Bible:
Filter: String:

NONE.filter - rwp Alexandrian:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:12 @{Now this I mean} (\leg de touto\). Explanatory use of \leg\. Each has his party leader. \Apoll\ is genitive of \Apolls\ (Acts:18:24|), probably abbreviation of \Apollnius\ as seen in Codex Bezae for strkjv@Acts:18:24|. See on Acts for discussion of this "eloquent Alexandrian" (Ellicott), whose philosophical and oratorical preaching was in contrast "with the studied plainness" of Paul (1Corinthians:2:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:10|). People naturally have different tastes about styles of preaching and that is well, but Apollos refused to be a party to this strife and soon returned to Ephesus and refused to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). \Cph\ is the genitive of \Cphs\, the Aramaic name given Simon by Jesus (John:1:42|), \Petros\ in Greek. Except in strkjv@Galatians:2:7,8| Paul calls him Cephas. He had already taken his stand with Paul in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-11; strkjv@Galatians:2:7-10|). Paul had to rebuke him at Antioch for his timidity because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-14|), but, in spite of Baur's theory, there is no evidence of a schism in doctrine between Paul and Peter. If strkjv@2Peter:3:15f.| be accepted as genuine, as I do, there is proof of cordial relations between them and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:5| points in the same direction. But there is no evidence that Peter himself visited Corinth. Judaizers came and pitted Peter against Paul to the Corinthian Church on the basis of Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch. These Judaizers made bitter personal attacks on Paul in return for their defeat at the Jerusalem Conference. Songs:a third faction was formed by the use of Peter's name as the really orthodox wing of the church, the gospel of the circumcision. {And I of Christ} (\eg de Christou\). Still a fourth faction in recoil from the partisan use of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, with "a spiritually proud utterance" (Ellicott) that assumes a relation to Christ not true of the others. "Those who used this cry arrogated the common watchword as their _peculium_" (Findlay). This partisan use of the name of Christ may have been made in the name of unity against the other three factions, but it merely added another party to those existing. In scouting the names of the other leaders they lowered the name and rank of Christ to their level.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:17 @{For Christ sent me not to baptize} (\ou gar apesteilen me Christos baptizein\). The negative \ou\ goes not with the infinitive, but with \apesteilen\ (from \apostell, apostolos\, apostle). {For Christ did not send me to be a baptizer} (present active infinitive, linear action) like John the Baptist. {But to preach the gospel} (\alla euaggelizesthai\). This is Paul's idea of his mission from Christ, as Christ's apostle, to be {a gospelizer}. This led, of course, to baptism, as a result, but Paul usually had it done by others as Peter at Caesarea ordered the baptism to be done, apparently by the six brethren with him (Acts:10:48|). Paul is fond of this late Greek verb from \euaggelion\ and sometimes uses both verb and substantive as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1| "the gospel which I gospelized unto you." {Not in wisdom of words} (\ouk en sophii logou\). Note \ou\, not \m\ (the subjective negative), construed with \apesteilen\ rather than the infinitive. Not in wisdom of speech (singular). Preaching was Paul's forte, but it was not as a pretentious philosopher or professional rhetorician that Paul appeared before the Corinthians (1Corinthians:2:1-5|). Some who followed Apollos may have been guilty of a fancy for external show, though Apollos was not a mere performer and juggler with words. But the Alexandrian method as in Philo did run to dialectic subtleties and luxuriant rhetoric (Lightfoot). {Lest the cross of Christ should be made void} (\hina m kenthi ho stauros tou Christou\). Negative purpose (\hina m\) with first aorist passive subjunctive, effective aorist, of \keno\, old verb from \kenos\, to make empty. In Paul's preaching the Cross of Christ is the central theme. Hence Paul did not fall into the snare of too much emphasis on baptism nor into too little on the death of Christ. "This expression shows clearly the stress which St. Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great moral spectacle, and so the crowning point of a life of self-renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation" (Lightfoot).

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE TEXT OF THE ACTS A special problem arises concerning the text of Acts inasmuch as the Codex Bezae (D) with some other Western support presents a great many additions to the Neutral-Alexandrian text of Aleph A B C. Blass has even proposed the idea that Luke himself issued two editions of the book, an attractive hypothesis that is not generally accepted. J. M. Wilson has published _The Acts of the Apostles from Codex Bezae_. The whole subject is elaborately treated by J. H. Ropes in Vol. III, _The Text of Acts_ in Part I of _The Beginnings of Christianity_. Besides thorough discussion of all the problems of text involved Ropes gives the text of the Vatican Codex (B) on the left page and that of Codex Bezae (D) on the right, making comparison easy. Blass's ideas appear in his _Acta Apostolorum_.

rwp@Acts:6:9 @{The synagogue of the Libertines} (\ek ts sunaggs ts legomens Libertinn\). The Libertines (Latin _libertinus_, a freedman or the son of a freedman) were Jews, once slaves of Rome (perhaps descendants of the Jews taken to Rome as captives by Pompey), now set free and settled in Jerusalem and numerous enough to have a synagogue of their own. Schuerer calls a Talmudic myth the statement that there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. There were many, no doubt, but how many no one knows. These places of worship and study were in all the cities of the later times where there were Jews enough to maintain one. Apparently Luke here speaks of five such synagogues in Jerusalem (that of the Libertines, of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, of Cilicia, and of Asia). There probably were enough Hellenists in Jerusalem to have five such synagogues. But the language of Luke is not clear on this point. He may make only two groups instead of five since he uses the article \tn\ twice (once before \Libertinn kai Kurnain kai Alexandren\, again before \apo Kilikias kai Asias\). He also changes from the genitive plural to \apo\ before Cilicia and Asia. But, leaving the number of the synagogues unsettled whether five or two, it is certain that in each one where Stephen appeared as a Hellenist preaching Jesus as the Messiah he met opposition. Certain of them "arose" (\anestsan\) "stood up" after they had stood all that they could from Stephen, "disputing with Stephen" (\sunztountes ti Stephani\). Present active participle of \sunzte\, to question together as the two on the way to Emmaus did (Luke:24:15|). Such interruptions were common with Jews. They give a skilled speaker great opportunity for reply if he is quick in repartee. Evidently Stephen was fully equipped for the emergency. One of their synagogues had men from Cilicia in it, making it practically certain that young Saul of Tarsus, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, was present and tried his wits with Stephen. His ignominious defeat may be one explanation of his zest in the stoning of Stephen (Acts:8:1|).

rwp@Acts:18:24 @{Apollos} (\Apolls\). Genitive \-\ Attic second declension. Probably a contraction of \Apollonios\ as D has it here. {An Alexandrian} (\Alexandreus\). Alexander the Great founded this city B.C. 332 and placed a colony of Jews there which flourished greatly, one-third of the population at this time. There was a great university and library there. The Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy developed here of which Philo was the chief exponent who was still living. Apollos was undoubtedly a man of the schools and a man of parts. {A learned man} (\anr logios\). Or eloquent, as the word can mean either a man of words (like one "wordy," verbose) or a man of ideas, since \logos\ was used either for reason or speech. Apollos was doubtless both learned (mighty in the Scriptures) and eloquent, though eloquence varies greatly in people's ideas. {Mighty in the Scriptures} (\dunatos n en tais graphais\). Being powerful (\dunatos\ verbal of \dunamai\ and same root as \dunamis\, dynamite, dynamo) in the Scriptures (in the knowledge and the use of the Scriptures), as should be true of every preacher. There is no excuse for ignorance of the Scriptures on the part of preachers, the professed interpreters of the word of God. The last lecture made to the New Testament English class in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by John A. Broadus was on this passage with a plea for his students to be mighty in the Scriptures. In Alexandria Clement of Alexandria and Origen taught in the Christian theological school.

rwp@Acts:28:13 @{We made a circuit} (\perielthontes\). Second aorist active of \perierchomai\, to go around, old verb, already in strkjv@19:13|. See also strkjv@Hebrews:11:37; strkjv@1Timothy:5:13|. But Westcott and Hort read \perielontes\ after Aleph B (from \periaire\) as in strkjv@27:40|, though here it could only mean casting loose, for which no other authority exists. At any rate the ship had to tack to reach Rhegium and was not able to make a straight course (\enthudrome\, strkjv@16:11|). {Rhegium} (\Rhgion\) is from \rhgnumi\, to break off, the place where the land breaks off, the southern entrance to the straits of Messina. {A south wind sprang up} (\epigenomenou notou\). Genitive absolute again, and for all the world like that fatal south wind in strkjv@27:13|, but with no bad results this time, though the weather was plainly treacherous at this early season. {On the second day} (\deuteraioi\). This is the classical use of the predicate adjective, "We second day men" as in strkjv@Luke:24:22; strkjv@John:11:39; strkjv@Phillipians:3:5| instead of the adverb (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 657). {To Puteoli} (\eis Potiolous\). It was 182 miles from Rhegium and would require 26 hours (Page). It was eight miles northwest from Neapolis (Naples) and the chief port of Rome, the regular harbour for the Alexandrian ships from Rome. Portions of the great mole are said to be still visible.

rwp@Colossians:1:15 @{The image} (\eikn\). In predicate and no article. On \eikn\, see strkjv@2Corinthians:4:4; strkjv@3:18; strkjv@Romans:8:29; strkjv@Colossians:3:10|. Jesus is the very stamp of God the Father as he was before the Incarnation (John:17:5|) and is now (Phillipians:2:5-11; strkjv@Hebrews:1:3|). {Of the invisible God} (\tou theou tou aoratou\). But the one who sees Jesus has seen God (John:14:9|). See this verbal adjective (\a\ privative and \hora\) in strkjv@Romans:1:20|. {The first born} (\prtotokos\). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the \Logos\ passage in strkjv@John:1:1-18| and to strkjv@Hebrews:1:1-4| as well as strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11| in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (LXX and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely "Biblical" (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, _Light, etc._, p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary, etc._). See it already in strkjv@Luke:2:7| and Aleph for strkjv@Matthew:1:25; strkjv@Romans:8:29|. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like "all creation" (\pss ktises\, by metonomy the _act_ regarded as _result_). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of \prtos\ that is used (first-born of all creation) as in strkjv@Colossians:1:18; strkjv@Romans:8:29; strkjv@Hebrews:1:6; strkjv@12:23; strkjv@Revelation:1:5|. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before "all creation" (angels and men). Like \eikn\ we find \prtotokos\ in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the \Logos\ teaching (Philo) as well as in the LXX. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as \eikn\ (Image) and to the universe as \prtotokos\ (First-born).

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ SOME BOOKS ON HEBREWS ANDEL, _Deuteronomy:Brief aan de Hebraer_ (1906). ANDERSON, R., _The Hebrews Epistle in the Light of the Types_ (1911). AYLES, _Destination, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). BAILEY, _Leading Ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1907). BLASS, F., _Brief an die Hebraer, Text, Angabe der Rhythmen_ (1903). BLEEK, F., _Der Hebraerbrief Erklart_ (1840). BRUCE, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). DALE, R. W., _The Jewish Temple in the Christian Church_ (1865). DAVIDSON, A. B., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1882). DELITZSCH, F., _Commentary on the Hebrews_ (1857). DIBELIUS, M., _Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes_ (1910). DODS, M., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). DU BOSE, W. P., _High Priesthood and sacrifice_ (1908). EDWARDS, T. C., _Expositor's Bible_ (1888). FARRAR, F. W., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). GOODSPEED, E. J., _Bible for Home and School_ (1908). GRIFFTH-THOMAS, W. H., _Let Us Go On_ (1923). HEIGL, _Verfalser und Addresse des Briefes an die Hebraer_ (1905). HOLLMANN, _Schriften d. N. T_. 2 Aufl. (1907). KENDRICK, A. C., _American Commentary_ (1890). LIDGETT, J. S., _Sonship and Salvation_ (1921). LOWRIE, _An Explanation of Hebrews_ (1921). LUNEMANN, G., _Meyer Komm_. (1882). MACFADYEN, J. F., _Through the Eternal Spirit_ (1925). MACNEILL, _The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1914). MENEGOZ, E., _Lamentations:Theologie de l'epitre aux Hebreaux_ (1894). MILLIGAN, G., _The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). MOFFATT JAMES, _Int. and Cosit. Comm_. (1924) MOULE, H. C., _Messages from the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1909). MURRAY, ANDREW, _Devotional Commentary_. NAIRNE, A., _The Epistle of Priesthood_ (1913). NAIRNE, A., _The Alexandrian Gospel_ (1917). PEAKE, A. S., _New Century Bible_ (1904). PORTER, S. J., _The Twelve-Gemmed Crown_ (1913). RENDALL, F., _The Theology of the Hebrew Christians_ (1886). RIGGENBACH, M., _Zoeckler Komm_. 2 Aufl. (1913). ROTHERHAM, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1906). SAPHIR, A., _Exposition of Hebrews_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1922). SEEBERG, A., _Der Brief an die Hebraer_ (1912). SLOT, _Deuteronomy:Letterkundige Vorm van den Brief aan de Hebraer (1912). SODEN, VON, _Hand-Comm_. (1899). THOLUCK, A., _Komm. zum Briefe an die Hebraer_. VAUGHAN, C. J., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WADE, _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1923). WEISS, B., _Meyer-Komm_. 6 Aufl. (1902). WEISS, B., _Der Hebraerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Bekuch- tung_ (1910). WELCH, _Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ (1899). WESTCOTT, B. F., _Epistle to the Hebrews_ (3rd ed. 1906). WICKHAM, E. C., _Westminster Comm_. (1910). WINDISCH, H., _Handbuch zum N.T_. (1913). WREDE, W., _Das literarisches Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs_ (1906). strkjv@Hebrews:1:1 @{God} (\ho theos\). This Epistle begins like Genesis and the Fourth Gospel with God, who is the Author of the old revelation in the prophets and of the new in his Son. Verses 1-3| are a _proemium_ (Delitzsch) or introduction to the whole Epistle. The periodic structure of the sentence (1-4|) reminds one of strkjv@Luke:1:1-4, strkjv@Romans:1:1-7, strkjv@1John:1:1-4|. The sentence could have concluded with \en huii\ in verse 2|, but by means of three relatives (\hon, di' hou, hos\) the author presents the Son as "the exact counterpart of God" (Moffatt). {Of old time} (\palai\). "Long ago" as in strkjv@Matthew:11:21|. {Having spoken} (\lalsas\). First aorist active participle of \lale\, originally chattering of birds, then used of the highest form of speech as here. {Unto the fathers} (\tois patrasin\). Dative case. The Old Testament worthies in general without "our" or "your" as in strkjv@John:6:58; strkjv@7:22; strkjv@Romans:9:5|. {In the prophets} (\en tois prophtais\). As the quickening power of their life (Westcott). strkjv@Songs:4:7|. {By divers portions} (\polumers\). "In many portions." Adverb from late adjective \polumers\ (in papyri), both in _Vettius Valens_, here only in N.T., but in Wisdom strkjv@7:22 and Josephus (_Ant_. VIII, 3, 9). The Old Testament revelation came at different times and in various stages, a progressive revelation of God to men. {In divers manners} (\polutrops\). "In many ways." Adverb from old adjective \polutropos\, in Philo, only here in N.T. The two adverbs together are "a sonorous hendiadys for 'variously'" (Moffatt) as Chrysostom (\diaphors\). God spoke by dream, by direct voice, by signs, in different ways to different men (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.).

rwp@John:4:1 @{When therefore} (\Hs oun\). Reference to strkjv@3:22f|. the work of the Baptist and the jealousy of his disciples. \Oun\ is very common in John's Gospel in such transitions. {The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). Songs:the best manuscripts (Neutral Alexandrian), though the Western class has \ho Isous\. Mark usually has \ho Isous\ and Luke often \ho Kurios\. In the narrative portion of John we have usually \ho Isous\, but \ho Kurios\ in five passages (4:1; strkjv@6:23; strkjv@11:2; strkjv@20:20; strkjv@21:12|). There is no reason why John should not apply \ho Kurios\ to Jesus in the narrative sections as well as Luke. Bernard argues that these are "explanatory glosses," not in the first draft of the Gospel. But why? When John wrote his Gospel he certainly held Jesus to be \Kurios\ (Lord) as Luke did earlier when he wrote both Gospel and Acts This is hypercriticism. {Knew} (\egn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. The Pharisees knew this obvious fact. It was easy for Jesus to know the attitude of the Pharisees about it (2:24|). Already the Pharisees are suspicious of Jesus. {How that} (\hoti\). Declarative \hoti\ (indirect assertion). {Was making and baptizing more disciples than John} (\pleionas mathtas poiei kai baptizei Ians\). Present active indicative in both verbs retained in indirect discourse. Recall the tremendous success of John's early ministry (Mark:1:5; strkjv@Matthew:3:5; strkjv@Luke:3:7,15|) in order to see the significance of this statement that Jesus had forged ahead of him in popular favour. Already the Pharisees had turned violently against John who had called them broods of vipers. It is most likely that they drew John out about the marriage of Herod Antipas and got him involved directly with the tetrarch so as to have him cast into prison (Luke:3:19f.|). Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. v. 2) gives a public reason for this act of Herod Antipas, the fear that John would "raise a rebellion," probably the public reason for his private vengeance as given by Luke. Apparently John was cast into prison, though recently still free (John:3:24|), before Jesus left for Galilee. The Pharisees, with John out of the way, turn to Jesus with envy and hate.

rwp@John:9:4 @{We must work the works of him that sent me} (\hmas dei ergazesthai ta erga tou pempsantos me\). This is undoubtedly the correct text (supported by the Neutral and Western classes) and not \eme\ (I) and \me\ (me) of the Syrian class nor \hmas\ (we) and \hmas\ (us) of the Alexandrian class. Jesus associates us with him in the task committed to him by the Father. Bernard argues vigorously, but vainly, for \eme\ me. We are not able to fathom the depth of the necessity (\dei\) here involved in each life as in this poor blind man and in each of us. {While it is day} (\hes hmera estin\). This clause gives the note of urgency upon us all. {The night cometh} (\erchetai nux\). "Night is coming on," and rapidly. Night was coming for Jesus (7:33|) and for each of us. Cf. strkjv@11:9; strkjv@12:35|. Even electric lights do not turn night into day. \Hes\ with the present indicative (21:22f.|) means "while," not until as in strkjv@13:38|.

rwp@Mark:1:2 @{In Isaiah, the prophet} (\en ti Esaii ti prophti\). The quotation comes from strkjv@Malachi:3:1| and strkjv@Isaiah:40:3|. The Western and Neutral classes read Isaiah, the Alexandrian and Syrian, "the prophets," an evident correction because part of it is from Malachi. But Isaiah is mentioned as the chief of the prophets. It was common to combine quotations from the prophets in _testimonia_ and _catenae_ (chains of quotations). This is Mark's only prophetic quotation on his own account (Bruce).

rwp@Revelation:13:16 @{He causeth all} (same use of \poie\ as in 12,15|). Note article here with each class (the small and the great, etc.). {That there be given them} (\hina dsin autois\). Same use of \hina\ after \poie\ as in 12,15|, only here with indefinite plural \dsin\ (second aorist active subjunctive), "that they give themselves," as in strkjv@10:11; strkjv@12:6; strkjv@16:15|. {A mark} (\charagma\). Old word from \charass\, to engrave, in strkjv@Acts:17:29| of idolatrous images, but in Rev. (Revelation:13:16,17; strkjv@14:9,11; strkjv@16:2; strkjv@19:20; strkjv@20:4|) of the brand of the beast on the right hand or on the forehead or on both. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 240ff.) shows that in the papyri official business documents often have the name and image of the emperor, with the date as the official stamp or seal and with \charagma\ as the name of this seal. Animals and slaves were often branded with the owner's name, as Paul (Galatians:6:17|) bore the stigmata of Christ. Ptolemy Philadelphus compelled some Alexandrian Jews to receive the mark of Dionysus as his devotees (III Macc. strkjv@3:29). The servants of God receive on their foreheads the stamp of the divine seal (Revelation:7:3|). Charles is certain that John gets his metaphor from the \tephillin\ (phylacteries) which the Jew wore on his left hand and on his forehead. At any rate, this "mark of the beast" was necessary for life and all social and business relations. On the right hand, that is in plain sight. {Upon their forehead} (\epi to metpon autn\). Accusative with \epi\, though genitive just before with \cheiros\ (hand). See already strkjv@7:3; strkjv@9:4| (genitive \epi tn metpn\). Only in the Apocalypse in N.T.

rwp@Romans:3:13 @{Throat} (\larugx\). Old word, larynx. {Open sepulchre} (\taphos aneigmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \anoig\, "an opened grave." Their mouth (words) like the odour of a newly opened grave. "Some portions of Greek and Roman literature stink like a newly opened grave" (Shedd). {They have used deceit} (\edoliousan\). Imperfect (not perfect or aorist as the English implies) active of \dolio\, only in LXX and here in the N.T. from the common adjective \dolios\, deceitful (2Corinthians:11:13|). The regular form would be \edolioun\. The \-osan\ ending for third plural in imperfect and aorist was once thought to be purely Alexandrian because so common in the LXX, but it is common in the Boeotian and Aeolic dialects and occurs in \eichosan\ in the N.T. (John:15:22,24|). "They smoothed their tongues" in the Hebrew. {Poison} (\ios\). Old word both for rust (James:5:3|) and poison (James:3:8|). {Of asps} (\aspidn\). Common word for round bowl, shield, then the Egyptian cobra (a deadly serpent). Often in LXX. Only here in the N.T. The poison of the asp lies in a bag under the lips (\cheil\), often in LXX, only here in N.T. Genitive case after \gemei\ (is full).