OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp kaka:

rwp@2Timothy:4:14 @{Alexander the coppersmith} (\Alexandros ho chalkeus\). Old word, only here in N.T., for metal-worker (copper, iron, gold, etc.). Possibly the one in strkjv@1:20|, but not the one in strkjv@Acts:19:33f.| unless he afterwards became a Christian. {Did me much evil} (\moi kaka enedeixato\). Evidently he had some personal dislike towards Paul and possibly also he was a Gnostic. {Will render} (\apodsei\). Future active of the same verb used in verse 8|, but with a very different atmosphere.

rwp@Romans:3:8 @{And why not} (\kai m\). We have a tangled sentence which can be cleared up in two ways. One is (Lightfoot) to supply \gentai\ after \m\ and repeat \ti\ (\kai ti m gentai\, deliberative subjunctive in a question): And why should it not happen? The other way (Sanday and Headlam) is to take \m\ with \poismen\ and make a long parenthesis of all in between. Even so it is confusing because \hoti\ also (recitative \hoti\) comes just before \poismen\. The parenthesis is necessary anyhow, for there are two lines of thought, one the excuse brought forward by the unbeliever, the other the accusation that Paul affirms that very excuse that we may do evil that good may come. Note the double indirect assertion (the accusative and the infinitive \hms legein\ after \phasin\ and then the direct quotation with recitative \hoti\ after \legein\, a direct quotation dependent on the infinitive in indirect quotation. {Let us do evil that good may come} (\poismen ta kaka hina elthi ta agatha\). The volitive aorist subjunctive (\poismen\) and the clause of purpose (\hina\ and the aorist subjunctive \elthi\). It sounds almost uncanny to find this maxim of the Jesuits attributed to Paul in the first century by Jews. It was undoubtedly the accusation of Antinomianism because Paul preached justification by faith and not by works.