Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
House or Temple
#1
Hi all, I am wanting some clarification on footnote that I have encountered in the Aramaic English New Testament. It states that The 'House' were the disciples were gathered during Pentecost, when they received the Ruach haKodesh was in fact the Temple. I am curious as to what the Aramaic word used here is and if it is specifically and only the Temple, or otherwise?

thank you and blessings
Reply
#2
As far as I can see, it uses Baytha (=Beth). This is the common word used everywhere for a house, not specifically the tempel.
Reply
#3
I'm not far enough into my Aramaic studies to have a right to comment from that angle, but from the Hebrew angle I do remember learning that Hebrew Tanakh did not use a word for the Temple that is a straight cognate for our Latin-based word. Instead, terms like "Holy House" and "House of God" were used (please forgive if I bungled those at all).

If I haven't made an error above, perhaps it's fair to say that the burden would be to prove they were anywhere but the Temple, if it's indicated by the commandment and allowed by the wording of the historical account.
Reply
#4
In Hebrew the temple is called "Beyt Hamiqdash", which would be translated to "House of the Temple". However, it's often referred to as simply "Habayt" - "The House". For example, the temple mount's original name is "Har Habayt" and the first\second temple era is called "Tkufat bayt Rishon\Sheni".
Reply
#5
tFighterPilot Wrote:In Hebrew the temple is called "Beyt Hamiqdash", which would be translated to "House of the Temple". However, it's often referred to as simply "Habayt" - "The House". For example, the temple mount's original name is "Har Habayt" and the first\second temple era is called "Tkufat bayt Rishon\Sheni".
Translating Beyt Hamiqdash as "House of the Temple" might find much agreement, but the redundancy between House (~building) and Temple (~building) troubles me.

What would Beyt Hamiqdash be if more literally translated to English (instead of resorting to the latin templum)? I would guess "The House of Holiness".

Comments?
Reply
#6
You are right. Miqdash has only later became a word meaning temple. The term Bet Hamiqdash didn't appear in the bible but only in later Jewish scriptures. However, the word "holiness" would translate to "qodesh".
Reply
#7
Regarding the "house" of Acts 2:2, if that is the verse in question, I'm not quite sure how we can assume it to be the Temple, unless it is defined that way somewhere else in the text.
Reply
#8
Well, the word for 'house' in that verse, as I wrote earlier, is nothing special, not specific for temple.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/concordance.php?adr=2:2704&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/concor ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%
Reply
#9
Yeah, I agree. From what I can tell, it was just a generic house.

I was sort of fishing for an explanation as to why the AENT thinks the house of Acts 2:2 is the temple, but I may have worded it poorly.
Reply
#10
Well I think I know why <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Because how else everybody could hear them different languages? (Verse 6).

If they were in a normal house, (the upper room?) how could everybody comment on them? So yes, in certain way, the AENT might be right. But it is speculative.
Reply
#11
The house, with the upper room for instance could very well have been in the midts of Jerusalem, and by a main street or a main plaza area, where many could have been at that time during the feast...The Upper Room, of the House where the Apostles stayed for Passover/Last Supper, seems to have been near the Garden of Gethsemane, at the base of the Mount of Olives, which was across from the Temple area.

I have heared it taught that this House was that of the parents of the young John Mark, who is thought to have been the young man who was caught by the clothing by the arresting guards in the Garden of Gethemane, and fled home naked...

In what place in The Temple, could 120 people and perhaps many children be gathered for prayer and worship?

I have been to a prayer group in a small house, where 70 people fit in the living room and side dinning area off the living room...so its not hard to have a larger living room, or upper room, which could be the whole length of a larger house, and fit this many people in it.
Reply
#12
Dear Brothers,

The AENT is not off alone in left field on this interpretation. Search engines were helpful here... Among many other results can be found, for example:
...Besides those results, also Gill's Exposition makes it clear that this opinion isn't some 20th-century innovation.

Out of context, some might say, but... "These things were not done in a corner." <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

OK. I checked around, googled, etc. and... I find it's really, really easy to see abundant reasons why more and more people might believe that this event was at the Temple, not at some Hotel Pentecost. What's not so easy for me is to find satisfactory reasons why anyone would believe anything else. Maybe I am just not thinking of the best way to turn up the results. Would anyone be so kind as to list them?

For now I must go with the preponderance of the evidence I have seen and say the Assembly of Mshikha had it's Pentecostal beginning in the Temple. I can note that tradition says otherwise but that I can't find good support for it. Anyone who cares to help me out is welcome, because I can so far think of only two "reasons to dismiss" all the evidence for the Temple, and neither compel me:
  • A.) Christian Tradition
    B.) Misojudaism/judeophobia

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that no-one here has "Category B" issues (nevermind that historically "B" is really a very strong part of "A"). Taking B away we have a suspiciously short list. Again, a little help here?

So... for while we're left with only an appeal to tradition, until I find more support for the position that's all I can address. I personally do not find an appeal to tradition compelling on its own. So, I'd like to learn more about that tradition to see for myself how it holds up. How far back does the Cenacle Pentecost tradition go, and how credible is the source? What's the earliest documentation? Do we have a 1st-century Jewish witness, close in time/culture/location? If instead we only find this tradition asserted by far-removed Gentiles, centuries later, how do we know they're doing anything but looking through a glass darkly, trying in vain to explain the Scriptures because they've been set up as Teachers and are expected to teach?

I'm not questioning people's traditions to be an ass (that requires no effort). I'm asking because I all too often run into the mindset that "if it's tradition it's truth", along with the idea that every tradition of a church that calls itself "apostolic" necessarily goes back to the apostles. My family doesn't think that way and it helps cut to the chase to get that out in the open. So...

If we can't assume that all traditions are infallible, dating right back to the apostles, and we can't find a good reason to keep a tradition, and we also have very many reasons against it... what ought a reasonable person do?

EDIT: Reined in a bit to be a little less "over the top". I'm a bit on the Asperger side & don't always catch social complications. Thanks, user called "judge".
Reply
#13
rramlow Wrote:I'm not far enough into my Aramaic studies to have a right to comment from that angle,
Ok
rramlow Wrote:Let's assume no-one here is a Jew-hater, or even harboring an evil bias against the Jewish roots of our faith
A little over the top.
Quote: If we can't assume that all traditions are infallible, dating right back to the apostles, and we can't find a good reason to keep a tradition, and we also have very many reasons against it... what ought a reasonable person do?

Avoid logical fallacies.
Reply
#14
judge Wrote:A little over the top.
Yeah, I'm working on it, but that's me sometimes. Thank you for sharing your feelings; I value the input.

Redacted the post a bit. Not looking to come across that hot. This issue rubs up against a sore spot and I need to watch my fervor.

Jerry Wrote:Regarding the "house" of Acts 2:2, if that is the verse in question, I'm not quite sure how we can assume it to be the Temple, unless it is defined that way somewhere else in the text.
Can I take this post to mean that you would accept that it is the Temple, if you saw where else in the text it was clarified? I admire your attitude and hope to someday be so responsive. I will attempt to address your implied request and you can do what you like with it. I hope I may be forgiven for thinking the text itself is very clear.

I look at it this way: in the story the way Luke is telling it, from the end of his Gospel to the beginning of Acts the Temple is an integral part of the context. Take it out of the equation and our envisioning of the scenario contradicts Scripture... From Luke 24:53 (And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God) to Acts 2:46a (Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts), notice how Luke emphasizes their attendance with "continually" and "every day". So, their daily meeting spot is the Temple, as the Omer Counting of the Feast of Weeks winds up and beyond. Pentecost is somehow specially excluded? No. They are at the Temple every day, according to Scripture. If they meet there "continually" and "every day", even on non-Sabbath days, how much more for Sabbaths and Pentecost? I'm not saying they never took a pit stop, etc. - that would be absurd. In fact, I believe that Acts 2:46b (They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts) gives a clear example of why they might leave the Temple: physical needs were still pressing. So, just going from the text, in my view the Scripture tells us that, aside from food and lodging, the Temple was their default spot to assemble (all together in one place?). So now check out Acts 2:1. When the narrative mentions that the day of Pentecost comes, and mentions that we find them "all together in one place" without specifying what place that is, we are not assuming to say it is the Temple. We are simply remembering what the narrator has taken the trouble to clearly record in multiple places. Pentecost, like the other Feasts of God, had special observances and I believe it was a Pilgrimage Feast. Why is this significant? Pilgrimage Feasts are for worshiping the Lord in the place He shall choose. In those days it was the Temple - hence Acts 2:5 (Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven). If people would come from far-off lands to worship at the Temple at this special time, to say that the Apostles would not also attend seems an extraordinary claim.

So, I see no sprint down from an "upper room" to baptize 3000 in the street (never mind what kind of liquids you would find there)...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133558

As to the term "House", it absolutely doesn't exclude the Temple. The Lord himself uses it repeatedly to mean exactly that.

Due to the abundant evidence of the setting, I find no agreement with the position that the Pentecost account can only mean Temple if a word special to that denotation is used in Acts 2:2.
Reply
#15
rramlow Wrote:
judge Wrote:A little over the top.
Yeah, I'm working on it, but that's me sometimes. Thank you for sharing your feelings; I value the input.

Redacted the post a bit. Not looking to come across that hot. This issue rubs up against a sore spot and I need to watch my fervor.
.

Im a tad embarrassed now. <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush --> Thanks for such a gracious reply.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)