Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Acts 2:26

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Acts 2:26

    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 . . .
    Last edited by 37818; 10-24-2015, 11:04 PM.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

  • #2
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    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’).
    Last edited by John Reece; 10-25-2015, 09:20 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      The text is commonly being translated as if it said Abiathar was the high priest, . . . του αβιαθαρ του αρχιερεως. It really does not.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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?
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #6
            The thread is titled Acts, but apparently you meant Mark.
            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

            [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              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".

              Comment


              • #8
                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 (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

                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 ...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
                  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 (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

                  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 ...

                  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?
                  Last edited by 37818; 10-26-2015, 07:57 AM.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                    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 . . .
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      .... 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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        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.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.
                          Last edited by tabibito; 11-01-2015, 09:05 AM.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            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 that you asserted that "[son]" should be understood in the phrase "Abiathar [son] of [the] high priest."

                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            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?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              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.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X