OT-POET.filter - rwp tendency:

rwp@1Corinthians:4:6 @{I have in a figure transferred} (\meteschmatisa\). First aorist active (not perfect) indicative of \meta-schmatiz\, used by Plato and Aristotle for changing the form of a thing (from \meta\, after, and \schma\, form or habit, like Latin _habitus_ from \ech\ and so different from \morph\ as in strkjv@Phillipians:2:7; strkjv@Romans:12:2|). For the idea of refashioning see Field, _Notes_, p. 169f. and Preisigke, _Fachworter_). Both Greek and Latin writers (Quintilian, Martial) used \schma\ for a rhetorical artifice. Paul's use of the word (in Paul only in N.T.) appears also further in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:13-15| where the word occurs three times, twice of the false apostles posing and passing as apostles of Christ and ministers of righteousness, and once of Satan as an angel of light, twice with \eis\ and once with \hs\. In strkjv@Phillipians:3:21| the word is used for the change in the body of our humiliation to the body of glory. But here it is clearly the rhetorical figure for a veiled allusion to Paul and Apollos "for your sakes" (\dia humas\). {That in us ye may learn} (\hina en hmin mathte\). Final clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \manthan\, to learn. As an object lesson in our cases (\en hmin\). It is no more true of Paul and Apollos than of other ministers, but the wrangles in Corinth started about them. Songs:Paul boldly puts himself and Apollos to the fore in the discussion of the principles involved. {Not to go beyond the things which are written} (\to M huper ha gegraptai\). It is difficult to reproduce the Greek idiom in English. The article \to\ is in the accusative case as the object of the verb \mathte\ (learn) and points at the words "\M huper ha gegraptai\," apparently a proverb or rule, and elliptical in form with no principal verb expressed with \m\, whether "think" (Auth.) or "go" (Revised). There was a constant tendency to smooth out Paul's ellipses as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3; strkjv@1Corinthians:1:26,31|. Lightfoot thinks that Paul may have in mind O.T. passages quoted in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:19,31; strkjv@3:19,20|. {That ye be not puffed up} (\hina m phusiousthe\). Sub-final use of \hina\ (second use in this sentence) with notion of result. It is not certain whether \phusiousthe\ (late verb form like \phusia, phusa\, to blow up, to inflate, to puff up), used only by Paul in the N.T., is present indicative with \hina\ like \zloute\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:17| (cf. \hina ginskomen\ in strkjv@1John:5:20|) or the present subjunctive by irregular contraction (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 203, 342f.), probably the present indicative. \Phusio\ is from \phusis\ (nature) and so meant to make natural, but it is used by Paul just like \phusa\ or \phusia\ (from \phusa\, a pair of bellows), a vivid picture of self-conceit. {One for the one against the other} (\heis huper tou henos kata tou heterou\). This is the precise idea of this idiom of partitive apposition. This is the rule with partisans. They are "for" (\huper\) the one and "against" (\kata\, down on, the genitive case) the other (\tou heterou\, not merely another or a second, but the different sort, \heterodox\).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing, like the habit of repeating words (\epichorge\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:10,19, \bebaios\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:12,13,15|, \prophteia\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20; strkjv@3:3|, etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II Peter. Besides those already given, note strkjv@2Peter:1:8| (Luke:13:7f.|), strkjv@2Peter:2:1| (Matthew:10:33|), strkjv@2Peter:2:20| (Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:11:26|), strkjv@2Peter:3:4| (Matthew:24:1ff.|), and possibly strkjv@2Peter:1:3| to Christ's calling the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha. Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly, idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361 words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter. There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle is considered. There are several ways of explaining these variations. One way is to say that they are written by different men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus was the one for I Peter (1Peter:5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from strkjv@Acts:4:13| that Peter and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai iditai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement. II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

rwp@Acts:25:21 @{When Paul had appealed} (\tou Paulou epikalesamenou\). Genitive absolute with first aorist middle participle of \epikaleomai\, the technical word for appeal (verses 11,12|). The first aorist passive infinitive \trthnai\ (to be kept) is the object of the participle. {For the decision of the emperor} (\eis tn tou Sebastou diagnsin\). \Diagnsin\ (cf. \diagnsomai\ strkjv@24:22|, I will determine) is the regular word for a legal examination (\cognitio\), thorough sifting (\dia\), here only in N.T. Instead of "the Emperor" it should be "the Augustus," as \Sebastos\ is simply the Greek translation of _Augustus_, the adjective (Revered, Reverent) assumed by Octavius B.C. 27 as the \agnomen\ that summed up all his various offices instead of _Rex_ so offensive to the Romans having led to the death of Julius Caesar. The successors of Octavius assumed _Augustus_ as a title. The Greek term \Sebastos\ has the notion of worship (cf. \sebasma\ in Acts strkjv@17:25|). In the N.T. only here, verse 25; strkjv@27:1| (of the legion). It was more imposing than "Caesar" which was originally a family name (always official in the N.T.) and it fell in with the tendency toward emperor-worship which later played such a large part in Roman life and which Christians opposed so bitterly. China is having a revival of this idea in the insistence on bowing three times to the picture of Sun-Yat-Sen. {Till I should send him to Caesar} (\hes an anapemps auton pros Kaisara\). Here \anapemps\ can be either future indicative or first aorist subjunctive (identical in first person singular), aorist subjunctive the usual construction with \hes\ for future time (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 876). Literally, "send up" (\ana\) to a superior (the emperor). Common in this sense in the papyri and _Koin_ writers. Here "Caesar" is used as the title of Nero instead of "Augustus" as \Kurios\ (Lord) occurs in verse 26|.

rwp@Luke:19:48 @{They could not find} (\ouch huriskon\). Imperfect active. They kept on not finding. {What they might do} (\to ti poissin\). First aorist active deliberative subjunctive in a direct question retained in the indirect. Note the article \to\ (neuter accusative) with the question. {Hung upon him} (\exekremeto autou\). Imperfect middle of \ekkremamai\, an old verb (\mi\ form) to hang from, here only in the N.T. The form is an \omega\ form from \ekkremomai\, a constant tendency to the \omega\ form in the _Koin_. It pictures the whole nation (save the leaders in verse 47|) hanging upon the words of Jesus as if in suspense in mid-air, rapt attention that angered these same leaders. Tyndale renders it "stuck by him."

rwp@Matthew:6:9 @{After this manner therefore pray ye} (\houts oun proseuchesthe humeis\). "You" expressed in contrast with "the Gentiles." It should be called "The Model Prayer" rather than "The Lord's Prayer." "Thus" pray as he gives them a model. He himself did not use it as a liturgy (cf. strkjv@John:17|). There is no evidence that Jesus meant it for liturgical use by others. In strkjv@Luke:11:2-4| practically the same prayer though briefer is given at a later time by Jesus to the apostles in response to a request that he teach them how to pray. McNeile argues that the form in Luke is the original to which Matthew has made additions: "The tendency of liturgical formulas is towards enrichment rather than abbreviation." But there is no evidence whatever that Jesus designed it as a set formula. There is no real harm in a liturgical formula if one likes it, but no one sticks to just one formula in prayer. There is good and not harm in children learning and saying this noble prayer. Some people are disturbed over the words "Our Father" and say that no one has a right to call God Father who has not been "born again." But that is to say that an unconverted sinner cannot pray until he is converted, an absurd contradiction. God is the Father of all men in one sense; the recognition of Him as the Father in the full sense is the first step in coming back to him in regeneration and conversion.