Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Brian Swedburg brian at discoveryhills.org
Wed Nov 7 03:21:23 εστ 2001
2 Samuel 13:15, λχχ 2 Samuel 13:15, λχχ > > Yes, ι 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 ι 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 ανεσθσεν αυτον εκ νεκρων as in v. 34 or hO θεοσ ηγειρεν in> v. 37.> β. 30-31 also has the topic of resurrection with the expression hO θεοσ> ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων.> > But as ι 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.> ι 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 ανισθμι that makes me lean> towards the interpretation ι have suggested, in view of the parallels.> ανισθμι is a common Greek verb and not a technical term for resurrection,> so it needs a phrase like εκ νεκρων 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 τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων it should have preceded it, not> followed it.> > Iver Larsen> >> > Iver and List, greetings, ι haven’t posted a question or response in so long ι just had to postsomething! ι have only glanced at the various verses in Acts 13 today, beingas crazy busy as usual. So ι just want to say thanks. ι appreciate the question you raise, andthe potential distinctions. Just following a thread sometimes when ι 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, λχχ
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Nov 7 07:51:28 εστ 2001
2 Samuel 13:15, λχχ 2 Samuel 13:15, λχχ
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Alex / Ali alexali at surf.net.au
Wed Nov 7 08:35:15 εστ 2001
2 Samuel 13:15, λχχ Topic Prominence Marking: Jn 19b-27 [Acts 13:32-33]>και hUMEIS hUMAS ευαγγελιζομεθα θν προσ τουσ πατερασ επαγγελιαν γενομενην>hOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων>hHMIN ανασθσασ ιησουνIver, the hUMEIS should be hHMEIS.>and ωε announce to υου (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 ανασθσασ, 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 τοισ τεκνοισ, rather than closely with ανασθσασ? This wasthe way ι construed before reading on in your message to look at theinteresting parallel passages you cite, and ι acknowledge ι haven’t weighedtheir full significance for this text. (ι do note that νιβ, at least, takeshHMIN as being in apposition.) The hOTI δε ανεσθσεν αυτον εκ νεκρων κτλ 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 ι don’t offer hOTI κτλ as being conclusive, since thecitation of Psalm 2:7 in 33b, hUIOS μου ει συ, εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε,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
Wed Nov 7 14:33:00 εστ 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 τοισ τεκνοισ, rather than closely with ανασθσασ? This was> the way ι construed before reading on in your message to look at the> interesting parallel passages you cite, and ι acknowledge ι> haven’t weighed> their full significance for this text. (ι do note that νιβ, at> least, takes hHMIN as being in apposition.) The hOTI δε ανεσθσεν αυτονεκ> νεκρων κτλ 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 ι don’t offer hOTI κτλ as being conclusive, since the> citation of Psalm 2:7 in 33b, hUIOS μου ει συ, εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε,> could be taken as in parallel to the ‘send forth’ sense. How are> you taking that clause? Regards,Yes, ι 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 ι 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 ανεσθσεν αυτον εκ νεκρων as in v. 34 or hO θεοσ ηγειρεν inv. 37.β. 30-31 also has the topic of resurrection with the expression hO θεοσηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων.But as ι 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.ι 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 ανισθμι that makes me leantowards the interpretation ι have suggested, in view of the parallels.ανισθμι is a common Greek verb and not a technical term for resurrection,so it needs a phrase like εκ νεκρων 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 τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων 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 ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Nov 8 05:06:16 εστ 2001
Luke 8:9 Luke 8:9 At 8:33 πμ +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 τοισ τεκνοισ, rather than closely with ανασθσασ? This was>> the way ι construed before reading on in your message to look at the>> interesting parallel passages you cite, and ι acknowledge ι>> haven’t weighed>> their full significance for this text. (ι do note that νιβ, at>> least, takes hHMIN as being in apposition.) The hOTI δε ανεσθσεν αυτον>εκ>> νεκρων κτλ 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 ι don’t offer hOTI κτλ as being conclusive, since the>> citation of Psalm 2:7 in 33b, hUIOS μου ει συ, εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε,>> could be taken as in parallel to the ‘send forth’ sense. How are>> you taking that clause? Regards,> >Yes, ι 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 ι 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 ανεσθσεν αυτον εκ νεκρων as in v. 34 or hO θεοσ ηγειρεν in>v. 37.>β. 30-31 also has the topic of resurrection with the expression hO θεοσ>ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων.> >But as ι 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.>ι 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 ανισθμι that makes me lean>towards the interpretation ι have suggested, in view of the parallels.>ανισθμι is a common Greek verb and not a technical term for resurrection,>so it needs a phrase like εκ νεκρων 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 τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων it should have preceded it, not>followed it.ι have two comments here after doing a quick search on ανισθμι/ANISTAMAIin the 3d sg. in γντ:(1) Although ι was initially in doubt, ι think now that Iver is quite rightin understanding ανεσθσασ here of “raising up” in the sense of raising upa leader rather than of resurrection; ι think that the two-fold directcitation of the passage from Deuteronomy strongly supports this.(2) Nevertheless, with regard to the diction, ι think Iver has overstatedthe differentiation between ανισθμι/ανισταμαι and εγειρω/εγειρομαι (it wasthe realization that ηγερθη is essentially equivalent to ανεσθ as anintransitive 3d sg. aorist for resurrection that initiated my investigationof –θη– voice forms). Both verbs are used frequently for resurrection aswell as for other kinds of “raising/risings up.” For ανισθμι/ανισταμαι Iget the following figures and texts in 3d sg. instances:ανισθμι 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)ανισταμαι intransitive(a) ανεσθ 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) ανεσθ in other senses (8x: Mk 3:26, Lk 4:16, 10:25; Jn 11:31; Acts5:36, 37, 7:18, 26:30)– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ 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 εστ 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.και hHMEIS hUMAS ευαγγελιζομεθα θν προσ τουσ πατερασ EPAGGELIANGENOMENHNhOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων hHMIN ανασθσασιησουν>The difficult phrase is hHMIN ανασθσασ, 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: προφηθν hUMIN ανασθσει κυριοσ “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: τουτον … ανεσθσεν (23-24) and τουτον … ανεσθσεν (32)While the first τουτον … ανεσθσεν 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: ανειλατε (23) εσταυρωσατε (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 ανασθσασ (13:33) is also favored by Vine, who states thatthe verb is “not here of Resurrection, but with reference to theIncarnation.” Vine sees the εκ νεκρων 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, βαγδ lists this verseunder the special sense of ανισθμι as referring to the resurrectionof Jesus.ι think you are right that the fronted hUMIN is a stong echo of the”send forth” theme, but ι‘m not so sure that the surrounding εκ NEKRWNqualifiers attached to εγειρω and ανισθμι in 30 and 34 are reallystressed, as Vine maintains, with the effect of setting ανασθσασ in33 apart and lending it another sense altogether. ι 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
Thu Nov 8 05:54:58 εστ 2001
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Carl said:> ι have two comments here after doing a quick search on ανισθμι/ανισταμαι> in the 3d sg. in γντ:> > (1) Although ι was initially in doubt, ι think now that Iver is> quite right> in understanding ανεσθσασ here of “raising up” in the sense of raising up> a leader rather than of resurrection; ι think that the two-fold direct> citation of the passage from Deuteronomy strongly supports this.> > (2) Nevertheless, with regard to the diction, ι think Iver has overstated> the differentiation between ανισθμι/ανισταμαι and> εγειρω/εγειρομαι (it was> the realization that ηγερθη is essentially equivalent to ανεσθ as an> intransitive 3d sg. aorist for resurrection that initiated my> investigation> of –θη– voice forms). Both verbs are used frequently for resurrection as> well as for other kinds of “raising/risings up.” For ανισθμι/ανισταμαι ι> get the following figures and texts in 3d sg. instances:> > ανισθμι 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)> ανισταμαι intransitive> (a) ανεσθ 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) ανεσθ 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 ι overstated the case. ι have in the meantimelooked more at the difference between εγειρω and ανισθμι.In view of our earlier discussion of active, middle and passive, ι find itinteresting that εγειρω 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”.ανισθμι 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 ανισθμι 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 ανασθσασ – 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 ι 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
Thu Nov 8 06:07:09 εστ 2001
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet Just in case it may be of some help, Iver, ι‘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 ι mentioned that hHMIN can be taken asappositional to τοισ τεκνοισ rather as working closely than with τοιστεκνοισ, and that the raising from the dead is suggested but notconclusively proven from verses 34 and 35. In your response you said>Yes, ι 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 ι 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 ι put was simply according to my understanding frommy reading of the text and wasn’t based on any ‘common notion’; ι didafterwards look at the νιβ and saw that it has taken the sense as ι did, butneither that translation nor ‘common notion’ was the basis of my note.)>But as ι 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.ι 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 ι 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 ανισθμι that makes melean>towards the interpretation ι have suggested, in view of the parallels.Well, ι suppose hHMIN is fronted if we take it in relation to ανασθσασ, butit isn’t fronted if taken with τοισ τεκνοισ. ι tend to think of Greek wordorder as being a fairly nebulous beast which is resistant to efforts to pinit down, so ι don’t see the word order being determinative here.>ανισθμι is a common Greek verb and not a technical term for resurrection,Agreed.>so it needs a phrase like εκ νεκρων to take this specific sense.Haven’t looked into this, Iver; have you checked that ανισθμι when usedelsewhere in the sense of resurrection from death is used in conjunctionwith εκ νεκρων 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 τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων it should havepreceded it, not>followed it.ι myself wouldn’t use the word ‘should’ but my expectation tends to be asyou say (though, as mentioned above, ι wouldn’t put a great deal of weighton this).Some last points.When ι‘m teaching students, ι 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. (ι 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.) ι havecertainly profited from your raising this text for discussion, though ι‘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 ι read the Acts 13:32-35 passage another Biblical passage came to mind,περι του hUIOU αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματοσ δαυιδ κατα σαρκα, τουορισθεντεσ hUIOU θεου εν δυναμει κατα πνευμα hAGIWSUNHS εχ αναστασεωσνεκρων, ιησου ξριστου του κυριου hHMWN κτλ (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 μου ει συ, εγω σημερον γεγεννηκασε in the context of the resurrection at Acts 13:33-34. ι 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. (ι‘m not sure if you’ve seen his remarks, Iver, but he cites some ofthe texts you adduce in support of your understanding.)ι see that Carl has had a look at ανισθμι/ανισταμαι and thinks now ‘thatIver is quite rightin understanding ανεσθσασ here of “raising up” in the sense of raising up aleader rather than of resurrection’ (in a post received as ι‘ve been writingthis).ι feel my leaning shifting … But isn’t that the beauty of BGreek?!With thanks and best wishes,Alex HopkinsMelbourne, Australia
Thu Nov 8 06:22:02 εστ 2001
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet εγειρω and ανισθμι–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:> > τουτον … ανεσθσεν (23-24) and> τουτον … ανεσθσεν (32)> > While the first τουτον … ανεσθσεν 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:> > ανειλατε (23)> εσταυρωσατε (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, ι realized my mistake shortly after having sent off the post. It isstill a common motif but not occurring in all speeches.ι 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 ανισθμι–Intransitive, Middle, and Passive
Acts 13:32-33 the Prophet ξ.α. (Kees) Langeveld langeveld at solcon.nl
Sat Nov 10 06:37:22 εστ 2001
Fonts for Mac 2Cor 4:3-4 In the Dutch translation (so called ‘τελοσ 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 ι 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 β-greek:It seems to me that most translations have misunderstood the Greek text of13:32-33.και hUMEIS hUMAS ευαγγελιζομεθα θν προσ τουσ πατερασ επαγγελιαν GENOMENHNhOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ AUTWNhHMIN ανασθσασ IHSOUNand ωε announce to υου (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 ανασθσασ, 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: προφηθν hUMIN ανασθσει κυριοσ “The Lord will raise up for you aprophet”Then in Stephen’s speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:37:προφηθν hUMIN ανασθσει hO θεοσ “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 ω. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Sat Nov 10 13:01:07 εστ 2001
2Cor 4:3-4 σβλ paper posted (Adapting Technology to Teach Koine Greek) Iver Larsen posted:> From Iver Larsen to β-greek:> It seems to me that most translations have misunderstood the Greek text of> 13:32-33.> > και hUMEIS hUMAS ευαγγελιζομεθα θν προσ τουσ πατερασ επαγγελιαν γενομενην> hOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων> hHMIN ανασθσασ ιησουν> and ωε announce to υου (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 ανασθσασ, 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: προφηθν hUMIN ανασθσει κυριοσ “The Lord will raise up for you a> prophet”> > Then in Stephen’s speech to the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:37:> προφηθν hUMIN ανασθσει hO θεοσ “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 ανασθσασ 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 εδτ 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 εὐαγγελιζόμεθακαι hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQAAnd ωε are telling υου the good news (about)τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην,θν προσ τουσ πατερασ επαγγελιαν GEGOMENHNthe promise that came to our forefathersὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν]hOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ (αυτων)that God has fulfilled this very (promise) for the(ir) children,ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας ἸησοῦνhHMIN ανασθσασ IHSOUNhaving raised up Jesus for υσ (by raising up…)Two questions:1) Should hHMIN not be taken with ανασθσασ rather than as an apposition toTOIS τεκνοισ αυτων?2) What is the meaning in this context of ανασθσασ?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, ι 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 αὐτοῖςηγειρεν τον δαβιδ 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 αὐτῶνπροφηθν ανασθσω αυτοισ εκ των αδελφων 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 ανασθσασ, 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 τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων. It is more likely that the hUMIN isfronted before ανασθσασ to indicate that whereas the promise came to theforefathers, it was actually fulfilled for their “children”, when God raisedup for υσ 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 αὐτοῦκαι ηγειρεν κερασ σωθριασ hHMIN εν OIKWi δαβιδ παιδοσ AUTOUAct 3:22 (Peter): Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριοςμωυσησ μεν ειπεν hOTI προφηθν *hUMIN ανασθσει* KURIOSAct 3:26: (Peter) ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεναὐτὸν*hUMIN πρωτον ανασθσασ* hO θεοσ τον παιδα αυτου απεστειλεν AUTONAct 7:37 (Stephen) οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Μωϋσῆς ὁ εἴπας τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, Προφήτηνὑμῖν ἀναστήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέhOUTOS εστιν hO μωυσησ hO ειπασ τοισ hUIOS ισραηλ: προφηθν *hUMINANASTHSEI* hO θεοσ εκ των αδελφων hUMWN hWS εμε (not an exact quote from theHebrew text or λχχ, but very much like Acts 13:33)Why do so many commentators and translations take hUMIN with τοισ 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? (ι suppose the answer is that the κψβ got it wrong, so others follow.)ι have had a hard time finding a good English translation. Probably ψβπ 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 εδτ 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 δε 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 ανισθμι in vv. 33 and 34, which goes a long way to explaining the confusion of translators and copyists (often reading αυτων 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 αναστασ 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 εὐαγγελιζόμεθακαι hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQAAnd ωε are telling υου the good news (about)τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην,θν προσ τουσ πατερασ επαγγελιαν GEGOMENHNthe promise that came to our forefathersὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν]hOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ (αυτων)that God has fulfilled this very (promise) for the(ir) children,ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας ἸησοῦνhHMIN ανασθσασ IHSOUNhaving raised up Jesus for υσ (by raising up…)Two questions:1) Should hHMIN not be taken with ανασθσασ rather than as an apposition toTOIS τεκνοισ αυτων?2) What is the meaning in this context of ανασθσασ?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, ι 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 αὐτοῖςηγειρεν τον δαβιδ 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 αὐτῶνπροφηθν ανασθσω αυτοισ εκ των αδελφων 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 ανασθσασ, 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 τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων. It is more likely that the hUMIN isfronted before ανασθσασ to indicate that whereas the promise came to theforefathers, it was actually fulfilled for their “children”, when God raisedup for υσ 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 αὐτοῦκαι ηγειρεν κερασ σωθριασ hHMIN εν OIKWi δαβιδ παιδοσ AUTOUAct 3:22 (Peter): Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριοςμωυσησ μεν ειπεν hOTI προφηθν *hUMIN ανασθσει* KURIOSAct 3:26: (Peter) ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεναὐτὸν*hUMIN πρωτον ανασθσασ* hO θεοσ τον παιδα αυτου απεστειλεν AUTONAct 7:37 (Stephen) οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Μωϋσῆς ὁ εἴπας τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, Προφήτηνὑμῖν ἀναστήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέhOUTOS εστιν hO μωυσησ hO ειπασ τοισ hUIOS ισραηλ: προφηθν *hUMINANASTHSEI* hO θεοσ εκ των αδελφων hUMWN hWS εμε (not an exact quote from theHebrew text or λχχ, but very much like Acts 13:33)Why do so many commentators and translations take hUMIN with τοισ 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? (ι suppose the answer is that the κψβ got it wrong, so others follow.)ι have had a hard time finding a good English translation. Probably ψβπ 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 εδτ 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] Acts 13:32-33 Iver,ι will take a shot at addressing the pronoun question. ι 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, ι would have expected hHMIN to be the primary ιο, with τοισ τεκνοισ (αυτων) 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 τοισ τεκνοισ (αυτων) as the primary ιο, the addition of an ascensive και would be the most likely way of unambiguously marking this (‘even το υσ‘).ι 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 ι 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 γντ: 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 νπ. In 1 Pet 5:10, the pronoun αυτοσ is used as an intensive pronoun, accomplishing a similar task to the demonstrative. As Act 13:33 is written, ι would say that the function of hHMIN is technically ambiguous, but ι would cast my vote against it being read as an appositive in favor of your reading, based on usage elsewhere ι could find.φωιω,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 εὐαγγελιζόμεθακαι hHMEIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZOMEQAAnd ωε are telling υου the good news (about)τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην, θν προσ τουσ πατερασ επαγγελιαν γεγομενην the promise that came to our forefathersὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν] hOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ (αυτων) that God has fulfilled this very (promise) for the(ir) children,ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας ἸησοῦνhHMIN ανασθσασ IHSOUNhaving raised up Jesus for υσ (by raising up…)Two questions:1) Should hHMIN not be taken with ανασθσασ rather than as an apposition to τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων?2) What is the meaning in this context of ανασθσασ?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, ι 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 αὐτοῖςηγειρεν τον δαβιδ AUTOIShe raised up David for themThe relevant promise to the forefathers is Deut 18:18(and 15), which in the λχχ reads:προφήτην ἀναστήσω αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν προφηθν ανασθσω αυτοισ εκ των αδελφων 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 ι prefer to take hUMIN in 13:33 with ανασθσασ, 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 τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων. It is more likely that the hUMIN is fronted before ανασθσασ to indicate that whereas the promise came to the forefathers, it was actually fulfilled for their “children”, when God raised up for υσ 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 και ηγειρεν κερασ σωθριασ hHMIN εν OIKWi δαβιδ παιδοσ αυτου Act 3:22 (Peter): Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος μωυσησ μεν ειπεν hOTI προφηθν *hUMIN ανασθσει* κυριοσ Act 3:26: (Peter) ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν *hUMIN πρωτον ανασθσασ* hO θεοσ τον παιδα αυτου απεστειλεν αυτον 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 εστιν hO μωυσησ hO ειπασ τοισ hUIOS ισραηλ: προφηθν *hUMINANASTHSEI* hO θεοσ εκ των αδελφων hUMWN hWS εμε (not an exact quote from the Hebrew text or λχχ, but very much like Acts 13:33)Why do so many commentators and translations take hUMIN with τοισ τεκνοισ 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? (ι suppose the answer is that the κψβ got it wrong, so others follow.) ι have had a hard time finding a good English translation. Probably ψβπ 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 Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Tue Sep 4 14:38:09 εδτ 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] John 2:15 Dear Iver,ι am more inclined to view the following:1. hOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ [αυτων] hHMIN as completing thestatement of promise in verse 32.2. hHMIN goes with τοισ τεκνοισ not with ανασθσασ.3. My translation would be “that this [promise ( referring to επανγελιαν byagreement in vs. 32)] God has fulfilled to us their children..”4. This also reflects the fact that ι am taking the αυτων hHMIN as being thecorrect reading in the text versus αυτων 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. αβασθσασ as the participle is Ist Aor. Act. Nom. Sing. Masc. ι take it thatsince the main verb is εκπεπληρωκε[ν], which is Perfect Active 3rd Sing ofEKPLHROW, that αβασθσασ should be translated as “having raised” reflecting thatPerfective force.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι—– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “βγ” < 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> και hHMEIS hUMAS ευαγγελιζομεθα> And ωε are telling υου the good news (about)> > τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην,> θν προσ τουσ πατερασ επαγγελιαν γεγομενην> the promise that came to our forefathers> > ὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν]> hOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ (αυτων)> that God has fulfilled this very (promise) for the(ir) children,> > ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν> hHMIN ανασθσασ ιησουν> having raised up Jesus for υσ (by raising up…)> > Two questions:> 1) Should hHMIN not be taken with ανασθσασ rather than as an apposition to> τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων?> 2) What is the meaning in this context of ανασθσασ?> > 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, ι 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> ηγειρεν τον δαβιδ αυτοισ> he raised up David for them> > The relevant promise to the forefathers is Deut 18:18(and 15), which in the> λχχ reads:> προφήτην ἀναστήσω αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτῶν> προφηθν ανασθσω αυτοισ εκ των αδελφων αυτων> > 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 ι> prefer to take hUMIN in 13:33 with ανασθσασ, 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 τοισ τεκνοισ αυτων. It is more likely that the hUMIN is> fronted before ανασθσασ to indicate that whereas the promise came to the> forefathers, it was actually fulfilled for their “children”, when God raised> up for υσ 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> και ηγειρεν κερασ σωθριασ hHMIN εν OIKWi δαβιδ παιδοσ αυτου> Act 3:22 (Peter): Μωϋσῆς μὲν εἶπεν ὅτι Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει κύριος> μωυσησ μεν ειπεν hOTI προφηθν *hUMIN ανασθσει* κυριοσ> Act 3:26: (Peter) ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν> αὐτὸν> *hUMIN πρωτον ανασθσασ* hO θεοσ τον παιδα αυτου απεστειλεν αυτον> 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 εστιν hO μωυσησ hO ειπασ τοισ hUIOS ισραηλ: προφηθν *hUMIN> ανασθσει* hO θεοσ εκ των αδελφων hUMWN hWS εμε (not an exact quote from the> Hebrew text or λχχ, but very much like Acts 13:33)> > Why do so many commentators and translations take hUMIN with τοισ τεκνοισ> 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? (ι suppose the answer is that the κψβ got it wrong, so others follow.)> ι have had a hard time finding a good English translation. Probably ψβπ 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 αβγ 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
Wed Sep 5 11:40:24 εδτ 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] Acts 13:32-33 —– Original Message —– From: “Steve Runge” <srunge at logos.com>> Iver,> > ι will take a shot at addressing the pronoun question. ι 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, ι would have expected hHMIN to be > the primary ιο, with τοισ τεκνοισ (αυτων) 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 τοισ τεκνοισ (αυτων) as the primary ιο, the addition of an > ascensive και would be the most likely way of unambiguously marking this > (‘even το υσ‘).This is also how ι understand it, but you express it better.> > ι 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 ι 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 > γντ: 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 νπ. In 1 Pet 5:10, the pronoun αυτοσ is used as an intensive pronoun, > accomplishing a similar task to the demonstrative.ιλ:For those with the demonstrative, ι 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.ι found it hard to search for similar structures since ι don’t have a database with apposition tagged.The most similar ι could find in the γντ were:Luk 11:42,3 ουαι hUMIN τοισ FARISAIOISwhere the pronoun precedes the noun.ι 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, ι would say that the function of hHMIN is > technically ambiguous, but ι would cast my vote against it being read as > an appositive in favor of your reading, based on usage elsewhere ι could > find.> > φωιω,Nice to know that we agree on this one.Iver Larsen
[] Acts 13:32-33 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Sep 5 17:33:41 εδτ 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] Acts 13:32-33 αξτσ 13:30 hO δε θεοσ ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων, 31 hOS ωφθη επι hHMERAS πλειουσ τοισ συναναβασιν AUTWi απο θσ γαλιλαιασ εισ ιερουσαλημ, hOITINES [νυν] εισιν μαρτυρεσ αυτου προσ τον λαον. 32 και hHMEIS hUMAS ευαγγελιζομεθα θν προσ τουσ πατερασ επαγγελιαν γενομενην, 33 hOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ [αυτων] hHMIN ανασθσασ ιησουν hWS και εν TWi YALMWi γεγραπται TWi DEUTERWi: hUIOS μου ει συ, εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε. 34 hOTI δε ανεσθσεν αυτον εκ νεκρων μηκετι μελλοντα hUPOSTREFEIN εισ διαφθοραν, hOUTWS ειῥκεν hOTI δωσω hUMIN τα hOSIA δαυιδ τα πισταρε: the question about the referent of ANASTHSASMy first take on this was to agree with Ivar, that ανασθσασ in αξτσ 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection. Looking at the more recent commentaries on Acts, Barrett (ιξξ) builds a case for that reading sell also Bruce (νιξντ 2nd ed.). However, the older works like Meyer and Alford state in absolute terms that ανασθσασ in αξτσ 13:33 must refer to the resurrection using the obvious arguments based on αξτσ 13:30 hO δε θεοσ ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων and 34 hOTI δε ανεσθσεν αυτον εκ νεκρων.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 ανασθσασ refers to the resurrection. However, looking into the treatment of Hebrews 1:5a τινι γαρ ειπεν ποτε των αγγελων: hUIOS μου ει συ, εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε; ξ.Koester (Heb. αβ 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]ρομ. 1:3 περι του hUIOU αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματοσ δαυιδ κατα σαρκα, 4 του hORISQENTOS hUIOU θεου εν δυναμει κατα πνευμα hAGIWSUNHS εχ αναστασεωσ νεκρων, ιησου ξριστου του κυριου 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 ανασθσασ referring to the resurrection.Elizabeth Kline
Thu Sep 6 02:14:52 εδτ 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> αξτσ 13:30 hO δε θεοσ ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων, 31 hOS ωφθη επι> hHMERAS πλειουσ τοισ συναναβασιν AUTWi απο θσ γαλιλαιασ εισ> ιερουσαλημ, hOITINES [νυν] εισιν μαρτυρεσ αυτου προσ τον λαον. 32> και hHMEIS hUMAS ευαγγελιζομεθα θν προσ τουσ πατερασ επαγγελιαν> γενομενην, 33 hOTI ταυθν hO θεοσ εκπεπληρωκεν τοισ τεκνοισ [αυτων]> hHMIN ανασθσασ ιησουν hWS και εν TWi YALMWi γεγραπται TWi DEUTERWi:> hUIOS μου ει συ, εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε. 34 hOTI δε ανεσθσεν> αυτον εκ νεκρων μηκετι μελλοντα hUPOSTREFEIN εισ διαφθοραν, hOUTWS> ειῥκεν hOTI δωσω hUMIN τα hOSIA δαυιδ τα πιστα> > ρε: the question about the referent of ανασθσασ> > My first take on this was to agree with Ivar, that ανασθσασ in αξτσ> 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection. Looking at the more recent> commentaries on Acts, Barrett (ιξξ) builds a case for that reading> sell also Bruce (νιξντ 2nd ed.). However, the older works like Meyer> and Alford state in absolute terms that ανασθσασ in αξτσ 13:33 must> refer to the resurrection using the obvious arguments based on αξτσ> 13:30 hO δε θεοσ ηγειρεν αυτον εκ νεκρων and 34 hOTI δε ανεσθσεν> αυτον εκ νεκρων.It is important to remember that the words εγειρω and ανισθμι 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 εκ NEKRWNor it is abundantly clear from context that the resurrection is the topic.β. 34 is introduced by a δε 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.β. 27 to 31 is another round of background exposition, telling about how theJewish leaders refused to believe that Jesus was the Saviour.β. 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 οτ as far as ι 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 δε in v. 34 and a differentquote. The δε is ignored or rendered by “and” in most translations, but theNET does have a “but”. νασβ says “As for the fact that He raised Him up fromthe dead..” and νρσβ 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 ανασθσασ refers to the resurrection.> However, looking into the treatment of Hebrews 1:5a τινι γαρ ειπεν> ποτε των αγγελων: hUIOS μου ει συ, εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε;> ξ.Koester (Heb. αβ 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.> > ρομ. 1:3 περι του hUIOU αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματοσ δαυιδ κατα> σαρκα, 4 του hORISQENTOS hUIOU θεου εν δυναμει κατα πνευμα> hAGIWSUNHS εχ αναστασεωσ νεκρων, ιησου ξριστου του κυριου hHMWN,This is clearly about the resurrection as we have νεκρων. 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
Fri Sep 7 14:55:16 εδτ 2007
[] Acts 13:32-33 [] Acts 13:32-33 On Sep 5, 2007, at 11:14 πμ, Iver Larsen wrote:> It is important to remember that the words εγειρω and ανισθμι 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 > εκ νεκρων> or it is abundantly clear from context that the resurrection is the > topic.> β. 34 is introduced by a δε 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.αξτσ 3:22 μωυσησ μεν ειπεν hOTI προφηθν hUMIN ανασθσει κυριοσ hO θεοσ hUMWN εκ των αδελφων hUMWN hWS εμε: αυτου ακουσεσθε κατα παντα hOSA αν LALHSHi προσ hUMAS. 23 εσται δε πασα υυχ hHTIS εαν μη AKOUSHi του προφητου εκεινου εχολεθρευθησεται εκ του λαου. 24 και παντεσ δε hOI προφηται απο σαμουηλ και των καθεχησ hOSOI ελαλησαν και καθγγειλαν τασ hHMERAS ταυτασ. 25 hUMEIS εστε hOI hUIOI των προφητων και θσ διαθηκησ hHS διεθετο hO θεοσ προσ τουσ πατερασ hUMWN λεγων προσ αβρααμ: και εν TWi σπερματι σου [εν]ευλογηθησονται πασαι hAI πατριαι θσ γησ. 26 hUMIN πρωτον ανασθσασ hO θεοσ τον παιδα αυτου απεστειλεν αυτον ευλογουντα hUMAS εν TWi αποστρεφειν hEKASTON απο των πονηριων hUMWN.Webb already noted of the possible connection between ανισθμι in Deut. 18:15,18 and Acts 13:33. In Acts 3:22 προφηθν hUMIN ανασθσει κυριοσ hO θεοσ hUMWN there is no doubt about this. For this reason, ι wonder why Danker 3d ed. (ανισθμι 2) appears to read hUMIN πρωτον ανασθσασ hO θεοσ τον παιδα αυτου v26 as a reference to Jesus’ resurrection. He notes parenthetically that this is “wordplay” with ανασθσει in v22. ι understand that Luther and Beza read it this way but ι cannot imagine why.Elizabeth Kline