# περιηστραψεν, περιαστραψαι, περιλαμψαν



## PowerOfChoice

In my chronology studies I find that quite possibly the 29 CE solar eclipse coincided with Saul's conversion experience. (I am well aware that conventional history is displacing said event to a much later date.  )

Looking at the Greek text (quoted below) I find words suggesting that Saul's experience as recorded thrice by Luke, the author of Acts, may well describe said solar eclipse from a point of view near Damascus. 

I would very much appreciate any comments and suggestions for improvements of my suggested translations below. (For comparison I have supplied also the KJV translations of each of the three passages.)



*Suggested translations, KJV translations & Greek originals:*


*1)*
*Acts 9:3*And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and *suddenly there appeared to him a halo shaped star removing the light off of the heaven: *

*Act 9:3 **KJV* And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and *suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven*: ​*Act 9:3 GNT-TR+* εν δε τω πορευεσθαι εγενετο αυτον εγγιζειν τη δαμασκω και εξαιφνης *περιηστραψεν* αυτον φως απο του ουρανου​- - -​*2)*
*Acts 22:6 *And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus *about noon, suddenly out of the sky the rays of a halo shaped star *was manifestedround about me. 

*Act 22:6 KJV* And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus *about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light *round about me. ​*Act 22:6 GNT-TR+* εγενετο δε μοι πορευομενω και εγγιζοντι τη δαμασκω περι μεσημβριαν εξαιφνης εκ του ουρανου *περιαστραψαι* φως ικανον περι εμε ​ 

- - -​*3)*
*Acts 26:13 **At midday*, O king, under my way I beheld *a sovereign from the sky across the brilliancy of the sun being illuminated on its edges by a halo and shining round* about me and them which journeyed with me.

*Act 26:13 KJV* *At midday*, O king, I saw in the way *a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round* about me and them which journeyed with me.​*Act 26:13 GNT-TR+* ημερας μεσης κατα την οδον ειδον *βασιλευ ουρανοθεν υπερ την λαμπροτητα του ηλιου περιλαμψαν* με φως και τους συν εμοι πορευομενους ​ 

- - -​


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Specifically, the Greek words in the title of this thread seem to describe a ring shaped star. That is to say, an annular solar eclipse or an almost total solar eclipse would seem well described by these Greek words. 

From a location near Damascus the total solar eclipse on November 24, 29 CE would have been almost, but not quite, a total eclipse. Thus it would seem to be a likely candidate for being described by these words.

Comments please, anyone?!

Thanks all!


----------



## anthodocheio

Comments...
Those words in red are not the equivelant from Greek to English. I will mark them with other colours.


PowerOfChoice said:


> *Suggested translations, KJV translations & Greek originals:*
> 
> 
> *1)*
> *Acts 9:3*And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and *suddenly there appeared to him a halo shaped star removing the light off of the heaven: *
> 
> *Act 9:3 **KJV* And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and *suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven*: ​*Act 9:3 GNT-TR+* εν δε τω πορευεσθαι εγενετο αυτον εγγιζειν τη δαμασκω και εξαιφνης *περιηστραψεν* αυτον *φως* απο του ουρανου​- - -​*2)*
> *Acts 22:6 *And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus *about noon, suddenly out of the sky the rays of a halo shaped star *was manifestedround about me.
> 
> *Act 22:6 KJV* And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus *about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light *round about me. ​*Act 22:6 GNT-TR+* εγενετο δε μοι πορευομενω και εγγιζοντι τη δαμασκω περι μεσημβριαν εξαιφνης εκ του ουρανου *περιαστραψαι* *φως* ικανον περι εμε ​
> 
> - - -​*3)*
> *Acts 26:13 **At midday*, *O* *king*, under my way I beheld *a sovereign from the sky across the brilliancy of the sun being illuminated on its edges by a halo and shining round* about me and them which journeyed with me.
> 
> *Act 26:13 KJV* *At midday*, O king, I saw in the way *a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round* about me and them which journeyed with me.​*Act 26:13 GNT-TR+* ημερας μεσης κατα την οδον ειδον *βασιλευ ουρανοθεν υπερ την λαμπροτητα του ηλιου περιλαμψαν* με φως και τους συν εμοι πορευομενους ​
> 
> - - -​


The word "star" does't apear in the first two quotes. Just the word "light".
About your words of the title, it's hard for me. They are compound words that I don't understand 100%.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

anthodocheio said:


> Comments...
> Those words in red are not the equivelant from Greek to English. I will mark them with other colours.
> 
> 
> 
> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Modifying my originally suggested translations, while also accepting and learning from some of your suggestions above:*
> 
> *1)*
> *Acts 9:3 *And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and *suddenly there appeared to him a halo shaped star removing [from] him [the day]light off of the heaven: *
> 
> *Act 9:3 **KJV* And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and *suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven*: ​*Act 9:3 GNT-TR+* εν δε τω πορευεσθαι εγενετο αυτον εγγιζειν τη δαμασκω και εξαιφνης *περιηστραψεν* *αυτον* *φως* *απο* του ουρανου​- - -​*2)*
> 
> *Acts 22:6 *And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus *about noon, suddenly out of the sky the light of a halo shaped star was present a**round *me.
> 
> *Act 22:6 KJV* And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus *about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light **round about* me. ​*Act 22:6 GNT-TR+* εγενετο δε μοι πορευομενω και εγγιζοντι τη δαμασκω περι μεσημβριαν εξαιφνης εκ του ουρανου *περιαστραψαι* *φως* *ικανον* *περι* εμε ​
> 
> - - -​*3)*
> 
> *Acts 26:13 **At midday* under my way I beheld *a sovereign [i.e. the moon] of the sky over [shadowing; i.e. across / over / on top of ] the brilliancy of the sun, which was shining its light around its [i.e. the moon's] edges in the form of a halo *upon me and upon them which journeyed with me.
> 
> *Act 26:13 KJV* *At midday**, O king,* I saw in the way *a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round* *about* me and them which journeyed with me.​*Act 26:13 GNT-TR+* ημερας μεσης κατα την οδον ειδον *βασιλευ ουρανοθεν υπερ την λαμπροτητα του ηλιου περιλαμψαν* με *φως* και τους συν εμοι πορευομενους ​
> 
> - - -​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "star" does't apear in the first two quotes. Just the word "light".
> About your words of the title, it's hard for me. They are compound words that I don't understand 100%.
Click to expand...

 





Yes, thank you Anthodocheio! I find your suggestions most helpful indeed! 


However, I hope you'll forgive me for not immediately and completely accepting all of your suggestions without more?

I first notice my error in translating "*βασιλευ*" twice and in reference to two distinct and separate objects, i.e. King Agrippa and the moon. That wasn't my intention. Sorry!

As you can see from my new color coding above, "*φως*" [light] did have its counterpart even in my original translations and the word "star" seems to me to be part and parcel, even the main word stems, of the compound words "*περι-ηστρα-ψεν*" and "*περι-αστρα-ψαι*" in the first two quoted passages, or isn't that so?

Indeed, the word "*περιλαμψαν*" is even defined in Strong's Greek Dictionary as follows: "περιλάμπω... to _illuminate_ all _around_, that is, _invest_ _with_ _a_ _halo._" To me that definition seems to lean more towards something having to do with the sun or the moon than towards something having to do with Paul et al as translated in the KJV, or don't you agree?

Again, any comments or suggestions are more than welcome. Please!


Thanks for your consideration!


----------



## anthodocheio

Why are you changing the texts? "Ουρανόθεν" means "from the sky".
I'll continue with your previous texts.
Is not much I can do. Sorry!

Again, please, try to ask one thing at a time, so that more people be able and willing to help.


> *1)*
> *Acts 9:3 *And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and *suddenly there appeared to him a halo shaped star removing the light off of the heaven: *
> 
> *Act 9:3 **KJV* And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and *suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven*: ​*Act 9:3 GNT-TR+* εν δε τω πορευεσθαι εγενετο αυτον εγγιζειν τη δαμασκω και εξαιφνης *περιηστραψεν* αυτον *φως* απο του ουρανου​- - -the sky​*2)*
> *Acts 22:6 *And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was coming unto Damascus *about noon, suddenly out of the sky the rays of a halo shaped star *was manifested round about me.
> 
> *Act 22:6 KJV* And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was coming unto Damascus *about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light *round about me.​*Act 22:6 GNT-TR+* εγενετο δε μοι πορευομενω και εγγιζοντι τη δαμασκω περι μεσημβριαν εξαιφνης εκ του ουρανου *περιαστραψαι* *φως* ικανον περι εμε ​- - -​*3)*
> *Acts 26:13 **At midday*, *O* *king*, under my way I beheld *a sovereign from the sky across the brilliancy of the sun being illuminated on its edges by a halo and shining round* about me and them which journeyed with me.
> 
> *Act 26:13 KJV* *At midday*, O king, I saw in the way *a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round* about me and them which journeyed with me.​*Act 26:13 GNT-TR+* ημερας μεσης κατα την οδον ειδον *βασιλευ ουρανοθεν υπερ την λαμπροτητα του ηλιου περιλαμψαν* *με φως* και τους συν εμοι πορευομενους ​- - -*with light*​


1. "about me" is missing from the later Greek (part of the) text 

2. "υπέρ την λαμπρότητα του ήλιου" means "brighter than the sun"


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Thanks again Anthodocheio!

I see you crossed out these words: "*removing the... off...*"

My basis for using the words "removing... off of..." is the following definitions out of Strong's Greek Dictionary #575:

"από, A primary particle; _"off"_, that is, _away_ (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively.)"​Am I misunderstanding something in this definition such that "απο" cannot be understood in terms of "removing... off of...?" That is, in this setting, diminishing the amount of light from the sun by means of an almost total solar eclipse?

I cannot make much sense out of the sentence if rendered "...there appeared to him a halo shaped star light of the heaven."

Only if we were considering some laser beam would such a rendering make any sense to me, but I have no reason for believing that this passage is referencing a laser beam, do you? "A halo shaped bright [or very brilliant/luminous] star" would make sense, but I don't see that being the Greek rendering, do you?​Now, I am not aware of any extant Hebrew original from which the Greek manuscripts of Acts is translated. Such texts were forbidden by the Roman Catholic church during the Dark Ages and were confiscated and/or destroyed whenever found. Nevertheless there is much evidence pointing to the original texts of much, perhaps all, of the New Testament having originally been written in Hebrew and later translated. This situation seems to be very strongly evidenced at least re Matthew by the extant Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, but I believe the same is likely true also for Acts. If so, then we may be wise to consider the meaning of the Greek text and any translation into English upon that basis. Could it be that the word "*περιηστραψεν,*" or its Hebrew counterpart, is not a verb, but a noun and that the word "*φως*" is either a second noun, an adjective or a verb?

Perhaps I should let the above be my "one thing at a time" question of this post?


 


*Nevertheless, I will pursue also each of your questions of your last post:*




anthodocheio said:


> Why are you changing the texts?



Answer:​1) I change my own translations when I become aware of something suggesting a better translation, for instance when I learn something from you I may wish to change my prior translation accordingly.​2) Sometimes I may wish to change the rendering of an extant translation, e.g. KJV, when I perceive that there may be a need for a more correct translation. Yet, because I don't understand Greek well enough, I may be liable to make or suggest an incorrect translation or interpretation of the original Greek text.​3) Sometimes I may perceive evidence that the Greek rendition of a text is itself a translation from an Hebrew original.​4) Sometimes I may wish to change a text when I find myself unable to make much sense out of an otherwise excellent English translation of a Greek text.​5) Sometimes I may believe I have a strong basis for knowing exact details about a certain reality being described by the original author of an eyewitness report, e.g. re the November 24, 29 CE total solar eclipse as observed from a point of view near Damascus. Still, I need always remember that my belief could be based upon false assumptions. ​- - - - - 




anthodocheio said:


> "Ουρανόθεν" means "from the sky".


 
In quote #3, post #4, I changed my wording as rendered in post #1, simply because at the time I felt it sounded better in English when considering the sentence as a whole. The words "from" and "of" both denote origin and are often interchangable in English. However, I have no problem accepting "from the sky" as being a better translation in this setting if you say it is. 



- - - - - 



anthodocheio said:


> Is not much I can do. Sorry!


 
But you are doing much! 

I highly appreciate and value your input!

Thanks!



- - - - -




anthodocheio said:


> Again, please, try to ask one thing at a time, so that more people be able and willing to help.


 
Yes, asking one simple question at a time is likely to be much better. 

Sometimes though, as now, I do find it difficult to narrow a complex question into one simple and focused question. I try. Sometimes I succeed. Sometimes I don't. I'll do my best. Thanks for reminding me! 


- - - - - 



anthodocheio said:


> 1. "about me" is missing from the later Greek (part of the) text


 
I am not sure I understand your point?

- If your are referencing post #1, quote #3, then please notice that I changed my translation to "upon me and upon them" in post #4.

- If you are referencing post #4, quote #3, then I don't understand your comment. Please explain!

- If you are referencing quotes #1 or #2, then perhaps you could please explain why KJV is using "round about me?"


- - - - - 



anthodocheio said:


> 2. "υπέρ την λαμπρότητα του ήλιου" means "brighter than the sun"


 
Why must "υπέρ" be applied in reference to the brightness of [the light from] the sun and why can it not be in reference to the relative positions of the luminary bodies? In other words, why could "υπέρ" not reference one luminary body being perceived as being located above the other, whether in terms of nearness to the observer or in terms of being closer to the zenit of the sky?


----------



## anthodocheio

PowerOfChoice said:


> I am not sure I understand your point?
> 
> - If your are referencing post #1, quote #3, then please notice that I changed my translation to "upon me and upon them" in post #4.
> 
> - If you are referencing post #4, quote #3, then I don't understand your comment. Please explain!
> 
> - If you are referencing quotes #1 or #2, then perhaps you could please explain why KJV is using "round about me?"


My mistake! As you don't have the accents I read it the wrong way. A friend helped me see it now. 

I promise to answer by monday. In the mean while, you should open a new thread on the following. 





> Why must "υπέρ" be applied in reference to the brightness of [the light from] the sun and why can it not be in reference to the relative positions of the luminary bodies? In other words, why could "υπέρ" not reference one luminary body being perceived as being located above the other, whether in terms of nearness to the observer or in terms of being closer to the zenit of the sky?


And, try to stick in the frase "υπέρ την λαμπρότητα του ήλιου". This is a language forum...


----------



## anthodocheio

Hello Power Of Choice!

Here is a literal translation from someone that knows better ancient Greek and English than I do.
The written accents I place them myself very roughly just to help reading. On this aspect, the Greek text is not as it should be. Just to have in mind..



> 1)εν δε τω πορεύεσθαι (and on his journey) εγένετο (it happened that) αυτόν εγγίζειν (he was approaching) τη Δαμασκώ (Damascus) και εξαίφνης (and suddenly) περιήστραψεν αυτόν (it shined around him) φως(a light) από του ουρανού (from the sky)
> 
> 2)εγένετο δε (and it happened) μοι πορευομένω (for me journeying) και εγγίζοντι (and approaching) τη Δαμασκώ (Damascus) περί μεσημβρίαν(around noon) εξαίφνης (suddenly) εκ του ουρανού (from the sky) περιάστραψαι φως ικανόν (a sufficient light flickered) περί εμέ (around me)
> 
> 3)ημέρας μέσης (at midday) κατά την οδόν (along the road) είδον (I saw) βασιλεύ (oh king) ουρανόθεν (from heaven) υπέρ (exceeding) την λαμπρότητα(the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun) περίλαμψ*ά*ν με (shining *around* *me*) φως (a light) και τους (and those) συν εμοί πορευομένους (journeying with me).


----------



## PowerOfChoice

anthodocheio said:


> My mistake! As you don't have the accents I read it the wrong way. A friend helped me see it now.
> 
> I promise to answer by monday. In the mean while, you should open a new thread on the following. And, try to stick in the frase "υπέρ την λαμπρότητα του ήλιου". This is a language forum...


 


Thanks Anthodocheio! And thanks to your friend too!

Sorry about the accents! I found another Greek text, identified in e-Sword as "Greek New Testament (Majority Text.)" I'll use that text in my quotes henceforth if that is helpful to you? That text has accents, but it also has commas and periods, and, as my understanding is that the ancient manuscripts are without commas and periods, I am not certain whether or not some or all of the accents may also have been added by late editors? I have no wish to limit my reading of the text to such late edits as are not based upon the original text!

I'm still waiting for input on the new thread I opened on your suggestion above... 








anthodocheio said:


> Hello Power Of Choice!
> 
> Here is a literal translation from someone that knows better ancient Greek and English than I do.
> The written accents I place them myself very roughly just to help reading. On this aspect, the Greek text is not as it should be. Just to have in mind..
> 
> 
> 
> 1)εν δε τω πορεύεσθαι (and on his journey) εγένετο (it happened that) αυτόν εγγίζειν (he was approaching) τη Δαμασκώ (Damascus) και εξαίφνης (and suddenly) περιήστραψεν αυτόν (it shined around him) φως(a light) από του ουρανού (from the sky)
> 
> 2)εγένετο δε (and it happened) μοι πορευομένω (for me journeying) και εγγίζοντι (and approaching) τη Δαμασκώ (Damascus) περί μεσημβρίαν(around noon) εξαίφνης (suddenly) εκ του ουρανού (from the sky) περιάστραψαι φως ικανόν (a sufficient light flickered) περί εμέ (around me)
> 
> 3)ημέρας μέσης (at midday) κατά την οδόν (along the road) είδον (I saw) βασιλεύ (oh king) ουρανόθεν (from heaven) υπέρ (exceeding) την λαμπρότητα(the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun) περίλαμψ*ά*ν με (shining *around* *me*) φως (a light) και τους (and those) συν εμοί πορευομένους (journeying with me).
Click to expand...

 





*Thanks for that one! Those translations really help bringing the focus back upon the meaning of the words in the title of this thread:*






1) 

*Re "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (it shined around him: )" *

How about: "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (shining around itself,)" or is there anything in the grammar that dictates that the reflective "αὐτὸν" is referencing the same as is the prior "αὐτὸν" earlier in the sentence? 





2)

*Re "περιάστραψαι φως ικανόν (a sufficient light flickered) περί εμέ (around me: )"*

Here I see "περι" being used twice in "περιαστράψαι φῶς ἱκανὸν περὶ ἐμέ." Doesn't that double usage of "περι" tend to separate out and distinguish one reference from the other? I mean, isn't the first "περι" referencing the thing on the sky and the other "περι" referencing the observer? And wouldn't such a reading of the text also be borne out of the fact that the words of the firsthand observer are being quoted in this 2nd passage, whereas in passage 1) above a third party is providing second hand evidence by rephrasing the words of the firsthand witness. It is a well known fact that every step in a chain of communications tends to obfuscate the original data, isn't it? And wouldn't such obfuscation also tend to be reflected in the wording of these text passages?

Also I notice that your friend is translating "περιαστράψαι" as "flickered" and that in so doing he is also allowing the two "περι" to reference one object, i.e. the observer, rather than two separate objects as above suggested.

How about "περιάστραψαι φως ικανόν (a halostar shaped shining of light being present) περί εμέ (around me?)" 

What I am suggesting here is that the word "περιάστραψαι" may be intended to describe the nature of the light shining. No doubt we are all familiar with the different shapes of light cast on a wall by different flashlights. These differences are caused by differences in the lens and bulbs of these lights. Nonetheless I find that there are few if any words available to me for describing the shining of these differing lightsources. 

I doubt that the observer referenced in this text noticed anything other than a difference in the amount (cf. "sufficient") of light that "suddenly" changed "around him," but I also have no doubt but that said observer may well be attempting to describe the light shining around him in terms of the object he was seing on the sky above, which light in this instance may well have been the solar eclipse of November 24, 29 CE and which light, from this observer's vantage point, would at that time (11:38 AM local time) have appeared as a halo of bright shining hair on the top and sides of a dark face, i.e. as apparently described by the verb "περιάστραψαι."



3)

*Re "βασιλεύ (oh king)" :*

Why the "oh" and the presumption that this references the listener? Isn't such a reading a superimposed interpretation based exclusively upon the greater text context while probably ignoring the nature of the reality being described by the quoted speaker? 

Is there anything in the language of this text that prohibits this word referencing an object on the sky, i.e. "βασιλεύ ουρανόθεν (a king or queen from heaven?)"

Considering also at this time the very close associations between words such as 'sovereign,' 'king,' and 'queen' on the one hand, and on the other the corresponding objects on the sky and/or as ruling authorities upon earth, is it any wonder that the ancients so tightly associated what they saw on heaven with what they came to expect on earth? Isn't this borne out by the greater context of these passages also? I am thinking of Saul's, the observer's, interpretation of this event and the consequences it had upon his life. 

Could it be that although theoretically aware of the ancients' associations between these, we may not be seeing quite the same thing as they saw in those words? Perhaps simply because we are not using these words exactly as they did and with the same connotations? But if we try to understand these words as they apparently did, i.e. in terms of sovereigns on the sky, doesn't such a reading give some support to my suggested reading of these text passages?


- - -


*Re "υπέρ (exceeding) την λαμπρότητα(the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun)" :*

- Please refer to the thread "υπέρ την λαμπρότητα του ηλίου!"


- - -


*Re "περίλαμψάν με (shining around me)" :*

Granted that the above is an apparently correct translation, at least linguistically as are all your suggestions. But, considering the above said, wouldn't a translation such as the following be just as possible and just as technically correct?:

"περίλαμψ*ά*ν με (a haloshaped _light_ shining _upon_ *me.*)" 

As you notice I am shifting the object of "περί-" from the observer to the light source. Is there anything in the language itself that prohibits me from so doing?

[As in KJV I am using _italics_ to indicate words added for clarification which may be implied by the text but which may have no direct base of its own in the original text. That, is you can read the text skipping the words in _italics_, sometimes even making better sense out of the text that way, but the language flows better when using those _italic_ words.]


----------



## anthodocheio

PowerOfChoice said:


> 1) *Re "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (it shined around him: )" *
> 
> How about: "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (shining around itself,)" or is there anything in the grammar that dictates that the reflective "αὐτὸν" is referencing the same as is the prior "αὐτὸν" earlier in the sentence?
> 
> *That's a brilliant idea! BUT the next two passages refute such a reading…*
> 
> 
> 2) *Re "περιάστραψαι φως ικανόν (a sufficient light flickered) περί εμέ (around me: )"*
> 
> Here I see "περι" being used twice in "περιαστράψαι φῶς ἱκανὸν περὶ ἐμέ." Doesn't that double usage of "περι" tend to separate out and distinguish one reference from the other? *No.. This is not how Greek language works.. I'd say the opposite. This way you make sure they are connected.* I mean, isn't the first "περι" referencing the thing on the sky and the other "περι" referencing the observer? And wouldn't such a reading of the text also be borne out of the fact that the words of the firsthand observer are being quoted in this 2nd passage, whereas in passage 1) above a third party is providing second hand evidence by rephrasing the words of the firsthand witness. It is a well known fact that every step in a chain of communications tends to obfuscate the original data, isn't it? And wouldn't such obfuscation also tend to be reflected in the wording of these text passages?
> 
> Also I notice that your friend is translating "περιαστράψαι" as "flickered" and that in so doing he is also allowing the two "περι" to reference one object, i.e. the observer, rather than two separate objects as above suggested. *I can’t imagine why she did so, and just in one of the texts… If you ask me, they should all be equally translated..*
> 
> How about "περιάστραψαι φως ικανόν (a halostar shaped shining of light being present) περί εμέ (around me?)"
> 
> What I am suggesting here is that the word "περιάστραψαι" may be intended to describe the nature of the light shining. No doubt we are all familiar with the different shapes of light cast on a wall by different flashlights. These differences are caused by differences in the lens and bulbs of these lights. Nonetheless I find that there are few if any words available to me for describing the shining of these differing lightsources.
> 
> I doubt that the observer referenced in this text noticed anything other than a difference in the amount (cf. "sufficient") of light that "suddenly" changed "around him," *Me too..* but I also have no doubt but that said observer may well be attempting to describe the light shining around him in terms of the object he was seing on the sky above, which light in this instance may well have been the solar eclipse of November 24, 29 CE and which light, from this observer's vantage point, would at that time (11:38 AM local time) have appeared as a halo of bright shining hair on the top and sides of a dark face, i.e. as apparently described by the verb "περιάστραψαι."
> 
> 
> 
> 3) *Re "βασιλεύ (oh king)" :*
> 
> Why the "oh" and the presumption that this references the listener? Isn't such a reading a superimposed interpretation based exclusively upon the greater text context while probably ignoring the nature of the reality being described by the quoted speaker?
> 
> Is there anything in the language of this text that prohibits this word referencing an object on the sky, i.e. "βασιλεύ ουρανόθεν (a king or queen from heaven?)"
> *Believe me; you can be sure about this one. The “oh” is for you to see that “basileu” is a vocative (direct address) and not accusative case (direct object). The cases are very important in Greek. They can change the whole meaning… (So happens at "υπέρ την λαμπρότητα", but I want others to explain it to you there, better..)*
> 
> Considering also at this time the very close associations between words such as 'sovereign,' 'king,' and 'queen' on the one hand, and on the other the corresponding objects on the sky and/or as ruling authorities upon earth, is it any wonder that the ancients so tightly associated what they saw on heaven with what they came to expect on earth? Isn't this borne out by the greater context of these passages also? I am thinking of Saul's, the observer's, interpretation of this event and the consequences it had upon his life.
> 
> Could it be that although theoretically aware of the ancients' associations between these, we may not be seeing quite the same thing as they saw in those words? Perhaps simply because we are not using these words exactly as they did and with the same connotations? But if we try to understand these words as they apparently did, i.e. in terms of sovereigns on the sky, doesn't such a reading give some support to my suggested reading of these text passages?
> 
> *I’m sorry to tell you, but the third passage is a rephrasing of the second one (that changes some details) as he is narrating the incident to the King…*
> 
> 
> 5) *Re "περίλαμψάν με (shining around me)" :*
> 
> Granted that the above is an apparently correct translation, at least linguistically as are all your suggestions. But, considering the above said, wouldn't a translation such as the following be just as possible and just as technically correct?:
> 
> "περίλαμψ*ά*ν με (a haloshaped _light_ shining _upon_ *me.*)"
> 
> As you notice I am shifting the object of "περί-" from the observer to the light source. Is there anything in the language itself that prohibits me from so doing? *You could do so (let's say...). But what you are actually doing is that you change the meaning of "περι" from "around" to "upon" which you cannot do.. Or.. I don't understand what you are doing.. (How did "haloshaped" appeared again??)*
> 
> [As in KJV I am using _italics_ to indicate words added for clarification which may be implied by the text but which may have no direct base of its own in the original text. That, is you can read the text skipping the words in _italics_, sometimes even making better sense out of the text that way, but the language flows better when using those _italic_ words.]


 
I forgot to tell you before that my friend wants you to know that the KJV translation is very faithful to the Greek original. 

Take care


----------



## PowerOfChoice

anthodocheio said:


> I forgot to tell you before that my friend wants you to know that the KJV translation is very faithful to the Greek original.
> 
> Take care


 
Yes, I agree with your friend. The KJV is by far, and as far as I know, the best translation of the Greek manuscripts available. And it is very good indeed! Yet, let's remember always that even the very best among translations are only that - a translation. Even the KJV! The original remains the only true reference. Every translation is by necessity colored and limited both the the constraints of the languages used and by the colored glasses of the translator. Even the best among translations cannot possibly convey all of that which is available in the original language. And if, as it appears to me, at least some of the NT books and probably most of them, are in fact themselves translations from Hebrew, then naturally that compounds the very same problem. At the very least it is a fact that the spoken preferred language used by the NT authors was Hebrew or Aramaic. Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew is very powerful evidence, at least to me, that the Greek manuscripts of Matthew are translations from the Hebrew. (Cf. 1. Howard, George, Hebrew Gospel of MATTHEW, and 2. Gordon, Nehemiah, The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus.)




anthodocheio said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) *Re "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (it shined around him: )" *
> 
> How about: "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (shining around itself,)" or is there anything in the grammar that dictates that the reflective "αὐτὸν" is referencing the same as is the prior "αὐτὸν" earlier in the sentence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That's a brilliant idea! BUT the next two passages refute such a reading…*
Click to expand...

 

Thanks for confirming my suspicion! I take this as a confirmation that my suggested translation is linguistically acceptable, but that you question it based upon your understanding of the other passages provided. But, see more below...







anthodocheio said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) *Re "περιάστραψαι φως ικανόν (a sufficient light flickered) περί εμέ (around me: )"*
> 
> Here I see "περι" being used twice in "περιαστράψαι φῶς ἱκανὸν περὶ ἐμέ." Doesn't that double usage of "περι" tend to separate out and distinguish one reference from the other?...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No.. This is not how Greek language works.. I'd say the opposite. This way you make sure they are connected.*
Click to expand...

 

Well, I believe I understand that principle. It is used widely in the Hebrew Scriptures as well for providing emphasis.

Yet, there are many variations on that theme. One item can be, and often is, seen and applied on different levels and in different ways and as seen from different points of view. In so doing such items strengthen and reemphasize one another while yet not necessarily being tied to the very same thing. For instance, the word woman as used many times in Revelation, is certainly reminiscent of the living beings we know as women, yet in Revelation the word woman is in many instances primarily referencing a people, a nation, or a state, e.g. Babylon (cf. Rev. 18:2, 4.) But perhaps that is not a very good example? 

I agree that it may be easy to think of the word -αστράψαι as a word referencing the light shining near the observer and thus to apply the περι- also to the observer, but I see no reason why the very same light shining from the object on the sky cannot be the focus of this word -αστράψαι thus also requiring that περι- is also referencing said object on the sky, do you?

It is obvious from the greater context that Saul, the observer, is associating whatever he saw with Jesus, the risen Saviour, the Messiah, the Christ. It is obvious that the ancients of that time perceived very strong associations between certain heavenly objects and the rulers of their governments. Likewise in our days most people cannot distinguish between the fictitious object being identified upon the thing they call their "government issued ID" on the one hand, and on the other the living being they recognize as self. Many people identify the one with the other while failing to see that one is the owner and the other is property of the owner.

I am suggesting that likewise it may be easy to mix up two very possible linguistic applications of this word περι-αστράψαι, i.e. one applying to the light shining from the object on the sky, the other being the very same light shining around the observer. 

The only difference is in how high we, the readers of this text, choose to elevate the focus of our mind's eye, is it not?




anthodocheio said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I notice that your friend is translating "περιαστράψαι" as "flickered" and that in so doing he is also allowing the two "περι" to reference one object, i.e. the observer, rather than two separate objects as above suggested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can’t imagine why she did so, and just in one of the texts… If you ask me, they should all be equally translated..*
Click to expand...

 


Well, perhaps in a way this illustrates what I just said. Your friend may be able to see something that you at this point "can't imagine?" In fact, I myself also have some trouble "imagining" what exactly you mean with the above sentence of yours...

Perhaps you are saying that to be consistent your friend should have written, not "περιάστραψαι φως ικανόν (a sufficient light flickered) περί εμέ (around me)," but "περιάστραψαι φως ικανόν (a sufficient light shined around) περί εμέ (around me)."​At least such a reading would bring out the redoubling of the word περι, i.e. in accord with your suggestion above, wouldn't it?​Thus far I am unable to see that my suggested translation, i.e. "περιάστραψαι φως ικανόν (a halostar shaped shining of light being present) περί εμέ (around me?)" is not linguistically acceptable. 

Add to that a very likely real time event in the life of Saul that can be easily applied to these words as I read them thus far. Why should I not then maintain that my suggested application is most likely a correct application - while yet, with your help, searching for the *best* *possible* linguistic translation of these words.





anthodocheio said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that the observer referenced in this text noticed anything other than a difference in the amount (cf. "sufficient") of light that "suddenly" changed "around him,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Me too..*
Click to expand...

 
Perhaps I may take your two words to mean that you are at the very least considering the scenario I am suggesting for this text passage? 


/ Continued below!...


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Continued from the post above... /




anthodocheio said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) *Re "βασιλεύ (oh king)" :*
> 
> Why the "oh" and the presumption that this references the listener? Isn't such a reading a superimposed interpretation based exclusively upon the greater text context while probably ignoring the nature of the reality being described by the quoted speaker?
> 
> Is there anything in the language of this text that prohibits this word referencing an object on the sky, i.e. "βασιλεύ ουρανόθεν (a king or queen from heaven?)"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Believe me; you can be sure about this one. The “oh” is for you to see that “basileu” is a vocative (direct address) and not accusative case (direct object). The cases are very important in Greek. They can change the whole meaning… (So happens at "υπέρ την λαμπρότητα", but I want others to explain it to you there, better..)*
Click to expand...

 

How would the word βασιλεύ be written in the Greek if it was accusativ and not vocative?

Also, considering the intimate associations in the minds of the ancients of those days between the sovereigns of the sky, e.g. the sun, the moon, and the Christ ascended to heaven on the one hand, and on the other hand the representative kings and caesars of the ruling hierarchies, e.g. king Agrippa, would it be too farfetched for Saul to, in a sense, identify one with the other, such that in his words he would have chosen the vocative rather than the accusative case? 

In other words, isn't it quite possible that in witnessing before Agrippa Paul (Saul) perceived himself as witnessing at the very same time also before the king of heaven, i.e. "είδον (I saw) βασιλεύ (you, oh king) ουρανόθεν (from heaven,)" or is such a rendering impossible?

Add to such considerations any changes to the original text due to intermediaries between us and Saul, e.g. 1) Luke the author of Acts, 2) the likely translator from an original Hebrew text to the Greek, and 3) any subsequent transcriber or editor of the first Greek version?!

After all, a total solar eclipse is certainly not an event that every one has experienced in their own life time or been taught very much about. It follows that such an event, or the record of it, may not be recognizable by many of even the best translators or editors and that such scholars may be likely to "correct" the text in accord with what they may consider the only possible correct linguistic rendering, or isn't that so?

But of course, by suggesting such an error in the Greek text, I am subjecting myself to the very same critique, am I not?  Yet, if Hebrew is indeed the original language, should I not consider such a possibility?




anthodocheio said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be that although theoretically aware of the ancients' associations between these, we may not be seeing quite the same thing as they saw in those words? Perhaps simply because we are not using these words exactly as they did and with the same connotations? But if we try to understand these words as they apparently did, i.e. in terms of sovereigns on the sky, doesn't such a reading give some support to my suggested reading of these text passages?
> 
> 
> 
> *I’m sorry to tell you, but the third passage is a rephrasing of the second one (that changes some details) as he is narrating the incident to the King…*
Click to expand...

 


Well, that comment of yours stands or falls on the strength of your arguments, doesn't it?







anthodocheio said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3)...
> 
> 
> 
> anthodocheio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Power Of Choice!
> 
> Here is a literal translation from someone that knows better ancient Greek and English than I do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 3)ημέρας μέσης (at midday) κατά την οδόν (along the road) είδον (I saw) βασιλεύ (oh king) ουρανόθεν (from heaven) υπέρ (exceeding) την λαμπρότητα(the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun) περίλαμψ*ά*ν με (shining *around* *me*) φως (a light) και τους (and those) συν εμοί πορευομένους (journeying with me).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Re "περίλαμψάν με (shining around me)" :*
> 
> Granted that the above is an apparently correct translation, at least linguistically as are all your suggestions. But, considering the above said, wouldn't a translation such as the following be just as possible and just as technically correct?:
> 
> "περίλαμψ*ά*ν με φως (a haloshaped light shining _upon_ *me*)" [edited by PowerOfChoice. Notice also that based upon "περί εμέ (around me)" the "_upon_" could optionally be exchanged with "_around_ me:"περίλαμψ*ά*ν με φως (a haloshaped light shining _around _*me*)" ! ]
> 
> As you notice I am shifting the object of "περί-" from the observer to the light source. Is there anything in the language itself that prohibits me from so doing?
> 
> [As in KJV I am using _italics_ to indicate words added for clarification which may be implied by the text but which may have no direct base of its own in the original text. That, is you can read the text skipping the words in _italics_, sometimes even making better sense out of the text that way, but the language flows better when using those _italic_ words.]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You could do so (let's say...). But what you are actually doing is that you change the meaning of "περι" from "around" to "upon" which you cannot do.. Or.. I don't understand what you are doing.. (How did "haloshaped" appeared again??)*
Click to expand...

 
Again, thanks for confirming this detail of my suggested translation! 

And yes, your hesitancy is based upon a misunderstanding of my words: My use of "_upon_" is not based upon the "περί-." The "_upon_" is added, as indicated by the use of _italics_, "to indicate words added for clarification which may be implied by the text but which may have no direct base of its own in the original text."



"Haloshaped," on the other hand, is based upon "περί-." I believe such a translation is consistent with the following definition found in Strong's Greek Dictionary #4034:"περιλάμπω, perilampō, _per-ee-lam'-po, _From G4012 and G2989; to _illuminate_ all _around_, that is, _invest_ _with_ _a_ _halo:_ - shine round about."​ 

That is to say:"...to _illuminate_ all _around_ [the eclipsing moon,] that is, _invest _[the eclipsing moon] _with_ _a_ _halo..._​Perhaps that helps you see my point?


----------



## Kevman

There's about a zillion questions going on in this thread and these gigantic posts become increasingly difficult to follow, so I hope you don't mind me picking out a couple of points about which (I think) I'm more or less certain....



PowerOfChoice said:


> How would the word βασιλεύ be written in the Greek if it was accusativ and not vocative?


The accusative would be *βασιλέα* (full declension here).  The "oh," by the way, is a strategy for rendering the vocative in the English translation.



PowerOfChoice said:


> In other words, isn't it quite possible that in witnessing before Agrippa Paul (Saul) perceived himself as witnessing at the very same time also before the king of heaven, i.e. "είδον (I saw) βασιλεύ (you, oh king) ουρανόθεν (from heaven,)" or is such a rendering impossible?


I suppose it's not out-and-out _impossible_, but I really don't see how it could be considered to be well-supported by the passage in context.  In other words, this simply may not be the best piece of text to substantiate your theory.  If you have to reject not only 'interpretations based on the greater context,' but also the principle of Occam's Razor to force the passage to fit your interpretation, it seems to me you're making a lot more work for yourself and achieving a lot less credibility.  And by questioning the reliablility of the text don't you reduce its value to you as supporting evidence?  I'm just saying.... 



PowerOfChoice said:


> *Re "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (it shined around him: )" *
> 
> How about: "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (shining around itself,)"


Greek has a special reflexive pronoun. If I'm not mistaken, "shined around itself" would be περιήστραψεν *ἑ*αυτόν.



PowerOfChoice said:


> *Re "περίλαμψάν με (shining around me)" :*


This _*με*_ may be one of the the most important little words in our entire discussion here.  Unfortunately, I think it might undermine any support for your "halo-shaped star" interpretation.  It is an enclitic pronoun, which for all intents and purposes is considered another syllable attached to the word which precedes it (that is why the second accent would be required on περίλαμψ*άν**--the accent on the iota would end up too far from the end of the resulting longer word).  So it is the "με" which is being invested with a halo, if that's the translation of περιλάμπω you prefer--the περι- here clearly means "around me."  This whole little participle+pronoun phrase acts in turn as an adjective in attributive position, modifying φῶς: "_I saw an ... investing-me-with-a-halo light_."

_______
*Although, αγαπημένη μου Ανθοδοχούλα, are you sure that's the correct accentuation of περιλάμψαν?  My Bible shows the accent on the penult, but your proparoxytone version illustrates the whole enclitic thing better.


----------



## anthodocheio

Kevman said:


> Greek has a special reflexive pronoun. If I'm not mistaken, "shined around itself" would be περιήστραψεν *ἑ*αυτόν.


 Of course! I realized it later... I'm glad you came to correct me!


> This _*με*_ may be one of the the most important little words in our entire discussion here. Unfortunately, I think it might undermine any support for your "halo-shaped star" interpretation. It is an enclitic pronoun, which for all intents and purposes is considered another syllable attached to the word which precedes it (that is why the second accent would be required on περίλαμψ*άν**--the accent on the iota would end up too far from the end of the resulting longer word). So it is the "με" which is being invested with a halo, if that's the translation of περιλάμπω you prefer--the περι- here clearly means "around me." This whole little participle+pronoun phrase acts in turn as an adjective in attributive position, modifying φῶς: "_I saw an ... investing-me-with-a-halo light_."
> 
> _______
> *Although, αγαπημένη μου Ανθοδοχούλα, are you sure that's the correct accentuation of περιλάμψαν? My Bible shows the accent on the penult, but your proparoxytone version illustrates the whole enclitic thing better.


You know something Kevin? This is becoming more and more hard for me to follow.. And about my Bible.. No I didn't open it. And just today I realized that we are talking about the famous story of Saul that then became Paul...


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Welcome to this thread Kevman!





Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would the word βασιλεύ be written in the Greek if it was accusativ and not vocative?
> 
> 
> 
> The accusative would be *βασιλέα* (full declension here). The "oh," by the way, is a strategy for rendering the vocative in the English translation.
Click to expand...

 

Thanks for the direct answer to my question and even more for providing a valuable reference!

It would be interesting to review different Greek manuscripts here to see whether or not there is any support for the accusative. Even more valuable would be an original Hebrew manuscript, but if such ever existed most of those transcripts were probably destroyed or confiscated during the inquisition. I'd be curious to know whether there might still exist such a manuscript in the Vatican library or in some other well stocked depository of ancient scriptures?

In the mean time I guess I'll have to be satisfied with placing a tiny memo of the "I don't know this yet" species in the back of my mind. 

Not that I see this detail re *βασιλεύ *being of any crucial importance for applying this text upon the 29 CE solar eclipse though, especially after considering...



Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, isn't it quite possible that in witnessing before Agrippa Paul (Saul) perceived himself as witnessing at the very same time also before the king of heaven, i.e. "είδον (I saw) βασιλεύ (you, oh king) ουρανόθεν (from heaven,)" or is such a rendering impossible?
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it's not out-and-out _impossible_, but I really don't see how it could be considered to be well-supported by the passage in context. In other words, this simply may not be the best piece of text to substantiate your theory....
Click to expand...

 
...since, as you say, "it's not out-and-out _impossible._" And of course there may be other solutions much better than mine.




Kevman said:


> If you have to reject not only 'interpretations based on the greater context,' but also the principle of Occam's Razor to force the passage to fit your interpretation, it seems to me you're making a lot more work for yourself and achieving a lot less credibility. And by questioning the reliablility of the text don't you reduce its value to you as supporting evidence? I'm just saying....


 
Those are of course very serious considerations always to keep uppermost in mind. 

However, I have no qualms about rejecting obvious traditional misinterpretations of details that are based upon misinterpretations of the greater context which in turn are based upon other misinterpretations of details and so on, and there are plenty of those that are being continually proclaimed from most pulpits throughout the ages and certainly not excluding our age, aren't there? And that certainly applies to Occam's Razor too! Most especially I have found that this sad state of affairs is true re a great majority of references to points of time and duration, i.e. more or less exactly dated events in the New Testament. And that goes for all extant translations I am aware of. There is a great need for a paradigm shift re historical time references throughout the first few centuries!

What I am doing in this thread re these three passages out of Acts is to test whether or not they may possibly qualify as one additional astronomical anchor point out of about twenty others that I've identified within a half a century of the NT era. Also, I find it valuable to test the strengths and the weaknesses of all potential astronomical anchor points I find. So you see, the revised chronology that I've been working on for several years now does not in any way stand of fall with the results of this particular quest for alternate linguistically acceptable translations of three passages in Acts touching on Saul's conversion experience.





Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Re "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (it shined around him: )" *
> 
> How about: "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (shining around itself,)"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greek has a special reflexive pronoun. If I'm not mistaken, "shined around itself" would be περιήστραψεν *ἑ*αυτόν.
Click to expand...

 



anthodocheio said:


> Of course! I realized it later... I'm glad you came to correct me!


 
I am seeing two people knowledgable in Greek providing two alternatives. Then I see one of you retracting, but where is your ultimate reference for denying that that option is not also sometimes viable? Without a firm reference, how can I be certain? I know much too little Greek myself and I do not have current access to my Greek Grammar. Thus, in view of that more exact special reflexive pronoun, I do understand your reason for questioning "περιήστραψεν αυτόν (shining around itself,)" I see no definite reason as yet for totally forgetting about that as perhaps a less exact possibility, do you?

But be that as it may Kevman, you are, perhaps unwittingly, providing me with a more widely acceptable solution in support of my eclipse hypothesis, or aren't you?:





Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Re "περίλαμψάν με (shining around me)" :*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This _*με*_ may be one of the the most important little words in our entire discussion here. Unfortunately, I think it might undermine any support for your "halo-shaped star" interpretation. It is an enclitic pronoun, which for all intents and purposes is considered another syllable attached to the word which precedes it (that is why the second accent would be required on περίλαμψ*άν**--the accent on the iota would end up too far from the end of the resulting longer word). So it is the "με" which is being invested with a halo, if that's the translation of περιλάμπω you prefer--the περι- here clearly means "around me." This whole little participle+pronoun phrase acts in turn as an adjective in attributive position, modifying φῶς: "_I saw an ... investing-me-with-a-halo light_."
> 
> _______
> *Although, αγαπημένη μου Ανθοδοχούλα, are you sure that's the correct accentuation of περιλάμψαν? My Bible shows the accent on the penult, but your proparoxytone version illustrates the whole enclitic thing better.
Click to expand...

 
Very interesting indeed! Thanks Kevman! 

So you are suggesting "_I saw an ... investing-me-with-a-halo light,_" which when added to the suggestion of Ανθοδοχούλα's friend:



anthodocheio said:


> 3)ημέρας μέσης (at midday) κατά την οδόν (along the road) είδον (I saw) βασιλεύ (oh king) ουρανόθεν (from heaven) υπέρ (exceeding) την λαμπρότητα(the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun) περίλαμψ*ά*ν με (shining *around* *me*) φως (a light) και τους (and those) συν εμοί πορευομένους (journeying with me).


 
...would come out to something like this:

"_I saw an... _ουρανόθεν (from heaven) υπέρ (exceeding) την λαμπρότητα(the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun...) _investing-me-with-a-halo light..._" or

"_I saw _from ουρανόθεν υπέρ (from the top of heaven) την λαμπρότητα (the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun) _investing-me-with-a-halo light..._"

Well, I don't see that that translation of yours isn't supporting my solar eclipse hypothesis just about as well as any of my own suggestions above, do you?  Or am I doing too my violence to the Greek linguistics by applying the word ουρανόθεν υπέρ upon the zenit of the sky where indeed the solar eclipse would have been located "ημέρας μέσης (at midday)" when Saul said he had this experience? But perhaps that can be improved upon? Perhaps you would care to share with me what words you would have chosen in place of your blank, Kevman? I don't trust my own efforts very much while yet I am only doing my best to make some sense out of the Greek words that are there.

After all, where else would the idea of "_investing-me-with-a-halo light_" come from if not from the appearence of the light source itself?  Nonetheless, to me this halo around the observer idea smells more like an idea born from so many Roman Catholic inspired paintings of saints with halos around their heads than of anything touching on a real life experience , that is unless the "_halo light_" "_investing-me_" is perceived exclusively in terms of the light from an almost total solar eclipse or else an annular eclipse, which does indeed make a lot of sense to me. 

Who knows, perhaps this solar eclipse - if that's what it was -this conversion experience of Saul is a major stimulus and source for all those halos painted around the heads of Catholic saints?

Thanks also for teaching me these things re accents and the importance of "*με !*" But that once again raises the question in my mind re whether or not those accents are late edits or part of the original manuscripts?



- - - - -



anthodocheio said:


> Sorry everyone.. That's all I could do..


 
What exactly are you being sorry about? 

I for one am not complaining!

Thanks very much for all you are doing for me Anthodocheio! I really do value all the things I am learning from you and from everyone else that so kindly and so liberally share of your time and of your knowledge towards helping me - and so many others too - reach a better understanding of things understood less well before!


----------



## Kevman

PowerOfChoice said:


> ...since, as you say, "it's not out-and-out _impossible._"


It may be _possible_ that, during his conversation with a king, he happened to use the word "king" not to address his interlocutor, but rather to refer to a celestial body, or his cat, or his big toe, or some story his nana once told him, or whatever, and that somehow all indications to confirm this have been garbled or lost in the canonized text, but without any persuasive evidence to that effect the simplest conclusion is the most likely, or at the very least the issue is completely moot.  At any rate, this has nothing to do with your original question about halos, since the object of εἶδον is "light," not "king."



PowerOfChoice said:


> I am seeing two people knowledgable in Greek providing two alternatives. Then I see one of you retracting, but where is your ultimate reference for denying that that option is not also sometimes viable?


Why do you ask us and then dispute our answer without providing any more authoritative information?  Particularly when the retracted alternative was acknowledged to be erroneous, and we are ultimately both in agreement about the reflexive pronoun.



PowerOfChoice said:


> where else would the idea of "_investing-me-with-a-halo light_" come from if not from the apparence of the light source itself? _[...]_ the "_halo light_" "_investing-me_"


No. Mind the hyphens.  Not investing-me-with-a . halo light!  I was trying to illustrate in English how the whole phrase _investing me with a halo_ attributively modifies the noun _light_.  I think "_shining around me_" is a more natural and logical translation for περιλάμψαν με anyway.  All of this halo terminology seems only to confuse the issue. Let's call it the _shining-around-me light_, or the _light that was shining around me_.



PowerOfChoice said:


> Or am I doing too my violence to the Greek linguistics by applying the word ουρανόθεν υπέρ _[...]_


That seems pretty violent to me. ὑπέρ is a preposition, and part of the prepositional phrase ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα (τοῦ ἡλίου).  In fact, the accusative case of τὴν λαμπρότητα here is governed by the preposition!  I don't think you can break up the prepositional phrase unit like that, much less modify οὐρανόθεν, which already contains the sense of a preposition ("_from the sky_"), with another preposition.  This again has little bearing on the halo question.



PowerOfChoice said:


> Thanks also for teaching me these things re accents and the importance of "*με !*" But that once again raises the question in my mind re whether or not those accents are late edits or part of the original manuscripts?


This, also, is irrelevant to the topic.  I was merely trying to use the Greek accent rules to illustrate how strongly the enclitic pronoun is associated with the participle--to the point where they even share a stress pattern as if they formed a single word.  The written Greek accents were basically invented so that non-Greek speakers would have some idea how the Greeks actually pronounced their words; in spoken Greek the accents all fall in their proper places regardless of how the words are transcribed.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Thanks Kevman!





Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say, "it's not out-and-out _impossible._"
> 
> 
> 
> It may be _possible_ that, during his conversation with a king, he happened to use the word "king" not to address his interlocutor, but rather to refer to a celestial body, or his cat, or his big toe, or some story his nana once told him, or whatever, and that somehow all indications to confirm this have been garbled or lost in the canonized text, but without any persuasive evidence to that effect the simplest conclusion is the most likely, or at the very least the issue is completely moot...
Click to expand...

 
My original impression, based on the flow of the Greek words alone but without being able to recognize the fine grammatical details built in, was that all the words of the sentence subsequent to "εἶδον (I saw)" and beginning with βασιλεύ describes what Saul saw. Thanks to you I must now accept, unless and until I find e.g. textual evidence in support of βασιλεῦ being a scribal error for βασιλεα, that βασιλεῦ is a vocative that is not likely a part of that which Paul describes having seen. Thank you!







Kevman said:


> At any rate, this has nothing to do with your original question about halos, since the object of εἶδον is "light," not "king."


 
I see you, oh Kevman, enlightening me with a glorious light re a vocative not possibly being an object of a verb, or isn't that correct? 

What is the object I am seeing, you, a glorious light, or both? Who or what is the source of that light and who is standing as one representative among several for said source while apparently transmitting said glorious light upon me and upon others that are with us?

No doubt I have much more to learn...








Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Re αυτόν v. *ἑ*αυτόν:]
> 
> I am seeing two people knowledgable in Greek providing two alternatives. Then I see one of you retracting, but where is your ultimate reference for denying that that option is not also sometimes viable?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you ask us and then dispute our answer without providing any more authoritative information?
Click to expand...

I am sorry!  I did not mean to come across as an irreverent and doubting Thomas. My thought was simple minded enough: If someone being a teacher of his own native toungue did not immediately perceive this as an error even upon perceiving what I see as being the likely event behind these passages, then, albeit the fact that a better construction might be available, this flow of words might have been passed off as being acceptable Greek even by others before him. 

(If in addition we consider the Greek text a possible or even likely translation from a Hebrew original I find it unlikely that any third party would have caught the error in reference - if indeed there is one? Thus, whether an outright error or words considered acceptable albeit somewhat less exact than optimal, would have been transmitted and perpetuated with ever diminishing odds of discovery.)









Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> where else would the idea of "_investing-me-with-a-halo light_" come from if not from the apparence of the light source itself? _[...]_ the "_halo light_" "_investing-me_"
> 
> 
> 
> No. Mind the hyphens. Not investing-me-with-a . halo light! I was trying to illustrate in English how the whole phrase _investing me with a halo_ attributively modifies the noun _light_. I think "_shining around me_" is a more natural and logical translation for περιλάμψαν με anyway. All of this halo terminology seems only to confuse the issue. Let's call it the _shining-around-me light_, or the _light that was shining around me_.
Click to expand...

 
Yes. I believe I am now getting the point you are helping me see from your perspective as a scholar in Greek linguistics. I value that! 

In using and rearranging your hyphenated words, my intent was to share with you my perspective by applying (what I thought was) the same words upon a potential or real event experience by a certain man at a specified time and place.

It makes sense for you in your position to look at these words and to propose *the most likely* and most linguistically attractive translation possible, does it not?

But suppose we look at these same words from a different and very rare perspective while allowing these words to describe an event that for all practical purposes in the life of any man must be considered *a very rare* event indeed:

Is it possible, perhaps even likely, that someone having experienced the solar eclipse of November 24, 29 CE at 11:38 AM while near Damascus would have used the words here being considered for purposes of describing his own or someone else's first hand experience?​Is it possible, perhaps even likely, that these Greek passages, would appear exactly as they do, if the original record was first written in Hebrew, then translated to Aramaic and finally to Greek?​If you had been there, would you consider using those words to describe your experience?​


Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or am I doing too my violence to the Greek linguistics by applying the word ουρανόθεν υπέρ _[...]_
> 
> 
> 
> That seems pretty violent to me. ὑπέρ is a preposition, and part of the prepositional phrase ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα (τοῦ ἡλίου). In fact, the accusative case of τὴν λαμπρότητα here is governed by the preposition! I don't think you can break up the prepositional phrase unit like that, much less modify οὐρανόθεν, which already contains the sense of a preposition ("_from the sky_"), with another preposition...
Click to expand...

 
I'll buy that. And it helps me better understand the fine grammatical points. 











Applying that last lesson to the blank space in "_I saw an ... investing-me-with-a-halo light_" would lead me to believe that you are proposing the following rendition as doing less violence to the Greek text than my prior attempt?:"είδον (_I saw..._) ουρανόθεν (from heaven) υπέρ (the upper _portion_ of) την λαμπρότητα (the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun...) περιλάμψαν με φως (_investing-me-with-a-halo light..._)"​or better yet...

"είδον (_I saw..._) ουρανόθεν (from heaven) υπέρ (the upper _portion_ of) την λαμπρότητα (the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun...) περιλάμψαν με φως (_investing-me-with-a-glorious light..._)"​In fact that last one perfectly fits the solar eclipse event I am envisioning as being the event behind these records of Paul and Luke. Especially considering that said "upper _portion_" would then represent a thin upper and very brightly shining sliver of the eclipsed solar disc. The shape and size of it would be much the same as the new moon crescent, but it would be very much brighter.

How does that last one come across to a trained Greek ear?


----------



## Kevman

PowerOfChoice said:


> If someone being a teacher of his own native toungue did not immediately perceive this as an error


Well, Ancient Greek hasn't been _anyone's _native tongue for many hundreds of years, and neither of us are experts in it, so you'll have to forgive us our mistakes until someone more knowledgeable makes it this far through this thread. 



PowerOfChoice said:


> "είδον (_I saw..._) ουρανόθεν (from heaven) υπέρ (the upper _portion_ of) την λαμπρότητα (the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun...) περιλάμψαν με φως (_investing-me-with-a-glorious light..._)"



Look, there are three things here in attributive position modifying the word φῶς.  Each of these three segments behaves like a self-contained adjective:
εἶδον ...  _ _ | . οὐρανόθεν . | . . ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα τοῦ ἡλίου . _ | . . περιλάμψαν με . | φῶς
_ I saw ... (a) __|__ from-heaven, _|_ exceeding-the-brightness-of-the-sun, _|_ shining-around-me | light_
That's literally what it says.

ὑπέρ is a preposition which means "exceeding" or "beyond" when it governs the accusative case.  I don't see how it could be interpreted as a noun meaning "upper portion."

I still advise you to forget about the halo.  There is nothing in this passage about any sort of glowing ring in the sky, and the only way a halo could even remotely be involved is in the sense that Saul and his companions were 'haloed' by this light shining around them.  To that extent, it is synonymous with the more intuitive "shining around" interpretation, so just keep it simple.  περιλάμπω on its own does not necessarily carry the sense of "glorious."  I suppose you could infer it from the broader context (holy vision and all that), but as far as a strict literal translation of the sentence goes I would leave it out.


P.S.


PowerOfChoice said:


> oh Kevman


Are you talking about your cat?


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Kevman said:


> Well, Ancient Greek hasn't been _anyone's _native tongue for many hundreds of years, and neither of us are experts in it, so you'll have to forgive us our mistakes until someone more knowledgeable makes it this far through this thread.


 
Hmmm... Well, I can understand that. I do hope you'll forgive me too for asking questions that to me are important, while no doubt to you some of those may seem obvious or self-evident?  I can well understand how you may feel, yet I've learned only too many times not to be satisfied with answers I perceive as possibly being based on apparent authority. I've found that all too often such answers are based on nothing but "authority." Not only that, if I don't understand why, I have little or nothing with me from that experience the next time I encounter a similar problem or question. It's not a tool that I can apply in a thousand different ways depending upon the circumstances.









Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> "είδον (_I saw..._) ουρανόθεν (from heaven) υπέρ (the upper _portion_ of) την λαμπρότητα (the brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun...) περιλάμψαν με φως (_investing-me-with-a-glorious light..._)"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there are three things here in attributive position modifying the word φῶς. Each of these three segments behaves like a self-contained adjective:
> εἶδον ... _ _ | . οὐρανόθεν . | . . ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα τοῦ ἡλίου . _ | . . περιλάμψαν με . | φῶς
> _I saw ... (a) __|__ from-heaven, _|_ exceeding-the-brightness-of-the-sun, _|_ shining-around-me | light_
> That's literally what it says.
> 
> ὑπέρ is a preposition which means "exceeding" or "beyond" when it governs the accusative case. I don't see how it could be interpreted as a noun meaning "upper portion."
> 
> I still advise you to forget about the halo. There is nothing in this passage about any sort of glowing ring in the sky, and the only way a halo could even remotely be involved is in the sense that Saul and his companions were 'haloed' by this light shining around them. To that extent, it is synonymous with the more intuitive "shining around" interpretation, so just keep it simple. περιλάμπω on its own does not necessarily carry the sense of "glorious." I suppose you could infer it from the broader context (holy vision and all that), but as far as a strict literal translation of the sentence goes I would leave it out.
Click to expand...

 


You know Kevman, I really value your helping me understand the key details of these sentences. Thanks forever! I hope you won't mind me picking your brains about it yet a little while... Please! 

At this time I think I can accept the first and the last of those three parts, even though I really prefer the much more, to me, colorful wording of your prior version, especially as minimally edited by me. To me that version says a whole lot more. It's kind of like the difference between a black and white movie and one in color, if you see what I mean? 

For that matter, even though "glorious" does have certain connotations to the word "halo," please don't forget that I was the one who did in fact take out the word "halo" in favor of glorious. I did so, not so much because glorious does have that connotation also, but because in glorious "halo" is much subdued in favor of a general sense of an all pervading beauty and something generally associated with some very special display of light. 

So much for that third part of three. If necessary I can live even with a mere black and white "shining-around-me..." 


- - - - - - -

Perhaps you are thinking that I am trying to make too much out of these passages in terms of the solar eclipse I've mentioned? As if I was wishing to use these passages as a major proof in support of a loosely supported pet idea or something. That is not the case. Quite to the contrary. Yes, these passages may serve nicely as added evidence, which somewhat confirm what I've already discovered and found much more solid foundations for. But no, if I were to discover an important error such as would tend to make Saul's experience at Damascus not being placed at that very point in time, I wouldn't be very likely to stubbornly stick to my idea that these passages do indeed describe a near total solar eclipse from the vantage point of Saul while on his way to Damascus. But... That could change... as I keep learning more about these passages. You see... But, no, you're not prepared for accepting my telling you all the details of my discoveries at this time and place, so I'd probably just as well leave it up to your own curiosity and interest to pursue whatever your interest may be. 





- - - - - - -


Finally I'm getting to my most important point, the second of the three parts you mentioned. Although I felt a little upset with you for apparently not recognizing why I had put the word "_portion_" in "upper _portion _of the brightness of the sun" I can easily understand that too, considering the length of this thread at this time and the length of my posts in particular. You see, I've been using the same convention as in KJV, meaning that when a word appear in italics it typically does not have a direct basis in the original language, even though sometimes it may be more than that. Thus, my intention was to point out that indeed ὑπὲρ is not a noun but exactly that which you are saying, though I wouldn't have been able to be that exact about it by far.  You see, that's where I need you guys!!!

In essence then my intention was to read those words as follows: 

"υπέρ (the upper) την λαμπρότητα (brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun...)"​but as you can see that doesn't sound very much like proper English, even thought to me it certainly does make very much sense in terms of the scenario I'm still trying to propose as being the real event behind these passages. I've been wrestling with trying to come up with something better than what I've seen so far, but so far nothing is real perfect. There seems to be a language barrier, perhaps even some limitations inherent in our respective languages? But perhaps you will help me with that too - directly or indirectly - as you have before?   


Why would I have to satisfy myself with the word "exceeding?" Honestly, I do not believe that is the intended meaning here. But of course, I'm colored by my own pet idea...  Yet, doesn't Strong's Greek Dictionary indicate a whole lot more. Strong's #G5228 has the following definition:

"ὑπέρ... A primary preposition; "over", that is, (with the genitive case) of place, _above_, _beyond_, _across_, or causal, _for_ the sake of, _instead_, _regarding_; with the accusative case _superior_ _to_, more _than_. In compounds it retains many of the listed applications."​And isn't "superior to" in the sense of the uppermost portion of the sun or even in the sense of the light placed in a superior position relative to the eclipsing moon a very appropriate application for the word ὑπέρ in this passage? Or, if you prefer the genitive case (τοῦ ἡλίου) then isn't "over" of place, i.e. re the relative position of this brightness vs. either the rest of the solar disc or the eclipsing moon, a most appropriate application here?


- - - - - - -


I have no problem with your being unwilling to accept the reality of my proposal re these passages describing a solar eclipse event. Everyone must remain always perfectly free to stand upon their own convictions and prior experiences. So for you, so for me. I know many have invested a lot of feelings, even their very sense of security in life upon each their own favorite understanding of biblical passages - or whatever other "holy book" they may have grown up with and learned to love. I've even learned the hard way how that some people may react with fear or even panic when they sense that a pet idea of theirs may be vanishing in thin air and they may feel as though the solid ground under their feet is disintegrating and they are falling, falling, falling... into the unknown. Well, I really don't believe that that would apply to you, but yet I believe that sometimes it may be well for each of us to analyze our very own thought patterns and traditional way of thinking. I do that a lot, and to me this has become very exciting, because I've learned that there is nothing to fear in the realm of that which is previously unknown to me. There is only more solidity, only ever more security to be found there. Indeed, the source of all that is the only place where true and lasting security may be found. Or at least that has been my experience thus far in life.






Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh Kevman...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about your cat?
Click to expand...

 

Was it really that bad? It was really intended as words with an analogy or two relative to the passages we're analyzing. I was attempting to share something of how I perceive the sentence structure. But perhaps my words didn't suit your fancy? Sorry!


----------



## anthodocheio

PowerOfChoice said:


> Why would I have to satisfy myself with the word "exceeding?" Honestly, I do not believe that is the intended meaning here. But of course, I'm colored by my own pet idea...  Yet, doesn't Strong's Greek Dictionary indicate a whole lot more. Strong's #G5228 has the following definition:
> 
> "ὑπέρ... A primary preposition; "over", that is, (with the genitive case) of place, _above_, _beyond_, _across_, or causal, _for_ the sake of, _instead_, _regarding_; *with the accusative case* _superior_ _to_, *more than*. In compounds it retains many of the listed applications."​And isn't "superior to" in the sense of the uppermost portion of the sun or even in the sense of the light placed in a superior position relative to the eclipsing moon a very appropriate application for the word ὑπέρ in this passage? Or, if you prefer the genitive case (τοῦ ἡλίου) then isn't "over" of place, i.e. re the relative position of this brightness vs. either the rest of the solar disc or the eclipsing moon, a most appropriate application here?


Post #5


anthodocheio said:


> "υπέρ την λαμπρότητα του ήλιου" means "brighter than the sun"


 
Just please try to listen! The text doesn’t say "υπέρ του ηλίου". It's not that we don't want you to find it, it's not that we don't want to change the meaning of the Bible. 
It's that it's not here, buddy. Try to understand. Do you thing I am in position to explain Swedish to you?

Why would you have to satisfy yourself with the word "exceeding"? What? You can't believe us, or trust us. Don't you trust your Strong dictionary?

This is getting nowhere. I hope you can see that.


----------



## PowerOfChoice

anthodocheio said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I have to satisfy myself with the word "exceeding?" Honestly, I do not believe that is the intended meaning here. But of course, I'm colored by my own pet idea...  Yet, doesn't Strong's Greek Dictionary indicate a whole lot more. Strong's #G5228 has the following definition:"ὑπέρ... A primary preposition; "over", that is, (with the genitive case) of place, _above_, _beyond_, _across_, or causal, _for_ the sake of, _instead_, _regarding_; *with the accusative case* _superior_ _to_, *more than*. In compounds it retains many of the listed applications."​And isn't "superior to" in the sense of the uppermost portion of the sun or even in the sense of the light placed in a superior position relative to the eclipsing moon a very appropriate application for the word ὑπέρ in this passage? Or, if you prefer the genitive case (τοῦ ἡλίου) then isn't "over" of place, i.e. re the relative position of this brightness vs. either the rest of the solar disc or the eclipsing moon, a most appropriate application here?
> 
> 
> 
> Post #5
> 
> 
> anthodocheio said:
> 
> 
> 
> "υπέρ την λαμπρότητα του ήλιου" means "brighter than the sun"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just please try to listen! The text doesn’t say "υπέρ του ηλίου". It's not that we don't want you to find it, it's not that we don't want to change the meaning of the Bible.
> It's that it's not here, buddy. Try to understand. Do you thing I am in position to explain Swedish to you?
> 
> Why would you have to satisfy yourself with the word "exceeding"? What? You can't believe us, or trust us. Don't you trust your Strong dictionary?
> 
> This is getting nowhere. I hope you can see that.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks Anthodocheio! I'm glad to see that you are still with us. And I very much appreciate your willingness to address the ideas I believe I may be perceiving in these passages with what you perceive as a more correct, or even the only correct, meaning of the same. Most especially I appreciate you for being willing to do so regardless of whether or not you share my concept of a certain reality at a certain time. 

Ok, so I am seeing that you are opting for the "*with the accusative case* _superior_ _to_, *more than*." I imagine that choice of yours is based upon the important argument of proximity of words in the Greek text?

Yet, given the very close connotation of all the words in this second part of three, as defined by Kevman (cf. Kevman's post #18) isn't it *also* associated with the genitive? 

In this case it would make sense to me to perceive ὑπέρ as being tied to both "τὴν λαμπρότητα" and "τοῦ ἡλίου?"

As to whether or not I trust Strong's: Yes, I do trust Strong's most all of the time because it makes sense. And that certainly applies to this particular entry in Strong's Greek Dictionary as well. But you see, this particular entry in Strong's does NOT say "*with the accusative case* _superior_ _to_, but only in the sense of *more than.*" To me these words of Strong's allow more than that, i.e. "*with the accusative case* _superior_ _to_, [and/or] *more than.*"

Thanks again, Anthodocheio!




PS. Considering the Hebrew background of these passages I believe the concepts inherent in the word Hebraism must not be overlooked when considering the meaning of these Greek passages and I for one believe that that may well color the origins of these Greek passages and therefore also play an important part in how we perceive these texts. I've even heard it said that some scholars of ancient Greek consider the Greek of the New Testament "very badly written," i.e. because of, as it may appear, it being so much colored by the Hebrew way of thinking while not fully complying with Greek conventions and thought.


----------



## Kevman

My sincerest apologies if we are starting to sound petulant or impatient, it's just we feel that pretty much everything you need to know for a good English translation of this sentence has already been presented in this thread and we find ourselves basically repeating answers that have already been given.  I appreciate that you're aiming for a translation with a certain wording which supports your thesis, but as far as the meaning of the actual words in the sentence is concerned you're not likely to get a better interpretation than that of anthodocheio's friend, or the King James translation for that matter.  That's simply what the sentence says, and no amount of futzing words and definitions around will change it, so I'm afraid you'll have to base any of your conclusions upon the wording you're given.



PowerOfChoice said:


> Ok, so I am seeing that you are opting for the "*with the accusative case* _superior_ _to_, *more than*." I imagine that choice of yours is based upon the important argument of proximity of words in the Greek text?


This isn't a matter of choice, and it's not based purely on proximity, either, since ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἡλίου την λαμπρότητα would still mean "exceeding the brightness of the sun."  The fact is that these words constitute a prepositional phrase, and I don't think the grammar of that phrase can be interpreted any other way.  You can't really substantivize or adjective-ize the preposition, you can't just ignore την λαμπρότητα, and you certainly can't make a single preposition simultaneously take on two different objects with different cases.  τοῦ ἡλίου refers to την λαμπρότητα, and the accusative case of λαμπρότητα is governed by the preposition.



PowerOfChoice said:


> But you see, this particular entry in Strong's does NOT say "*with the accusative case* _superior_ _to_, but only in the sense of *more than.*"


Is it a convention in Strong's to clarify other entries in that way?  I can tell you just from an English speaker's perspective that "superior to" on it's own would make a poor--or at best an odd--dictionary definition if it was intended in the sense of relative spatial position.  "Superior to" in English actually only rarely has the sense of a higher position in space, and so it's not the most clear or intuitive term for conveying that sense.  Most generally "superior to" means "better than," so I think something like Strong's offered variation "more than" is more appropriate for our purposes here.

Once again you seem to be disputing our answers, and I wonder why you're even asking us if you prefer your own interpretation of the dictionary anyway.
We are telling you: ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα τοῦ ἡλίου here means the light (φῶς) was _exceeding the brightness of the sun_.  That's our answer and we're sticking to it!


----------



## PowerOfChoice

Thanks again Kevman!



Kevman said:


> We are telling you: ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα τοῦ ἡλίου here means the light (φῶς) was _exceeding the brightness of the sun_. That's our answer and we're sticking to it!


 
I certainly understand and accept that that is your stand. I have no problem with that. My objective is by no means to convince you of anything or to make you change your mind. I am here to learn what I can from you and I am learning a lot. But that doesn't mean also that I am submitting to your exact point of view in every particular. I hope you can live with that and that you won't mind?










Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so I am seeing that you are opting for the "*with the accusative case* _superior_ _to_, *more than*." I imagine that choice of yours is based upon the important argument of proximity of words in the Greek text?
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't a matter of choice, and it's not based purely on proximity, either, since ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἡλίου την λαμπρότητα would still mean "exceeding the brightness of the sun." The fact is that these words constitute a prepositional phrase, and I don't think the grammar of that phrase can be interpreted any other way. You can't really substantivize or adjective-ize the preposition, you can't just ignore την λαμπρότητα, and you certainly can't make a single preposition simultaneously take on two different objects with different cases. τοῦ ἡλίου refers to την λαμπρότητα, and the accusative case of λαμπρότητα is governed by the preposition.
Click to expand...

 
Thank you Kevman! I find your detailed considerations very valuable. Perhaps there is more for me to learn in the term "prepositional phrase?" [I find that term curious in the setting of this dialog re whether or not this passage is describing the moon being "prepositioned" relative to the sun. That is curious, not necessarily significant!] 


I am not clear on whether or not your words "substantivize or adjective-ize the preposition" apply to these words also, do they?:



PowerOfChoice said:


> "υπέρ (the upper) την λαμπρότητα (brightness) του ηλίου (of the sun...)"


 







Allow me in this setting to consider also briefly the word λαμπρότητα. This Greek word (Strong's G2987) occurs only once in the New Testament (and only 61 times in other Greek works) and its definition is therefore to some extent dependent upon what it means in this very passage (Acts 26:13) or isn't it? 



*Strong's Greek Dictionary: **#2987: *"λαμπρότης, lamprotēs, _lam-prot'-ace, _From G2986; _brilliancy:_ [KJV:] - brightness."​*G2986: "*λαμπρός, lampros, _lam-pros', _From the same as G2985; _radiant_; by analogy _limpid_; figuratively _magnificent_ or _sumptuous_ (in appearance): [KJV:] - bright, clear, gay, goodly, gorgeous, white."​*G2985:* "λαμπάς... From G2989; a "lamp" or _flambeau:_ [KJV] - lamp, light, torch"*G2989: *"λάμπω... A primary verb; to _beam_, that is, _radiate_ brilliancy (literally or figuratively): - give light, shine." ​ 

​*Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, **A Greek-English Lexicon**:*​ 

*lampro/thj*, htoj , h( ,*A.* brilliancy, splendour, l. kai\ ta/cij tou= strateu/matoj X.An.1.2.18 ; of a horse, Id.Eq.11.9; of arms, Plb.11.9.1, Arr.An.1.14.4.*2.* clearness, distinctness...​ 

*Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon:*​*lampro/thj* [from lampro/j ] 1 *1.* _brilliancy, splendour_, *Hdt.*, attic: --in pl. _distinctions_, *Thuc.*​*2.* _splendid conduct, munificence_, *Dem.*​- - - - -



It seems obvious from the above that the meaning of the word λαμπρότητα is tied to the meaning of the stem λαμπ-, or isn't it? But how did the letter "*ρ*" get into the word (λαμπ*ρ*ότης) and how does it modify its meaning?





The MS Encarta Dictionary has it that the English word "lamp" means:"*2.* *device producing light: *a device that burns oil, gas, or wax to produce light"​and that the word "lamp" comes..."via French and Latin from Greek _lampas_ “burning torch,” later “oil lamp,” from _lampein_ “to shine” (source of English _lantern_)."​
A most common expression in Swedish for "Turn off the light!" is using the same wordstem:"Släck _lamp_an!"​Based on all of the above it seems clear to me that the stem of the word λαμπρότητα is pointing to something that may not always produce light. It seems as though this word λαμπρότητα, as used in the phrase "υπέρ την λαμπρότητα του ήλιου" is subject to being turned off by something or someone else. That is, λαμπρότητα is something that could lose its light - as the sun during a solar eclipse or as a torch without a flame, or isn't that so?









Kevman said:


> PowerOfChoice said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you see, this particular entry in Strong's does NOT say "*with the accusative case* _superior_ _to_, but only in the sense of *more than.*"
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a convention in Strong's to clarify other entries in that way? I can tell you just from an English speaker's perspective that "superior to" on it's own would make a poor--or at best an odd--dictionary definition if it was intended in the sense of relative spatial position. "Superior to" in English actually only rarely has the sense of a higher position in space, and so it's not the most clear or intuitive term for conveying that sense. Most generally "superior to" means "better than," so I think something like Strong's offered variation "more than" is more appropriate for our purposes here.
Click to expand...

 

As a matter of fact you will find that:1. Strong's Dictionary is twice using the exact phrase "only in the sense of." Cf. Strong's H749 and H5619.​2. The phrase "in the sense of" is very common in Strong's.​3. The word "comparative" is commonly used in Strong's Dictionary when that is the meaning or use of a word. I do not see "comparative" etc. being used in Strong's #G5228 re ὑπὲρ.​Accordingly I find it hard to agree with you that the phrase in Strong's Dictionary "with the accusative case _superior_ _to_, more _than_" is excluding the use of ὑπὲρ in "the sense of a higher position in space" as you are suggesting. I see little or no reason why it could not reference the relative position of two objects in the setting of a solar eclipse whether it be one _covering_ the other or one being _above_ the other.

But that's me.


----------



## ireney

* Moderator's note: Thread closed: Because of the nature of the question I was exceptionally lenient of the matter of multiple questions being asked in the same thread. That was unfair of me and since all original questions have been answered fully and with detail this thread is closed and any similar will be deleted since it will to break the rules. My apologies to those whose threads I have deleted for the same reason.*


----------

