Acts 2:6 dano at ott.net dano at ott.net
Thu May 6 09:51:52 EDT 1999
MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Acts 2:6
MENOUN in Luke 11.28Acts 2:6
Acts 2:6 Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Thu May 6 11:03:17 EDT 1999
Acts 2:6 Acts 2:6 dano at ott.net wrote:> >From one of the many lurkers on the list š> > This is a passage that has puzzled me for quite some time and I> would like to ask for help.> > This is the story of the upper room experience.. and the question I> have is this..> > (Acts 2:6 KJV) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude> came together, and were confounded, because that every man> heard them speak in his own language.> > This gives the connotation that people begin talking about what> they had heard was going on. (noised abroad)> > Darby’s and Young’s agrees with this..> > (Acts 2:6 DNT) But the rumour of this having spread, the multitude> came together and were confounded, because each one heard> them speaking in his own dialect.> > (Acts 2:6 YLT) and the rumour of this having come, the multitude> came together, and was confounded, because they were each one> hearing them speaking in his proper dialect,> > But the NIV and NASB sees it differently..> > (Acts 2:6 NIV) When they heard this sound, a crowd came> together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking> in his own language.> > (Acts 2:6 NNAS) And when this sound occurred, the crowd came> together, and were bewildered because each one of them was> hearing them speak in his own language.> > Gives the connotation that people in the area actually HEARD the> sound themself. (heard this sound)> > acts-02-06 GENOMENHS DE THS FWNHS TAUTHS> SUNHLQEN TO PLHQOS KAI SUNEXUQH OTI HKOUON EIS> EKASTOS TH IDIA DIALEKTW LALOUNTWN AUTWN> There are several ways to take this verse. Mine is that “when this (story) wasnoised/reported in other countries, those people gathered together (in their owncountry) and got to hear it in their own language.”One could also interpret it as saying when this was reported abroad, a crowdfrom those countries assembled in Jerusalem and heard it in their own language.I have problems with the second choice on a number of levels but obviouslythe “talking in tongues” tradition developed rapidly enough for it to be a concernto Paul by 50-55 CE when he wrote to the Corinthians.Jack–______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net
Acts 2:6Acts 2:6
Acts 2:6 dano at ott.net dano at ott.net
Thu May 6 09:51:52 EDT 1999
MENOUN in Luke 11.28 Acts 2:6
MENOUN in Luke 11.28Acts 2:6
Acts 2:6 Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Thu May 6 11:03:17 EDT 1999
Acts 2:6 Acts 2:6 dano at ott.net wrote:> >From one of the many lurkers on the list š> > This is a passage that has puzzled me for quite some time and I> would like to ask for help.> > This is the story of the upper room experience.. and the question I> have is this..> > (Acts 2:6 KJV) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude> came together, and were confounded, because that every man> heard them speak in his own language.> > This gives the connotation that people begin talking about what> they had heard was going on. (noised abroad)> > Darby’s and Young’s agrees with this..> > (Acts 2:6 DNT) But the rumour of this having spread, the multitude> came together and were confounded, because each one heard> them speaking in his own dialect.> > (Acts 2:6 YLT) and the rumour of this having come, the multitude> came together, and was confounded, because they were each one> hearing them speaking in his proper dialect,> > But the NIV and NASB sees it differently..> > (Acts 2:6 NIV) When they heard this sound, a crowd came> together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking> in his own language.> > (Acts 2:6 NNAS) And when this sound occurred, the crowd came> together, and were bewildered because each one of them was> hearing them speak in his own language.> > Gives the connotation that people in the area actually HEARD the> sound themself. (heard this sound)> > acts-02-06 GENOMENHS DE THS FWNHS TAUTHS> SUNHLQEN TO PLHQOS KAI SUNEXUQH OTI HKOUON EIS> EKASTOS TH IDIA DIALEKTW LALOUNTWN AUTWN> There are several ways to take this verse. Mine is that “when this (story) wasnoised/reported in other countries, those people gathered together (in their owncountry) and got to hear it in their own language.”One could also interpret it as saying when this was reported abroad, a crowdfrom those countries assembled in Jerusalem and heard it in their own language.I have problems with the second choice on a number of levels but obviouslythe “talking in tongues” tradition developed rapidly enough for it to be a concernto Paul by 50-55 CE when he wrote to the Corinthians.Jack–______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net
Acts 2:6Acts 2:6
Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 6 12:58:11 EDT 1999
Acts 2:6 MENOUN in Luke 11.28 > acts-02-06 GENOMENHS DE THS FWNHS TAUTHS > SUNHLQEN TO PLHQOS KAI SUNEXUQH OTI HKOUON EIS> EKASTOS TH IDIA DIALEKTW LALOUNTWN AUTWNDan,The question as I understand it is:What is the sense and reference of THS FWNHS TAUTHS?The most direct answer to your question is found in Henry Alfords GreekTestament (vol 2 page 17). The more recent works (C.K. Barrett, ICC andFF Bruce, 1954) simply pass over the KJV (Young, etc) rendering withoutcomment.Alford states that the sense “this rumor” fond in Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are noexamples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. Hementions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xiv.16 andJer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that thesepassages support this sense.If we eliminate the sense “this rumor” then we still have a problem. THSFWNHS TAUTHS can be coreferential with HCOS in Acts 2:2 or with LALEIVin Acts 2:4. Alford argues in favor of HCOS because of the singularnumber. He doesn’t think THS FWNHS TAUTHS would be used to refer tohETERAIS GLWSSAIS.I don’t find Alfords reasoning particularly compelling. It seems thatTHS FWNHS TAUTHS could very well be a collective singular. So I would gowith FF Bruce and C.K. Barrett and see LALEIV hETERAIS GLWSSAIS as thereferent. I think both the proximity of LALEIV and the semanticstructure of the passage argue in favor of this interpretation.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Acts 2:6MENOUN in Luke 11.28
Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 6 12:58:11 EDT 1999
Acts 2:6 MENOUN in Luke 11.28 > acts-02-06 GENOMENHS DE THS FWNHS TAUTHS > SUNHLQEN TO PLHQOS KAI SUNEXUQH OTI HKOUON EIS> EKASTOS TH IDIA DIALEKTW LALOUNTWN AUTWNDan,The question as I understand it is:What is the sense and reference of THS FWNHS TAUTHS?The most direct answer to your question is found in Henry Alfords GreekTestament (vol 2 page 17). The more recent works (C.K. Barrett, ICC andFF Bruce, 1954) simply pass over the KJV (Young, etc) rendering withoutcomment.Alford states that the sense “this rumor” fond in Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are noexamples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. Hementions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xiv.16 andJer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that thesepassages support this sense.If we eliminate the sense “this rumor” then we still have a problem. THSFWNHS TAUTHS can be coreferential with HCOS in Acts 2:2 or with LALEIVin Acts 2:4. Alford argues in favor of HCOS because of the singularnumber. He doesn’t think THS FWNHS TAUTHS would be used to refer tohETERAIS GLWSSAIS.I don’t find Alfords reasoning particularly compelling. It seems thatTHS FWNHS TAUTHS could very well be a collective singular. So I would gowith FF Bruce and C.K. Barrett and see LALEIV hETERAIS GLWSSAIS as thereferent. I think both the proximity of LALEIV and the semanticstructure of the passage argue in favor of this interpretation.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Acts 2:6MENOUN in Luke 11.28
Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 6 14:30:26 EDT 1999
MENOUN in Luke 11.28 John 7:8 > Alford states that the sense “this rumor” fond in Calvin, Erasmus,> Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are no> examples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. He> mentions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xiv.16 and> Jer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that these> passages support this sense.I took a look at these LXX passages and first of all the Genesis passageis a typo, should be Gen 45:16. Have you ever tried reading a photolithograph of 6 pt type on cheap paper in bad light?The Genesis 45:16 LXX passage does (contra Alford) look like it mightlend some credibility to the rendering adopted by Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV. I will let someone else work out all thedetails on this one.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
MENOUN in Luke 11.28John 7:8
Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 6 14:30:26 EDT 1999
MENOUN in Luke 11.28 John 7:8 > Alford states that the sense “this rumor” fond in Calvin, Erasmus,> Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are no> examples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. He> mentions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xiv.16 and> Jer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that these> passages support this sense.I took a look at these LXX passages and first of all the Genesis passageis a typo, should be Gen 45:16. Have you ever tried reading a photolithograph of 6 pt type on cheap paper in bad light?The Genesis 45:16 LXX passage does (contra Alford) look like it mightlend some credibility to the rendering adopted by Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV. I will let someone else work out all thedetails on this one.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
MENOUN in Luke 11.28John 7:8
Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri May 7 13:21:09 EDT 1999
dia + genitive Hebrews 11:1 Clay wrote:>>>>>>>> Alford states that the sense “this rumor” found in Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are noexamples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. Hementions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xlv.16 andJer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that thesepassages support this sense.The Genesis 45:16 LXX passage does (contra Alford) look like it mightlend some credibility to the rendering adopted by Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV.>>>>>>>> This morning I took a look at H.A.W. Meyer who agreed with Alford, whichis no surprise since Alford often cites Meyer. So I decided to take acloser look at Genesis 45:16 MT/LXX and as it turns out this is anintriguing problem in lexical semantics.The word rendered FWNH in Genesis 45:16 LXX is qol in the MT. There is alot of overlap between the semantic domains of qol and FWNH particularlyin the most common meanings like sound, voice, noise, etc. However theusage of qol in Gen 45:16 as “news or report” is somewhat less commonthan the uses listed above.Now the LXX translator of Genesis used FWNH to render qol in Genesis45:16 because it was the obvious choice based on the most common usageof both words. A better word to would have been FHMH.Now the reason that I must concede that Meyer and Alford are correct issimple. The fact that qol has “news or report” within its semanticdomain does not mean that the semantic domain of FWNH includes “news orreport.” In other words, a less than ideal translation equivalent inGenesis 45:16 LXX does not thereby extend the semantic domain of FWNH.Based on this I would now reject the reading of Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and others.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
dia + genitiveHebrews 11:1
Acts 2:6 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri May 7 13:21:09 EDT 1999
dia + genitive Hebrews 11:1 Clay wrote:>>>>>>>> Alford states that the sense “this rumor” found in Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV is not a viable option because there are noexamples of THS FWNHS TAUTHS having this sense anywhere to be found. Hementions that the defenders of this sense cite the LXX Gen. xlv.16 andJer xxvii(l.)46 as support for this but Alford denies that thesepassages support this sense.The Genesis 45:16 LXX passage does (contra Alford) look like it mightlend some credibility to the rendering adopted by Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and the KJV.>>>>>>>> This morning I took a look at H.A.W. Meyer who agreed with Alford, whichis no surprise since Alford often cites Meyer. So I decided to take acloser look at Genesis 45:16 MT/LXX and as it turns out this is anintriguing problem in lexical semantics.The word rendered FWNH in Genesis 45:16 LXX is qol in the MT. There is alot of overlap between the semantic domains of qol and FWNH particularlyin the most common meanings like sound, voice, noise, etc. However theusage of qol in Gen 45:16 as “news or report” is somewhat less commonthan the uses listed above.Now the LXX translator of Genesis used FWNH to render qol in Genesis45:16 because it was the obvious choice based on the most common usageof both words. A better word to would have been FHMH.Now the reason that I must concede that Meyer and Alford are correct issimple. The fact that qol has “news or report” within its semanticdomain does not mean that the semantic domain of FWNH includes “news orreport.” In other words, a less than ideal translation equivalent inGenesis 45:16 LXX does not thereby extend the semantic domain of FWNH.Based on this I would now reject the reading of Calvin, Erasmus,Bezae, Grotius and others.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
dia + genitiveHebrews 11:1
Acts 2:6 David R. Mills dmills at mitec.net
Tue Dec 28 21:39:30 EST 1999
John 8:58 (Does anybody have anything NEW to say?) Acts 2:6 Why is the verb plural in the following clause when the subject is singular?hOTI HKOUON hEIS hEKASTOS THi IDIAi DIALEKTWiThanks,David Millshttp://www.mitec.net/~dmills
John 8:58 (Does anybody have anything NEW to say?)Acts 2:6
Acts 2:6 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 29 08:31:34 EST 1999
Acts 2:6 septuagint on-line: where To: David R. Mills,<< Why is the verb plural in the following clause when the subject is singular?hOTI HKOUON hEIS hEKASTOS THi IDIAi DIALEKTWi >>This is not uncommon. A noun in the singular may denote a number of persons or things (such as OCLOS, PLHQOS, OIKIA, LAOS, etc), these are known as a “collective singular.” With such collective substantives, the verb may or may not be in the plural.For example: HKOLOUQEI DE AUTWi OCLOS POLUS, hOTI EQEWROUN “But a large crowd kept following him because they saw …” (Jn 6:2). Here we have both a singular verb (HKOLOUQEI) and a plural verb (EQEWROUN) with the same collective singular subject! You can find more on this subject in most any reference grammar under the subject of “concord in number.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”
Acts 2:6septuagint on-line: where
Does this help? Acts 2:4-13. Languages originated in the dispersion of the nations at the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9). The Jewish race, exhibiting the same pride and self-will as the nations, was similarly dispersed when Jerusalem, like Babel, was destroyed. Hence they participated through dispersion in the Gentile confusion of tongues.
The question, āwhatever could this mean?ā (Acts 2:12) finds its answer in the sign character of the gift of tongues (1 Cor 14:20-22). Tongues were expressly given as a sign to the Jewish people of Godās power and willingness to overcome the effects of their dispersion. The Jews from the many nations represented here might have been re-gathered according to Old Testament promise had they believed in Jesus as the Messiah. These Jews were ideal representatives of the dispersion, being devout men (v 5) and from every nation under heaven (v 5). It was an ideal occasion for the presentation of this offer, yetāalthough 3000 were convertedāincreasingly the nation rejected Godās offer of grace and re-gathering. Hence, to this day, Israelās Babel-like dispersion (actually initiated by Babylon) continues and the Jews of the world are still to be found speaking the many tongues of the nations. But, though Israel refused to be gathered, God is gathering others nonetheless (John 11:52).
Modern claims to the gift of tongues lack evidence that the gift is being used for its stated purpose as a sign to Israel (1 Cor 14:20-22).
Though the baptism of the Spirit evidently occurs here, it is not specifically mentioned. None of the phenomena are synonymous with it. (Nor need these be repeated when a soul is so baptized. If it is wrong to insist that one being baptized with the Holy Spirit hear a noise of wind, or see a tongue of fire, it is also wrong to insist that he must speak in tongues.) The baptism of the Spirit, here as well as in our experience, is invisibleāunseen, unfelt by human sense, totally supernatural. It is important to see that it was so from the first.
Had the special, supernatural events here recorded not taken place, the disciples might never have realized that it was then that the promise of the baptism was fulfilled. They might have been baptized without knowing it. We do not need these signs now, for we believe we have been baptized by the Spirit on the basis of the Word of God. These were but the tokens and evidences of the Spiritās presence. The central message to us of this passage lies, not in the unique and special sign-gift of tongues, but in the power of the Spirit to transform timid men and women into bold witnesses of the Savior.
The special manifestation of the Spiritās presence here was not the unseen baptism, but Spirit-filled men speaking in languages otherwise unknown to them. This filling seems both here and elsewhere in Luke/Acts to be mainly a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit by which the filled person becomes His mouthpiece (cf. esp., Luke 1:41, 67; Acts 4:8, 31; 9:17 with 9:20; 13:9).
The filling of the Spirit is distinct from the baptism, yet related. An empty glass submerged (baptized) in water will be filled by it. So here, although they are waiting for the baptism specifically (cf. Acts 1:5), yet when it comes they are filled (2:4). They were empty of self, open to God, waiting on Him in prayer, united in heart (2:1), and thus ready to be filled. Filling is an experience especially to be expected of those who are submerged in the Spirit. Though supernatural and sovereignly bestowed, it nevertheless comes upon prepared vessels.
Note how Peter has scarcely begun to speak when he begins to pour forth the Scripture. The quoted passage, verses 17-21, is the longest quotation of Old Testament in Acts. Note also verses 25-28 and 30, 31, 34, and 39 for quotations or allusions to the Word. The Apostle is full of the Spirit and hence full of the Word. The experience recorded here finds illustration in John 2:1-11. For 3 1/2 years, and then intensively for 40 days (1:3), our Lord had filled the stone water pots of their hearts with the water of His Word, supplied through His servants the prophets. Now on the day of Pentecost the mysterious miracle occurs and the water of the Word is transformed into the wine of the Spirit. The joys of salvation are partaken of by 3000 on that day. āThese men are full of new wine.ā Wrong, yet right. They were full of the new wine of the Spirit freshly poured out from heaven (cf. Luke 5:37-39).