Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp stupidity:

rwp@1John:5:7 @{For there are three who bear witness} (\hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes\). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: \en ti ourani ho patr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en ti gi\ (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8|. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.

rwp@John:9:18 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). Probably the incredulous and hostile section of the Pharisees in verse 16| (cf. strkjv@5:10|). {Did not believe} (\ouk episteusan\). The facts told by the man, "that he had been blind and had received his sight" (\hoti n tuphlos kai aneblepsen\), conflicted with their theological views of God and the Sabbath. Songs:they refused belief "until they called the parents" (\hes hotou ephnsan tous goneis\). Usual construction of \hes hotou\ ( = until which time, like \hes\ alone) with aorist active indicative of \phne\, old verb from \phn\ (voice, sound). They called out loud for his parents to throw light on this grave problem to cover up their own stupidity.

rwp@Mark:7:18 @{Are ye so without understanding also?} (\Houts kai humeis asunetoi este;\). See on ¯Matthew:15:16|. You also as well as the multitude. It was a discouraging moment for the great Teacher if his own chosen pupils (disciples) were still under the spell of the Pharisaic theological outlook. It was a riddle to them. "They had been trained in Judaism, in which the distinction between clean and unclean is ingrained, and could not understand a statement abrogating this" (Gould). They had noticed that the Pharisees stumbled at the parable of Jesus (Matthew:15:12|). They were stumbling themselves and did not know how to answer the Pharisees. Jesus charges the disciples with intellectual dulness and spiritual stupidity.

rwp@Mark:9:6 @{For he wist not what to answer} (\ou gar idei ti apokrithi\). Deliberative subjunctive retained in indirect question. But why did Peter say anything? Luke says that he spoke, "not knowing what he said," as an excuse for the inappropriateness of his remarks. Perhaps Peter felt embarrassed at having been asleep (Luke:9:32|) and the feast of tabernacles or booths (\sknai\) was near. See on ¯Matthew:17:4|. Peter and the others apparently had not heard the talk of Moses and Elijah with Jesus about his decease (\exodon\, exodus, departure) and little knew the special comfort that Jesus had found in this understanding of the great approaching tragedy concerning which Peter had shown absolute stupidity (Mark:8:32f.|) so recently. See on ¯Matthew:17:5| about the overshadowing and the voice.

rwp@Matthew:23:17 @{Ye fools} (\mroi\). In strkjv@5:22| Jesus had warned against calling a man \mros\ in a rage, but here he so terms the blind Pharisees for their stupidity, description of the class. "It shows that not the word but the spirit in which it is uttered is what matters" (McNeile).