUMIN PRWTON ANASTHSAS hO QEOS TON PAIDA AUTOU v26 as a reference to Jesus’ resurrection. He notes parenthetically that this is “wordplay” with ANASTHSEI in v22. I understand that Luther and Beza read it this way but I cannot imagine why.Elizabeth Kline
[] Acts 13:32-33[] Acts 13:32-33