PDA

View Full Version : Acts 2:26



37818
10-25-2015, 03:19 AM
Mark 2:26,

πως εισηλθεν εις τον οικον του θεου επι αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως και τους αρτους της προθεσεως εφαγεν ους ουκ εξεστιν φαγειν ει μη τοις ιερευσιν και εδωκεν και τοις συν αυτω ουσιν

How he went into the house of God in [the days of] Abiathar [son] of the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

or . . . to Abiathar [son] of the high priest . . .

Abiathar was a priest and the son of the high priest at that time. And Jesus just very well be telling us that Abiathar was that priest (1 Samuel 21:6).

του αρχιερεως = of the high priest, being in the genitive case.

Compare the following:
. . . την αυλην του αρχιερεως . . . (Matthew 26:3)
. . . the palace of the high priest . . .

. . . τον δουλον του αρχιερεως . . . (Mark 14:47)
. . . a servant of the high priest . . .

. . . των παιδισκων του αρχιερεως . . . (Mark 14:66)
. . . the maids of the high priest . . .

John Reece
10-25-2015, 02:18 PM
Mark 2:26,

πως εισηλθεν εις τον οικον του θεου επι αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως και τους αρτους της προθεσεως εφαγεν ους ουκ εξεστιν φαγειν ει μη τοις ιερευσιν και εδωκεν και τοις συν αυτω ουσιν

How he went into the house of God in [the days of] Abiathar [son] of the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

or . . . to Abiathar [son] of the high priest . . .

Abiathar was a priest and the son of the high priest at that time. And Jesus just very well be telling us that Abiathar was that priest (1 Samuel 21:6).

του αρχιερεως = of the high priest, being in the genitive case.

Compare the following:
. . . την αυλην του αρχιερεως . . . (Matthew 26:3)
. . . the palace of the high priest . . .

. . . τον δουλον του αρχιερεως . . . (Mark 14:47)
. . . a servant of the high priest . . .

. . . των παιδισκων του αρχιερεως . . . (Mark 14:66)
. . . the maids of the high priest . . .

From The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC: Eerdmans, 2002), via Accordance, by R. T. France:


Textual note: 2:26. The omission of ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ (τοῦ) ἀρχιερέως in D W OL sys is an obvious correction both to harmonise with Matthew and Luke and to remove the embarrassment of a historical error.

26. 1 Sa. 21:1–9 does not say explicitly that David entered the οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ (a sanctuary at Nob, perhaps the temporary location of the tabernacle), nor is there any indication that he went where he as a layman should not. But his arrival worried the priest, and the whole story reads as a rather cavalier overruling of the priest’s scruples. Mark’s inclusion of the clause εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ therefore perhaps represents the irregularity of the situation portrayed in the OT account. The name of the priest, however, does not correspond; 1 Sa. 21:1–9 names him as Ahimelech, who was the father of the Ἀβιαθάρ who features prominently in David’s subsequent story. There was apparently some confusion over these names, since Abiathar generally appears as David’s priest along with Zadok, and yet the lists in 2 Sa. 8:17; 1 Ch. 24:6 give ‘Ahimelech son of Abiathar’ as priest along with Zadok. Mark seems to share that confusion; Abiathar was presumably there at the time (cf. 1 Sa. 22:20 for his subsequent escape from Nob), but he was not yet ἀρχιερεύς. For the regulations for the showbread see Ex. 25:30; Lv. 24:5–9.

Footnote: Appeal is sometimes made in the interests of historical accuracy to alternative understandings of ἐπί with the genitive; it has been rendered ‘in the lifetime of’, thus offering the sense ‘in the lifetime of Abiathar [who later became well known as] the High Priest’, but this is unnatural when the holder of an office is mentioned (cf. Lk. 3:2; Acts 11:28, where the reference is to the tenure of office of the men mentioned, not to their lifetime; in Lk. 4:27 the reference is to the period of Elisha’s prophetic activity, rather than to his lifetime); alternatively appeal has been made to the usage in 12:26, ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου, ‘in the passage about the bush’, but it is not obvious in what sense 1 Sa. 21:1–9 could be regarded as belonging to a section of Scripture entitled ‘Abiathar the High Priest’. It can be safely assumed that had it not been for the historical problem no one would have queried the obvious meaning, ‘when Abiathar was High Priest’. M. Casey, Sources, 151, suggests that Mark’s Greek derives from an Aramaic original which he reconstructs as ‘in the days of Abiathar — a great/chief priest!’ (139): the Aramaic referred to his lifetime, but Mark’s Greek has mistakenly made it refer to his period of office (‘a normal mistake in a bilingual’).

37818
10-25-2015, 03:21 PM
The text is commonly being translated as if it said Abiathar was the high priest, . . . του αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως. It really does not.

John Reece
10-25-2015, 03:31 PM
The text is commonly being translated as if it said Abiathar was the high priest, . . . του αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως. It really does not.

As explained by France (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8776-Acts-2-26&p=257793&viewfull=1#post257793).

37818
10-25-2015, 03:59 PM
του αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως = of Abiathar the high priest.
αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως = Abiathar of the high priest.
αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως = Abiathar of [the] high priest.

αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως = Abiathar [son] of the high priest.
That is my understanding. And is historically true too. What is the proof that it cannot be correctly understood this way? How hard is this?

Truthseeker
10-25-2015, 09:32 PM
The thread is titled Acts, but apparently you meant Mark.

John Reece
10-25-2015, 11:38 PM
του αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως = of Abiathar the high priest.
αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως = Abiathar of the high priest.
αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως = Abiathar of [the] high priest.

αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως = Abiathar [son] of the high priest.
That is my understanding. And is historically true too. What is the proof that it cannot be correctly understood this way? How hard is this?

How about posting biblical texts in context that demonstrate the correctness of your understanding and showing that your understanding is "historically true".

Geert van den Bos
10-26-2015, 07:29 AM
More important seems to be the comparison of the sabbath with the house of God.

"(and his discipes) began to make a way (plucking ears of corn)" (v.23) corresponds to "how he entered (the house of God)" (v.26)

v. 23 is often mistranslated.

Greek
Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας.

It is about "to do, to make" Greek ποιέω,

v. 24 καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ, Ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν

and the Pharisees said to him; "See what they do on the sabbath what is not proper"

v.25,
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυίδ
and he said to them, did you never read what David did?

Note that after the parable of the sower the ears of corn that were plucked by the disciples must have carried hundred corns of grain each :wink: (hundredfold = "meah sh'arim" -- a double play on word -- gematria 666.like of "yom shishi" , sixth day = preparation-day = the day before the sabbath; "sha'ar" = gate ; meausure.)


"to do, to make" is mentioned in Genesis 2:3,
And God blessed the seventh day and He hallowed it, for thereon He abstained from all His work that God created to do , Hebrew "la'asot" --

This word "la'asot" is like an appendix, seeming to be superfluous, and untranslatable

Look it up in biblehub:
http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-3.htm

"la'asot" is the 35rd and last word of the account of the sabbath = the seventh day, Genesis 2:1-3.

which might be very well the clue of 3,5 times of Daniel = half of the week.

Rashi:

that God created to do: The work that was fit to be done on the Sabbath, He doubled up and did it on the sixth [day], as is explained in Genesis Rabbah (11:9).

When he wouldn't have doubled it up there would never have been rest -- we always would have been facing a dead-line :wink:

Mark 3 continues about the sabbath -- the healing of the man with the withered hand -- with a withered you cannot "do" - you cannot pluck ears of corn.

This healing being enough reason for the Pharisees (religion) and Herodians (state) to kill him, even in coöperation.

And going out the Pharisees immediaterly complotted with the Herodians how to kill him

They were sent by the temple-authorities, after they got aware that the parable of the vineyard and the tenants was spoken against them, Mark 12:13,

And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in a word.

Jesus then had them show a coin, a denarius, with image and inscripton of Caesar.

Image contrary the "image of the living God";
Inscription contrary the inscription on the cross ...

37818
10-26-2015, 12:54 PM
More important seems to be the comparison of the sabbath with the house of God.

"(and his discipes) began to make a way (plucking ears of corn)" (v.23) corresponds to "how he entered (the house of God)" (v.26)

v. 23 is often mistranslated.

Greek
Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας.

It is about "to do, to make" Greek ποιέω,

v. 24 καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ, Ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν

and the Pharisees said to him; "See what they do on the sabbath what is not proper"

v.25,
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυίδ
and he said to them, did you never read what David did?

Note that after the parable of the sower the ears of corn that were plucked by the disciples must have carried hundred corns of grain each :wink: (hundredfold = "meah sh'arim" -- a double play on word -- gematria 666.like of "yom shishi" , sixth day = preparation-day = the day before the sabbath; "sha'ar" = gate ; meausure.)


"to do, to make" is mentioned in Genesis 2:3,
And God blessed the seventh day and He hallowed it, for thereon He abstained from all His work that God created to do , Hebrew "la'asot" --

This word "la'asot" is like an appendix, seeming to be superfluous, and untranslatable

Look it up in biblehub:
http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-3.htm

"la'asot" is the 35rd and last word of the account of the sabbath = the seventh day, Genesis 2:1-3.

which might be very well the clue of 3,5 times of Daniel = half of the week.

Rashi:

When he wouldn't have doubled it up there would never have been rest -- we always would have been facing a dead-line :wink:

Mark 3 continues about the sabbath -- the healing of the man with the withered hand -- with a withered you cannot "do" - you cannot pluck ears of corn.

This healing being enough reason for the Pharisees (religion) and Herodians (state) to kill him, even in coöperation.

And going out the Pharisees immediaterly complotted with the Herodians how to kill him

They were sent by the temple-authorities, after they got aware that the parable of the vineyard and the tenants was spoken against them, Mark 12:13,

And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in a word.

Jesus then had them show a coin, a denarius, with image and inscripton of Caesar.

Image contrary the "image of the living God";
Inscription contrary the inscription on the cross ...:offtopic:
What has this to do with Abiathar? What has this to do with whether or not Jesus was speaking of his relationship to the high priest or Abiathar being the high priest? Or what has this to do with the Greek grammar on this matter of Abiathar and reference to the high priest in the genitive case?

37818
10-26-2015, 01:39 PM
How about posting biblical texts in context that demonstrate the correctness of your understanding and showing that your understanding is "historically true".
OK. Those are two parts. Abiathar being a priest not yet high priest when that event took place (1 Samuel 21:6). Abiathar is first mentioned in 1 Samuel 22:20 as the son of Ahimelech. His father is identified as a priest before Saul (1 Samuel 22:11) and is supposed to be the same person Abiah (1 Samuel 14:3; 1 Samuel 22:9) being identified as the LORD's priest (14:3) being interpreted the high priest. The second part is the grammar and use of the Greek for high priest in the genitive case.

To be continued . . .

John Reece
10-26-2015, 02:55 PM
.... The second part is the grammar and use of the Greek for high priest in the genitive case. .

Westcott & Hort, as well as Nestle-Aland, do not read Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως; rather, they read Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως.

The textual variant τοῦ, which is absolutely essential for your theory, is questionable, making your theory questionable, to say the least.

37818
11-01-2015, 04:13 AM
Westcott & Hort, as well as Nestle-Aland, do not read Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως; rather, they read Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως.

The textual variant τοῦ, which is absolutely essential for your theory, is questionable, making your theory questionable, to say the least.

The Greek word without the article in the genitive case is in the genitive case. Does not need the article.



αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως = Abiathar of [the] high priest.


So it without force can be simply understood as: Abiathar [son] of [the] high priest.

Since the long standing tradition creates the contradiction of the event.

tabibito
11-01-2015, 01:52 PM
Interesting: Thayers Dictionary
II. of Time when; with the genitive of a person in the time or age of a man (in the days of); at the time when an office was held by one; under the administration of (cf. Winers Grammar, 375 (352); Buttmann, 336 (289)): Mark 2:26
BDAG
w. gen., time within which an event or condition takes place (Hom.+) in the time of, under (kings or other rulers): in the time of Elisha Lk 4:27 (cp. Just., D. 46, 6 ἐ. Ἠλίου). ἐ. τῆς μετοικεσίας at the time of the exile Mt 1:11. Under=during the rule or administration of (Hes., Op. 111; Hdt. 6, 98 al.; OGI 90, 15; PAmh 43, 2 [173 B.C.]; UPZ 162 V, 5 [117 B.C.]; 1 Esdr 2:12; 1 Macc 13:42; 2 Macc 15:22; Jos., Ant. 12, 156 ἐ. ἀρχιερέως Ὀ.) ἐ. Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως under, in the time of, Abiathar the high priest Mk 2:26

Given that Ahimelech is recorded in the Old Testament as being the High Priest when David took the showbread - would this indicate a mistake in the Biblical record, or perhaps on the part of Christ?

επι αβιαθαρ (του **textus receptus**) αρχιερεως - Abiathar and High Priest are both in the Genitive case ... of Abiathar + of the High Priest whether with or without the του.
The two words, being appostional, translate to English as a single compound genitive i.e. of Abiathar the High Priest.

If we are to take the entries of BDAG and Thayer's as absolute, without possible exceptions, it would not necessarily mean that a mistake had been made. However, it would depend on a conceptual usage for the phrase that I am not sure is valid in Hebrew or Koine Greek.

Option 1: In Japanese, the final year of one emperor's reign is also the first year of his successor's reign - (traditionally that is). The entire year is referred to as the first year of the successor's reign even if he assumes the throne on December 31. Likewise, the entire year is referred to as the final year of the predecessor's reign, even if he loses the throne on January 1. (thus, 1989 is Shouwa 64 is also Heisei 1) If a similar condition applies for either Koine Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic with regard to the holder of office of High Priest, there is no conflict.
Option 2: επι may have a range of possible nuances when coupled with the genitive of person and position - around/just before(or similar) the time of.
Option 3: The time of (despite protestations to the contrary in dictionaries) may refer to "the life time of", not "the tenure of".
Option 4: somebody got it wrong.

Right now, I lean toward option 2.

John Reece
11-01-2015, 03:40 PM
The Greek word without the article in the genitive case is in the genitive case. Does not need the article.

? But it was on the basis of texts with the article (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8776-Acts-2-26&p=257757&viewfull=1#post257757) that you asserted that "[son]" should be understood in the phrase "Abiathar [son] of [the] high priest."


So it without force can be simply understood as: Abiathar [son] of [the] high priest.

? Can you cite any Greek text other than the one in question in which there is a parallel example of a phrase in which the word "[son]" is understood without being represented in the text by the article του (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?8776-Acts-2-26&p=257757&viewfull=1#post257757)?

37818
11-01-2015, 03:47 PM
Interesting: Thayers Dictionary
II. of Time when; with the genitive of a person in the time or age of a man (in the days of); at the time when an office was held by one; under the administration of (cf. Winers Grammar, 375 (352); Buttmann, 336 (289)): Mark 2:26
BDAG
w. gen., time within which an event or condition takes place (Hom.+) in the time of, under (kings or other rulers): in the time of Elisha Lk 4:27 (cp. Just., D. 46, 6 ἐ. Ἠλίου). ἐ. τῆς μετοικεσίας at the time of the exile Mt 1:11. Under=during the rule or administration of (Hes., Op. 111; Hdt. 6, 98 al.; OGI 90, 15; PAmh 43, 2 [173 B.C.]; UPZ 162 V, 5 [117 B.C.]; 1 Esdr 2:12; 1 Macc 13:42; 2 Macc 15:22; Jos., Ant. 12, 156 ἐ. ἀρχιερέως Ὀ.) ἐ. Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως under, in the time of, Abiathar the high priest Mk 2:26

Given that Ahimelech is recorded in the Old Testament as being the High Priest when David took the showbread - would this indicate a mistake in the Biblical record, or perhaps on the part of Christ?

επι αβιαθαρ (του **textus receptus**) αρχιερεως - Abiathar and High Priest are both in the Genitive case ... of Abiathar + of the High Priest whether with or without the του.
The two words, being appostional, translate to English as a single compound genitive i.e. of Abiathar the High Priest.

If we are to take the entries of BDAG and Thayer's as absolute, without possible exceptions, it would not necessarily mean that a mistake had been made. However, it would depend on a conceptual usage for the phrase that I am not sure is valid in Hebrew or Koine Greek.

Option 1: In Japanese, the final year of one emperor's reign is also the first year of his successor's reign - (traditionally that is). The entire year is referred to as the first year of the successor's reign even if he assumes the throne on December 31. Likewise, the entire year is referred to as the final year of the predecessor's reign, even if he loses the throne on January 1. (thus, 1989 is Shouwa 64 is also Heisei 1) If a similar condition applies for either Koine Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic with regard to the holder of office of High Priest, there is no conflict.
Option 2: επι may have a range of possible nuances when coupled with the genitive of person and position - around/just before(or similar) the time of.
Option 3: The time of (despite protestations to the contrary in dictionaries) may refer to "the life time of", not "the tenure of".
Option 4: somebody got it wrong.

Right now, I lean toward option 2.

It is not my understanding that Αβιάθαρ to be in the genitive case. But if the text read, του Αβιάθαρ αρχιερέως, of Abathar [the] high priest. See Luke 3:25-38 use of του.

δούλον αρχιερέως without the του is understood to refer to a "servant prelate" as opposed to "servant of [the] high priest." This understanding would explain the late addition of του to the text to read Αβιάθαρ του αρχιερέως.

John Reece
11-01-2015, 06:41 PM
I.... This understanding would explain the late addition of του to the text to read Αβιάθαρ του αρχιερέως.

The "late addition" of του?

What is the basis for your assumption that the text of Nestle-Aland (ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως) is late and that of Textus Receptus (ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως) is early?

From The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker, 1979) by D. A.Carson:


There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type [which includes the reading in Textus Receptus] was known before the middle of the fourth century This point may be established by: (1) determining if there are any Greek manuscripts of pre-A.D. 350 date which reflect the Byzantine text-type; (2) examining pre-A.D. 350 versions with the same information; (3) reading the New Testament quotations found in the writings of the pre-A.D. 350 church fathers to discover if the biblical passages they quote approximate any particular text-type. In each case the evidence is uniform: the mature Byzantine text-type appears nowhere before the fourth century. [page 44]

....

The Alexandrian text-type [which includes the reading in Nestle-Aland] has better credentials that any other text-type now available. .... The famous papyrus p75, which dates from about A.D. 200 and is perhaps earlier, is astonishingly close to Vaticanus. This find definitely proves the early date of the Vaticanus text-type. [page 55]

37818
11-01-2015, 09:54 PM
The "late addition" of του?

What is the basis for your assumption that the text of Nestle-Aland (ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως) is late and that of Textus Receptus (ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως) is early?

From The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker, 1979) by D. A.Carson:


There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type [which includes the reading in Textus Receptus] was known before the middle of the fourth century This point may be established by: (1) determining if there are any Greek manuscripts of pre-A.D. 350 date which reflect the Byzantine text-type; (2) examining pre-A.D. 350 versions with the same information; (3) reading the New Testament quotations found in the writings of the pre-A.D. 350 church fathers to discover if the biblical passages they quote approximate any particular text-type. In each case the evidence is uniform: the mature Byzantine text-type appears nowhere before the fourth century. [page 44]

....

The Alexandrian text-type [which includes the reading in Nestle-Aland] has better credentials that any other text-type now available. .... The famous papyrus p75, which dates from about A.D. 200 and is perhaps earlier, is astonishingly close to Vaticanus. This find definitely proves the early date of the Vaticanus text-type. [page 55]

Respectfully, you took what I said backwards.

The late reading: επι αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως
The early reading: επι αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως. And I believe is the original.

The αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως is being translated typically as "of Abiathar the high priest."
It could be understood as "Abiathar of [the] high priest" by the hearers. The hears of Jesus day knowing that event Jesus related regarding Abiathar, that Abiathar was not yet the High Priest but was known to be the son of the High Priest.

So a translation: "Abiathar was High Priest," which is standard, could be rendered "Abiathar was [son of the] High Priest Where, I think, the reader can understand [son of the] is an interpretation which can be omitted. As I explained the hears would have known Abiathar was not yet the High Priest and was the son of the High Priest. So how ever one translates this that common sense understand of the hearers should be considered.

An added note: Both the critical texts and the majority texts (83.7%) have: επι αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως
It is the so-called TR which has: επι αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως

Also BTW I had not originally checked the reading: επι αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως. I was aware of επι αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως .reading, but did not know it was the common reading of the Greek texts when I made my OP.

John Reece
11-01-2015, 11:38 PM
Respectfully, you took what I said backwards.

The late reading: επι αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως
The early reading: επι αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως. And I believe is the original.

The αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως is being translated typically as "of Abiathar the high priest."
It could be understood as "Abiathar of [the] high priest" by the hearers. The hears of Jesus day knowing that event Jesus related regarding Abiathar, that Abiathar was not yet the High Priest but was known to be the son of the High Priest.

So a translation: "Abiathar was High Priest," which is standard, could be rendered "Abiathar was [son of the] High Priest Where, I think, the reader can understand [son of the] is an interpretation which can be omitted. As I explained the hears would have known Abiathar was not yet the High Priest and was the son of the High Priest. So how ever one translates this that common sense understand of the hearers should be considered.

An added note: Both the critical texts and the majority texts (83.7%) have: επι αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως
It is the so-called TR which has: επι αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως

Also BTW I had not originally checked the reading: επι αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως. I was aware of επι αβιαθαρ αρχιερεως .reading, but did not know it was the common reading of the Greek texts when I made my OP.

:thumb: