From: Paul S. Dixon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 17 1998 - 12:48:24 EST
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:05:39 -0800 Paul Zellmer
>>Paul Zellmer wrote:
>>> Jude has been giving me problems. And just when I think I get to a
>>> phrase I understand, all other translations take a unique jog and
>>> me behind.
>>> Could someone please explain to me why AGAPAIS in Jude 12 is
>>> translated, "love feasts" by many if not all the common versions? I
>>> looked in vain for a textual variant here.
>hOUTOI EISIN hOI EN TAIS *AGAPAIS* hUMWN SPILADES SUNEUWXOUMENOI
>AFOBWS, hEAUTOUS POIMAINONTES, ...
>>There is a textual variant, but it does not solve your problem. APATAIS
>>found in A C(vid) and 1243, as well as in the parallel passage in 2Pet
>Actually, this variant *would* solve the problem, especially if the
>variant also has the same pronoun as the Petrine passage. EN TAIS
>APATAIS AUTWN makes sense to me, but EN TAIS AGAPAIS hUMWN >doesn't.
Clay, Paul, et al:
I grew up in a church which practiced three-fold communion. This
included a love meal (a simple, symbolic meal), communion (bread and
cup), and foot-washing (at this point of the service the men went off to
one room and the women to another to pair off and to wash another's
feet). All three were done physically, but all three were also symbolic
of spiritual truths.
The rationale for such was the Last Supper where all three were practiced
by Christ and His disciples. Further NT support would come from 1 Cor
11:20-22, where it is evident the Corinthian church had been practicing
some kind of a meal associated with the communion elements. Of course,
it can be argued that Paul condemned the partaking of such a meal, but
did he really? Or, did he condemn the abuse of such? Hodge comments,
"the Agape, or love feasts, as they were afterwards called, and which, on
account of the disorders attending them, were subsequently prohibited by
the Council of Carthage" (C. Hodge commenting on 1 Cor 11).
Regardless, the translation "your love feasts" of TAIS AGAPAIS hUMWN in
Jude 12 may easily be justified on the basis of the immediate context
alone. Does not the participial construct hOI EN TAIS AGAPAIS hUMWN
SPILADES SUNEUWCOMENOI AFOBWS and particularly the parallel with
SUNEUWCOMENOI suggest, if not require, that we supply DEIPNON (meal,
Furthermore, hUMWN, rather than AUTWN, makes good sense here. Jude was
not concerned about these hypocrites eating as hidden reefs in their love
meals. His concern and warning was that it was being done amongst the
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:04 EDT