Act 13:26 oi` fobou,menoi to.

n qeo,n — It is possible that the participle should be

construed as coordinate with a;ndrej avdelfoi,, which would mean that Paul is not
categorizing the God-fearers (who are Gentiles) along with the Jews as brothers.
Certainly Paul thinks of Gentile believers as brothers; whether he would classify God-
fearers as brothers prior to their conversion is open to question. Probably there are
indications within primary literature whether or not Jews referred to God-fearers as
brothers, but I do not have access to such information, and at any rate, Paul’s sympathies
on a point like this may well have been broader than those of his Jewish contemporaries.
Act 13:27 ta.j fwna,j — The versions are divided over how to construe the noun. On
first encounter, it seems to be a second object of avgnoh,santej. But that construction
leaves kri,nantej evplh,rwsan seeming to hang rather awkwardly at the end of the
clause. The alternative is to construe ta.j fwna,j as the object of evplh,rwsan. This
construction makes the ending of the clause less awkward, but now the kai, before ta.j
fwna,j is difficult to construe naturally, and kri,nantej remains somewhat awkward
without an object. The solution I have adopted reflects a common pattern in which the
object of an adverbial participle is also the understood object of the governing verb; the
meaning is clear enough without repeating the object with the verb. This sentence appears
to me to be a slightly more complicated version of that construction, in which both
objects of the adverbial participle avgnoh,santej are shared with two different
subsequent verbs: the first object (tou/ton) with the first additional verb (the participle
kri,nantej) and the second with the second. For clarity I have supplied a repetition of
these objects with their respective verbs.
Act 13:32 genome,nhn — Lacking the article, the participle seems best construed as
indirect discourse: “We bring you the good news that the promise has come to pass.” The
versions, however, seem disinclined to read the grammar so, preferring to construe the
participle as a simple attributive to evpaggeli,an or to condense the ideas so that this
participle is not translated at all. The only translation I find unambiguously taking my
view of the grammar is the New Jerusalem Bible.
Act 13:34 — I follow the consensus of versions in construing the opening o[ti clause as a
noun clause functioning adverbially to ei;rhken.
Act 13:26 oi` fobou,menoi to.n qeo,n — It is possible that the participle should be
construed as coordinate with a;ndrej avdelfoi,, which would mean that Paul is not
categorizing the God-fearers (who are Gentiles) along with the Jews as brothers.
Certainly Paul thinks of Gentile believers as brothers; whether he would classify God-
fearers as brothers prior to their conversion is open to question. Probably there are
indications within primary literature whether or not Jews referred to God-fearers as
brothers, but I do not have access to such information, and at any rate, Paul’s sympathies
on a point like this may well have been broader than those of his Jewish contemporaries.
Act 13:27 ta.j fwna,j — The versions are divided over how to construe the noun. On
first encounter, it seems to be a second object of avgnoh,santej. But that construction
leaves kri,nantej evplh,rwsan seeming to hang rather awkwardly at the end of the
clause. The alternative is to construe ta.j fwna,j as the object of evplh,rwsan. This
construction makes the ending of the clause less awkward, but now the kai, before ta.j
fwna,j is difficult to construe naturally, and kri,nantej remains somewhat awkward
without an object. The solution I have adopted reflects a common pattern in which the
object of an adverbial participle is also the understood object of the governing verb; the
meaning is clear enough without repeating the object with the verb. This sentence appears
to me to be a slightly more complicated version of that construction, in which both
objects of the adverbial participle avgnoh,santej are shared with two different
subsequent verbs: the first object (tou/ton) with the first additional verb (the participle
kri,nantej) and the second with the second. For clarity I have supplied a repetition of
these objects with their respective verbs.
Act 13:32 genome,nhn — Lacking the article, the participle seems best construed as
indirect discourse: “We bring you the good news that the promise has come to pass.” The
versions, however, seem disinclined to read the grammar so, preferring to construe the
participle as a simple attributive to evpaggeli,an or to condense the ideas so that this
participle is not translated at all. The only translation I find unambiguously taking my
view of the grammar is the New Jerusalem Bible.
Act 13:34 — I follow the consensus of versions in construing the opening o[ti clause as a
noun clause functioning adverbially to ei;rhken.