Hi, Talmid.

What a clear explanation of who the referrent for "they" is! Agreed. The article was sent to me several years ago by a "1st rung" (as you put things) US-based Greek grammarian after I sought his opinion on the key findings of my 'large' Acts essay. The scholar in question pointed out that I had independently reached precisely the same conclusions, and for precisely the same reasons, as had Sweeney before me. Given that the article was published by the UBS and back in 1995, would it be fair to conclude that this is now the accepted view amongst the majority of "1st rung" exegetes? The stance that Sweeney and I independently argue for has long been the 'mainstream' grammatical position, albeit perhaps not the 'mainstream' theological position (hence the very fact of the article itself). If so would it be fair to say that the theology of "1st rung" commentators who have differed from this view is moving to reflect this understanding? It's impossible to say, given that noone has explicitly published on the matter. But Sweeney's article was referenced in the exegetical handbook to the Greek text of Acts that I mentioned here several weeks ago, so it certainly hasn't been 'forgotten' in the interim. Incidentally, I do find it interesting that both Daryl Bock (BECNT 2007) and David Peterson (PNTC 2009) stated that the 120 were in view in their recent Acts commentaries. By the same token neither advanced any grammatical reasons in support of their conclusions, a failing that Sweeney identified as quite common even back in 1995. (Exegesis often does 'tilt' to theology, even among professional biblical scholars.)

Perhaps I've missed something, or perhaps the understanding of koine Greek grammar has changed, but it seems that Sweeney notes (and in this case easily and convincingly discards) a possible fluidity regarding the referents for pronouns which I thought you said in your "large Acts essay" was not possible. Have I got something wrong? 'Nope'. Whilst our understanding of Greek grammar certainly has advanced significantly in the past 15 years, it's mainly been in the area of verbal aspect more than anything else. But to respond to your question, two points. First, Sweeney wrote as someone who is principally engaged in Bible translation rather than as a professional Greek grammarian, ergo his article was aimed more towards Bible translators than Greek grammarians. Second, what Dr Sweeney didn't point out in his essay was a rather significant fact that needs to be born in mind in discussions of this sort: differing NT writers adhered to (or deviated from) 'conventional' grammatical rules to varying degrees. His singular example of 'grammatical fluidity' was from the Gospel According to Mark, which was written in a fairly 'abrupt' and unsophisticated form of Greek, and which contains several glaring examples of solecisms. But Luke? Well, he's a completely different proposition altogether! The Gospel that bears his name, and the Acts of the Apostles are both written in a polished and literary form of the Κοινή, a feature I explicitly highlighted in my essay. As a sophisticated author writing to a sophisticated patron, Luke was completely scrupulous in his observance of Greek grammar, even to the point of 'correcting' certain 'rough' features in the various LXX passages which he quoted. So if he's to be compared with anyone, it certainly isn't to a Mark, but to someone very much like the anonymous author of the Letter to the Hebrews. Interestingly one or two scholars have recently suggested that Luke wrote Hebrews, so 'there you go'.

For these and similar reasons I think it very unlikely that Luke had in mind anything but what the Acts passage clearly states in Greek. Further, it just won't 'do' to presume the way that Greek functioned for lesser educated and non-native speakers (such as Mark) can be extrapolated to include highly educated and native speakers (such as Luke). Doing so would be somewhat analogous to comparing how Tony Barton writes to how I write!

Blessings,

Ian

*Update: Nelson P. Estrada in his From Followers to Leaders: The Apostles in the Ritual of Status Transformation in Acts 1-2, Library of New Testament Studies (Journal for the Study of the New Testament--Supplementary Series Number 255), T & T Clark, 2004 confirms my exegesis of Acts 2. I commend his study to all who are interested in the subject of 'who' spoke 'what' at Pentecost.

Good morning, Talmid.

So I did miss something. Yet again context-context-context shows as important. But of course. You could multiply similar examples in the writings of 'everyday' English-speakers; consider those who regularly use a double-negative without thinking, for example. Grammatically a double negative = a positive affirmation, but the trained grammarian wouldn't naively presume that this was the case, understanding instead that c-o-n-t-e-x-t informs analysis. So too with those who work daily in the Greek of the various writers of the NT.

Blessings,

Ian

Good afternoon, All.

Unfortunately the link to the paper referred to in this thread has not worked for many years. Consequently, I thought it best to copy the article from the journal of the United Bible Societies in its entirety so you, the reader, can better understand what points the discussion in the threads above concerned. I trust you find the article useful, and that it provokes reflection.

Blessings,

Ian

The Bible Translator (published by the United Bible Societies), Vol. 46, no. 2, 1995, pages 245-248

The identity of "they" in Acts 2.1

In Acts 2.1 we find the rather straightforward text: "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place" (RSV). The problem for those who interpret the passage is determining the identity of the pronoun "they". Was it the assembly of 120 disciples mentioned earlier in 1.15? Or was it referring to the more limited group of the 12 apostles?

Greek grammar is of little help to us in this instance. The general rule is that the Greek pronoun relates back to the nearest previously used noun that agrees with the number and gender of the pronoun or verb ending. Here the rule would refer us back to the apostles in 1.26. Unfortunately, as with English, Koine Greek could be rather flexible in following this rule. If another noun of the right number and gender was regarded as more in focus in the discourse, the normal rule could be set aside in favor of the topic in focus. For example, in Mark 1.40, 41 we have the story of the healing of a leper: "40 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, 'If you will, you can make me clean.' 41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, 'I will; be clean.' " In spite of the rule, which would require the "he" at the beginning of verse 41 to refer back to the leper, the context clearly forces us to understand the "he" as referring to Jesus and the "him" that is being touched as the leper. Since Acts 2.1 marks the beginning of a new episode, it would not be unusual for the writer to have a broader view in mind, in essence summing up the topic of the previous section. This may lead us to refer back to 1.15, the (120) believers, as the noun to which the pronoun "they" relates.

Commentaries are also of little help in sorting out this problem. Many do not deal with it at all. Those that do often give an opinion but cite no evidence to support it. I. Howard Marshall, for example, merely states: "The whole company of 120 people is doubtless meant, and not just the reconstituted twelve apostles." Many times we sense that a commentator's opinion is based on his or her theological motivation. If we say that it was only the apostles who were filled with the Holy Spirit, does that then mean that the Holy Spirit was not given to the entire church in the same way? Some commentators wish to avoid such conclusions from the first and insist that the larger group "must have" been in Luke's mind. Others wish to argue in the other direction and stress the uniqueness of the apostles in the book of Acts. On the whole, we find the commentaries fairly well divided, with perhaps a slight majority in favor of the 120.

Generally this makes little difference to Bible translators who have decided to retain the ambiguity in the text by using the third person plural pronoun and letting the readers sort out the problem for themselves. But while this may often provide an easy solution, it may not be the best solution. In the first place, while the text is obviously ambiguous, it is unlikely that it was intentionally ambiguous. Luke had a particular group in mind, either the apostles or the more extended group of 120. If the translator leaves the question wide open, he may, in fact, be obscuring the intention of the text. In the second place, many languages will not allow the translator to sit on the fence. Rules regarding the use of pronouns may force us to make a decision one way or the other. 

I suggest that in this case, and likely in many others, the answer can be found in examining the larger discourse structure, how the episodes (or pericopes) function within the broader context. 

The writer of Acts has conveniently divided the book into sections by means of summary statements (2.47; 6.7; 9.31; 12.24; 16.5; 19.20) which describe the expansion of the gospel and the growth of the church. The first section (1.1- 2.47) focuses on the beginnings of the church in Jerusalem. It can further be broken into individual episodes, mainly on the basis of time markers (1.1-14; 1.15-26; 2.1-42; 2.43-47). 

As we examine these pericopes we see that 1.1-14speaks of Jesus' last days with the apostles, his charge for them to remain in Jerusalem, his promise to send the Holy Spirit, his ascension, and the obedient response of the 11 apostles as well as some women and the family of Jesus. 1.1526 tells of the choosing of a 12th apostle to take the place of Judas. 2.142 speaks of the events on the day of Pentecost: the filling of the Holy Spirit, the reaction of the crowd, Peter's speech, further reaction, and the addition of 3000 people to the church. 2.43-47 is a transitional paragraph that summarizes the story to this point and is not on the story line itself.

Our key to the identity of the pronoun "they" in 2.1 is the function of the second episode within the discourse. 1.15 begins with the phrase "and in those days" (kai en tais hemerais tautais). This same phrase appears two other times in the book of Acts (6.1; 11.27). In A Translators's Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles we read the explanation that this phrase "... is merely a way of designating a vague and indefinite period of time' and is used by Luke ... to indicate either a transition in, or the beginning of, a new story" (page 24). A closer examination of these examples, along with the one example from the Gospel of Luke (2.1), reveals that the phrase has the function of removing a section of text from the time line of the story, making it background information separate from the main story line. 

For example, in Acts 6.1-6 we have the brief story of the dispute that arose between "the Hellenists" and "the Hebrews" in the church, with the resultant appointment of the seven men to oversee the distribution of aid. The reader is struck with the intrusiveness of this section. It does not seem to carry the story line further and gives us no information about the expansion of the church. It begins with the phrase "in these days" (RSV). As the Handbook states, there is no precise time reference indicated by this phrase. This is merely an episode that happened "sometime". The phrase serves to set this brief section off as background information; it is information that we will need in the chapters that follow to understand who Stephen and Philip were. It is a way of saying to the reader: "Now before I go on with the story, there were some things happening at that time that you need to know."

In similar fashion in Acts 11.27-28 we have a brief backgrounded episode beginning with "in these days" that speaks about a great famine that was predicted and later came to pass during the reign of Claudius. This information provides motivation for the sending of Paul and Barnabas to Judea in verse 30. 

The familiar beginning to the Christmas narrative in Luke 2.1 also begins similarly: "In those days ..." This is immediately followed with the news of Augustus's decree, which provides us with the information we need to understand why Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. 

In Acts 1.15 the phrase "In those days" would thus serve to mark 1.15-26 as an episode apart from the main story line, a parenthesis that provides a bridge between the 11 apostles in 1.14 and the mention of 12 apostles in 2.14. It was, in effect, a way of clearing up some unfinished business. The 120 believers of 1.15, being non-central characters in a parenthetical episode, remain in the background; and as such that group could not reasonably be the noun to which "they" in 2.1 relates. On the other hand the apostles are the very point of the episode. At this stage in the narrative Luke is focusing the readers' attention squarely upon the reconstituted group of twelve. The main story line proceeds from 1.14 directly to 2.1, and the "they" of 2.1 refers back to the group of people listed by name in 1.13, with the addition of Matthias. If it were not .for the conflict in the number of apostles in chapter 1 and in chapter 2, the section 1.15-26 could be omitted without doing any harm to the narrative. 

This argument gains added strength when we note the parallels between chapters 1 and 2. It was the apostles who were given the promise in 1.8 (see 1.2) and who experienced its fulfilment in 2.3. It was the apostles and a few others who met in the upper room of the house in 1.13-14 and in 2.2. Literary critics and students of discourse structures are familiar with the normal features of texts with regard to referring to participants. If a person is described in a certain way early in a text, and then someone is referred to in the same way later in the text, the reader will naturally assume that this is another reference to the same person. For instance, if a writer mentions that "Dr. Smith was a large man" in one passage and then three paragraphs later simply refers to "the large man", given that no other large men have been mentioned in the meantime we would all understand that Dr. Smith was again in view. In Acts 1.11 Luke refers to the apostles as "men of Galilee". When reference is made in 2.7 to "Galileans", we must assume that the same people are in view.

In 2.14 Peter stood ''with the eleven" to address the crowd, not with the 120. When Peter's audience responded to him in 2.37, they spoke to "Peter and the rest of the apostles". In fact there is no mention of the larger group of 120 in all of chapter 2. Their main function seems to have been to provide a pool of believers from which to select another apostle, and possibly to show that they met the minimum Jewish requirements to establish a community with its own council (Marshall, Acts, page 64.) Readers of our translations should be able to understand that the apostles are in view when they look at or listen to Acts 2.1.

MICHAEL L. SWEENEY