Biblical Greek

Mark 7:19

/ Fr. Thomas Sandberg / Leave a comment

7:19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλ̓ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα.

καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα. This is an interesting example of how the difference in grammatical gender can cause a different understanding and much confusion. In the Byzantine Text as seen in the Patriarchal Text above, καθαρίζον is present active participle nominative neuter singular of καθαρίζω, and due to it being neuter, we get the understanding of “purging/cleansing all foods” and is apart of what Jesus is explaining to the disciples. However, the non-Byzantine reading (I have seen it in the Alexandrian and Caesarian Text-types, which is not difficult to find) is καθαρίζων, being masculine rather than neuter, and thus referring back to Jesus in verse 18 (which begins, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς·) and leads to the understanding that the words are not a part of what Jesus is explaining, but rather a comment by St. Mark, namely that Jesus in explaining the parable is “cleansing all foods” (the participle is present tense); and this is the reading Origen, St. Gregory The Wonder-Worker, and St. John Chrysostom have, καθαρίζων.

The Patristic witness leads me to conclude two textual options: 1. The Byzantine text has the wrong reading here, and it should be the masculine, or 2. The Byzantine text has the original reading here, and the Text that Origen and St. Gregory used had been corrupted. A problem that comes to mind is that if St. Chrysostom used the Byzantine Text (as most people say), then why does his Byzantine Text read καθαρίζων and our current Byzantine Text(s) read καθαρίζον? I need to find time to look through von Soden’s manuscripts (K, Kx, Kr etc.) to see the texts for myself to go further here; at any rate, the UBS5 apparatus does inform us that the Byzantine Text is divided on this reading whereas Byz2005 doesn’t (my Byz2018 is in a box in another Province, so I cannot check it at the moment). But also we could think of the wording as constructio ad sensum, which is what David Bentley Hart (who translated from the Critical Text, thus καθαρίζων) appears to have done: “purging away everything that has been eaten?” (UBS5 has a Greek question mark at the end, as Hart translated.)

A few words about how we see this played out in Orthodox translations. First, we ignore The Orthodox Study Bible here because its New Testament is unfortunately translated from the Textus Receptus. Secondly, The Holy Apostles Convent Evangelistarion mistranslated this passage; they translated from the Patriarchal Text thus: this He said making all the foods clean. We read in the notes that the translator arrived at this translation probably under the influence of Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament or A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament and from misidentifying the neuter καθαρίζον for the masculine καθαρίζων. However, the translator does support their translation by appealing to St. John Chrysostom (as discussed above). And finally, the EOB New Testament has both readings, but the translator put the correct reading—καθαρίζον, according to the Greek of the Patriarchal Text—in the footnote, “thus purging all foods” and added a question mark in the main text, as found in the Critical Text(s).

Footnotes can be found here.

Hermann Freiherr von Soden’s Greek New Testament

/ Fr. Thomas Sandberg / Leave a comment

On page ix in The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, we read thus “The primary source for establishing the readings of the Byzantine Textform remains the massive apparatus of Hermann Freiherr von Soden…” and are given the following footnote: “Hermann Freiherr von Soden, Die Schriften Des Neuen Testament in Ihrer Ältesten Erreichbaren Textgestalt, 2 vols. in 4 parts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911).”

There are three places I found this text. Two places on the internet and the third in Logos (pre-pub?). They can be found below, and if anyone knows where I can obtain a physical copy please contact me.

Internet Archive:
Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte (Vol. 1, Pt. 1)

Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte (Vol. 1, Pt. 2)

Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte (Vol. 1, Pt. 3)

Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte (Vol. 2)

CSNTM:
Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, vol. 1

Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, vol. 2

Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, vol. 3

Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, vol. 4

Logos:
Von Soden Greek New Testament (4 vols.)

Learning Koine Greek With Exegetical Tools

/ Fr. Thomas Sandberg / Leave a comment

A. Greek Primer

B. Basic Greek Videos – (Greek 1 &2) – these videos do not cover everything in the Primer, and some videos aren’t listed here either, such as the one for the Aorist Passive Indicative

C. Basic Greek for the Week E-Mail

D. 5 Free Advanced Greek Lessons

E. Greek Reading Videos (Greek 3 & 4) – Advanced

*******

Learning Greek Vocab: learn every Greek word that occurs 10x or more in the NT by studying for 20 minutes a day for about half a year.

July 20, 2015 – Keep Your Greek: Choose the Right Bible

August 5, 2015 – Keep Your Greek: Don’t Lose Your Vocabulary

August 16, 2015 – Keep Your Greek: Taking Greek Electives

October 8, 2015 – Keep Your Greek: Reading Greek Devotionally

January 15, 2017 – Keep Your Greek: Get the Best Resources

Review: James: A Commentary on the Greek Text

/ Fr. Thomas Sandberg / Leave a comment

James: A Commentary on the Greek Text James: A Commentary on the Greek Text by William Varner

My Goodreads rating: 2 of 5 stars (2 stars on Goodreads = “it was ok”)
My Amazon.ca rating: 3 of 5 stars (3 stars on Amazon.ca = “It’s okay”)

“James: A Commentary on the Greek Text.” By William C. Varner. Fontes Press, 2017, 423 pp. ISBN: 1-948048-01-9, $22.90 on Amazon.ca.

There were many reasons why I wanted to read and review this book. Obviously, those that know me know that I’ve become a nerd over Ancient Greek. That is one reason. The other is that among Orthodox Christians—and ironically among Greek Orthodox Christians—the Biblical, Patristic, and original Liturgical languages are given very little thought. In fact, when they are it is in order to move away from them toward the vernacular or something similar; and so anything written about Greek interests me immensely.

The reasons for the general lack of interest in original languages are tied to our rich Orthodox history of bringing the Scriptures and Liturgy to the people in their own native tongue. Also, we don’t subscribe to verbal plenary inspiration—which is also why textual criticism is almost non-existent within and among us Orthodox. Well, that and the Orthodox φρόνημα and Tradition contain views such as Origen’s that all the variants were/are inspired, and the idea of the great Slavophile lay-theologian Aleksei Khomyakov’s that everything the (Orthodox) Church writes is Scripture.

One of the difficulties in reviewing a book by a non-Orthodox author is that it must be taken on its own merits and not measured against an Orthodox standard to which it was never written to be measured against, or as I believe Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick wrote somewhere: the Orthodox Church doesn’t theologize outside of Her bounds. With that in mind I proceed, and for those reading this, I am attempting to write from the stance of an Orthodox Christian who loves Greek writing to other Orthodox Christians who love Greek too.

William Varner’s James: A Commentary on the Greek Text is a serious piece of work; he subscribes to Porter’s view on “verbal aspect,” and in his recent appearance on Exegetical Tools, he says it is intended for those who are at least second-year Greek students. At 442 pages, it is much, much longer than the actual text it is commentating on, which can be to its detriment. It is easy to lose track of the verse in question and end up deep in a textual discussion related only to a section (or just one word) of the verse being commented upon. For comparison, The Epistle of Saint James: A Commentary by Archbishop Dimitri Royster (whose relics have been found to be incorrupt, but not officially declared as such) is 152 pages in length.

On page xv, we are told that it is a reworking of an earlier book, and while reading this book, it came to my attention that Evangelical academia has had a few issues with plagiarism as of late. And it was via the Facebook Nerdy Language Majors group that I discovered that unfortunately Varner’s original book of which this is a reworking of was one of them. I am not in any level of academia to be saying anything about those issues, but as a student myself plagiarism is always something on my mind and even more so now when I can see that even at the highest level it can occur, at least hopefully, accidentally. I didn’t want to mention this topic, but there were at least two areas in the present work where proper attestation was probably accidentally missed. A footnote appears to be missing sourcing Metzger’s Commentary on verse 1:19, and on page 325 a footnote sourcing Patrick J. Hartin’s commentary on James in the Sacra Pagina series appears to be missing.

Not a missing citations per se, but rather that there possibly should be citations; to clarify my point: on pp. 99-100, when I read that I thought I had read it before, and to me, it appears to come nearly verbatim from Metzger.

Varner:

“Instead of the abrupt Ἴστε opening 1:19, the Byzantine family of manuscripts and the Textus Receptus connect the following ἔστω δὲ (dropping δὲ) more closely with 1:18 by substituting ὥστε, which is supported by a variety of later witnesses (Κ Π Ψ 614 Byz syrp). The reading adopted as the text, however, is strongly supported by both Alexandrian and Western witnesses (אc B C 81 1739 it vg).”

Metzger:

“Instead of reading the abrupt ἴστε, the Textus Receptus connects the following ἔστω (dropping δέ) more closely with ver. 18 by substituting ὥστε, in company with a variety of later witnesses (K P2 Ψ 614 Byz syrp, h al). The reading adopted as the text is strongly supported by both Alexandrian and Western witnesses (ℵc B C (81) 1739 itff vg al).”

Same with p. 325,

Varner:

“This expression of dependence on the Lord is known as the “Jacobean condition” (conditio Jacobaea). Such a sentiment is not absent from secular authors. Probably the most characteristic example is found in the following exchange: “‘If you wish, Socrates.’ ‘That is not well said, Alcibiades.’ ‘Well, what should I say?’ ‘If God wills’ [ἐὰν βούλῃ σύ, ὦ Σώκρατες. οὐ καλῶς λέγεις, ὦ Ἁλκιβίαδη. ἀλλὰ πῶς χρὴ λέγειν; ὅτι ἐὰν θεὸς ἐθέλῃ]” (Plato, Alc. 1.135d). The attitude that it expresses, however, is thoroughly widespread among NT characters and authors.”

Hartin:

“The expression “If the Lord wishes” has been called the “conditio Jacobaea.” However, the phrase was not coined by James, as there is ample evidence to show it was a common expression in the Greco-Roman world (“deo volente”): e.g., Plato’s Dialogue, Alcibiades I, contains an interesting exchange:

Socrates: And do you know how to escape out of your present state …?
Alcibiades: Yes, I do.
Socrates: How?
Alcibiades: By your help, Socrates.
Socrates: That is not well said, Alcibiades.
Alcibiades: What ought I to have said?
Socrates: By the help of God.
Alcibiades: I agree … (Plato, Alc. 1:135d [Jowett]; see also Plato, Phaed. 80d).

A similar thought and expression are found in other New Testament writings: e.g., “But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills …” (1 Cor 4:19; see also 1 Cor 16:7; Acts 18:21; Heb 6:3). This shows that James is using a popular phrase from the culture of his world, be it Hellenistic or Christian.”

(Patrick J. Hartin, James, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 14, Sacra Pagina Series (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 225.)

Could be a forgotten citation, could be different researchers independently arriving at the same conclusions, could be plagiarism. I don’t know, I just know that to me they appear too similar and make me more cautious with my own writing.

To be fair, typing those sections into Grammarly and turning on plagiarism detection yields nothing, and Metzger’s Commentary is listed in the Bibliography; however, Hartin’s Sacra Pagina volume is not, but other writings of his are.

Again, staying away from critiquing theological issues, it is pertinent to note that this book takes positions on St. James and the Theotokos which are incompatible with Orthodox Christianity. However, a point that is of concern for Orthodox Christians that I will comment on is Varner’s view that the Majority Text and the Byzantine Text are “basically synonymous.” I would say that he is basically correct, but that at higher levels of Greek scholarship the distinction between the Byzantine and Majority Texts should be stated and that they should be referred to as separate (a mistake even The Center for the Study and Preservation of the Majority Text makes, in my opinion). I maintain this view despite what the editors of The Orthodox Study Bible with its NKJV English and Majority Text Greek say.

Furthermore, it is disappointing that the Robinson-Pierpont 2005 Byzantine Textform, the Hodges-Farstad 1985 Majority Text, the Patriarchal Text of 1904/1912 are not mentioned in the Bibliography. So one can only assume when Varner refers to the Byzantine and Majority Texts he is referring to 𝔐 as found in NA27, which follows the change NA26 made from NA25, as NA28 (at least in the Catholic Epistles) has brought back a wider variety of symbols regarding the Byzantine and Majority Texts. (It must be noted that as I write this I am in Niverville, Manitoba and I only have with me NA26 and NA28; my copies of NA25 and NA27 are in Toronto, Ontario in my dorm room. I will be back in Toronto on Saturday to correct any mistakes I may have made regarding these symbols and to what they are referring.) Tangent to this is that many times his preference for the Alexandrian Text comes through at the expense of assuming certain things about Byzantine scribal practices as well as their knowledge of Greek grammar and syntax (pp. 273 & 306).

What is great about this book, for me, is that he utilizes the THGNT, he mentions the Orthodox order of the Catholic Epistles in the Πραξαπόστολος on p. 34 (which ironically all printed Orthodox Bibles I’ve seen in Koine Greek, Katharevousa, Modern Greek, and English no longer follow), refers to oral recitation (pp. 106, 318, 324), refers to the ancient pronunciation (p. 225) in a manner Orthodox would agree with, and throughout the whole commentary he makes numerous references to Homer, Plato, Aristotle, the LXX (however, contrary to pp. 379-380, 2 Maccabees is cononical, at least in Orthodox Christianity), Philo, Josephus, the Apostolic Fathers, Epictetus, and St. Bede. For these reasons, I would recommend all second-year Greek students who are genuine Koine Greek nerds buy this book, and I would add further that I truly feel this book would be much better as a book in Accordance or Verbum/Logos/Noet, it would open up a lot of the references for more in-depth personal study.

But I must close by relaying that by far my biggest problem with the book is pretty much the same problem I have with modern Koine Greek pedagogy in general. The book relies far too much on English translations of Greek texts for discussion of Greek grammar and syntax and that there is a plethora of quotes from Greek sources are given in translation. In a book titled as a commentary on the Greek text of James, I would expect there would be almost zero English translation. But the fact that English far outweighs the Greek in this book leads me to conclude that this book is better thought of as a commentary on the Epistle of St. James with reference to Greek, rather than as a commentary on the Greek text itself.

Disclaimer: Thanks to Todd Scacewater and Fontes Press for this opportunity and for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence the thoughts and opinions expressed in my review.

View all my reviews

 

On Mastering Diachronic Greek: Three Recent Items of Interest

/ Fr. Thomas Sandberg / Leave a comment

As someone who has become convinced that to even attempt mastery of any period of the Greek language, one must also study the period before and after, I have been following the recent discussion on the internet about Koine Greek closely. I obviously do not agree with any of the one articles totally, but at least there is a dialogue happening.

For the above reason, I figured I would post the links here, just in case any current readers are unaware of them, and for future readers to check them out. To elaborate on what I wrote above, I’m convinced that the best path of Greek study for Orthodox Christians is found below, and using the pronunciation that Greeks use—since it is their language and all (imagine if Western scholars told Native Americans how to pronounce Cree?).

Mycenaean Greek
↓
Homeric
↓
Attic
↓
Koine
↓
Medieval
↓
Romaic
↓
Katharevousa↔Demotic∴Neohellenic

Four Reasons to Master Koine (and to Leave Attic Alone)

Dethroning Grammar for Mastering Greek: A Rejoinder

On Mastering Koine Greek: A Response to Bohlinger and Nguyen

How to Read Greek (and What to Read)

/ Fr. Thomas Sandberg / Leave a comment

A funny thing is that Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics who actually know some Greek (as opposed to the “codebreaker types within those religions) answer the question of how to improve one’s Greek with something along the lines of “Read, read, read; and then read some more.”

The Greek Orthodox Church in North America, on the other hand, will teach Neohellenic Greek in their Greek schools (to be fair, I’ve found three Greek parishes in all of North America that teach “New Testament Greek”) to keep the culture alive while the Orthodox Church in Greece commends ignorance of Koine as “Koine has contributed to the “mystery” of the liturgy” The Fathers of the Church would be livid, as anyone familiar with St. Basil can assure you.

Lets us of the Greek Orthodox tradition remember that all Greek—from Homeric to Attic to Hellenistic/Koine to Medæval/Byzantine to Katharevousa to Demotic to Neohellenic—are all very much and absolutely an inextricable part of our Modern Hellenic culture, but more importantly, a part of our Eastern Roman religious heritage.

With that said, here are some suggestions on how to improve one’s Greek that I’ve found helpful and of which I implement:

9 October 2012 – N.T. Wright on learning Greek, and a review of A Reader’s Hebrew and Greek Bible by Zondervan

24 November 2012 – Do You Need to Speak Greek in Order to Read it?

1853? – The Greek of Homer a Living Language

11 December 2013 – Daily Greek Reading Setup

5 August 2015 – Keep Your Greek: Don’t Lose Your Vocabulary

17 September 2015 – 5 Ways to Improve Your Greek Speaking Skills

27 June 2017 – A Strategic Approach to Reading Background Texts of the New Testament (tangent to this is Increase Your Brain Power with Classics)

4 July 2017 – This Is Why You Should Study the Apocrypha Alongside the New Testament

6 July 2017 – Practice Greek Like a Master Violinist

Reading in 3s

/ Fr. Thomas Sandberg / Leave a comment

This is excellent advice, and after reading this, I suggest reading this from The Patrologist as well. The comments especially, where it is asked of him, “Having finished elementary Greek, would you suggest any particular Greek grammars/authors? Just start reading Greek? Where should I begin in moving out to classical Greek?” To which he responds with,

“I’d say just get on with reading a lot of Greek, as much as possible. If you’ve finished elementary (NT) Greek, then start working at reading the New Testament, as much as possible. Start easy – John, Mark, and get to harder texts later. Try out Reading in Threes (https://thepatrologist.com/2017/05/22/reading-in-3s/). Then branch out to the Apostolic Fathers, they are a good bridge out of New Testament Greek.

At some point, depending on your goals, it’s worth branching into some Classical. In terms of texts, anything on Geoffrey Steadman’s site (geoffreysteadman.com) is great. A grammar is not a terrible idea, but for now I’d just say read, read, read.”

 

The Patrologist

This was mentioned to me by a student recently in a small group class that I am kind-of mentoring, and I think it’s worth adapting and sharing. The original idea, or at least where the student got it from, is Daniel Wallace, here. It’s the idea that you should translate each chapter of the New Testament three times, and rotate chapters in and out of rotation.

Now, I don’t really think you should be translating, I think you should be reading passages at a level you can comprehend with just a little bit of help. But I do think this idea has a lot of merit. Here’s how I’m implementing it in my own readings: the rule of 3s (see also Where Are Your Keys technique: Three Times)

So, say I’m reading a text, like Ørberg’s Roma Aeterna (which I happen to be. Everyone raves about the first book, Familia…

View original post 278 more words

Review: Greek for Life: Strategies for Learning, Retaining, and Reviving New Testament Greek

/ Fr. Thomas Sandberg / Leave a comment

Greek for Life: Strategies for Learning, Retaining, and Reviving New Testament GreekGreek for Life: Strategies for Learning, Retaining, and Reviving New Testament Greek by Benjamin L Merkle

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is an excellent book to own for those who are either beginning their journey in Greek, have completed formal Greek schooling, and even for those who have lost what they once knew. For those who don’t know, one of the authors is Dr. Robert Plummer, the man behind The Daily Dose of Greek (which I suggest highly (except for the Erasmian pronunciation)).

Full of ideas, strategies, and anecdotes, one can’t help but be encouraged in one’s quest for Koine Greek acquisition. The book also has little boxed-quotes scattered along the text, and though these are Protestants, as far as what is quoted is related to the Greek texts of Scripture, the quotes are great and if anything that is said should make those Orthodox who decry the study of original languages blush with embarrassment.

I reccomend this book to all who thirst for the words of God and wish to meet them face-to-face rather than via “kissing the bride through a veil,” as I read recently; and especially for those few Orthodox Christians who love Koine Greek. The Church in modern times has placed such an emphasis on the vernacular. At the same time instead of translating from the Orthodox Greek New Testament into the speech of the people, we’ve been using Protestant English translations. Translated from the non-Orthodox critical text(s) of the Greek New Testament and Jewish Old Testament (the Orthodox Old Testament, for all Orthodox, is the Greek LXX, not the Jewish religion’s Hebrew text), these are inappropriate for Orthodox Christians.

I’ll conclude this review in two ways:

1.) For all: if you fall into any of the categories above, get this book.

2.) For Orthodox Christians: Keep in mind Question 1 from the “Confession of Dositheus” (Synod of Jerusalem, 1672), “Ought the Divine Scriptures to be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians? No. For that all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16} we know, and is of such necessity, that without the same it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and in fine read. But to such as are not so exercised, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, as knowing by experience the mischief arising therefrom, forbiddeth the reading of the same. So that it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear indeed the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation; {Romans 10:10} but to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for the aforesaid reasons and others of the like sort. For it is the same thing thus to prohibit persons not exercised thereto reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.” Keeping the aforementioned in mind, now recall Josephus’ struggle, “…I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations….” (Antiquities of the Jews 20,11.2). Unfortunately, our “nation” doesn’t as well.

View all my reviews

Greek Passage Guide Lessons

/ Fr. Thomas Sandberg / Leave a comment

[I am truly sorry for the Erasmian pronunciations, but the good these people provide via the rest of their work outweighs the bad they do with their various North American Anglo-centric un-Greek Erasmian pronunciations.]


LXX


ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ

1:1-3 – 1:4-5 – 1:6-8 – 1:9-10 – 1:11-12 – 1:13-15 – 1:16-19 – 1:20-21 – 1:22-23 – 1:24-25 – 1:24-25 – 1:26-27 – 1: 28 – 1:29-30 – 1:31 – [Unfortunately, that is all LPD is doing for now.] – [in 1 Clement 4:1-4:6 St. Clement of Rome quotes Genesis 4:3-8] 4:3-4a – 4:4b-5a – 4:5b-7a – 4:7b-8 – 

ΖΑΧΑΡΙΑΣ

3:2



Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ


ΜΑΡΚΟΝ

14:6 – 14:7 – 14:8 – 14:9 – 14:10 – 14:11 – 14:12 – 14:13 – 14:14 – 14:15 – 14:16 – 14:17 – 14:8 – 14:19 – 14:20 – 14:21 – 14:22 – 14:23 – 14:24 (In the video here for 14:24 Dr. Plummer mentions Jeremiah 31:31, which is the Jewish Masoretic Text (sometimes listed as 31:30). The older Christian Greek Text is Ieremias 38:31.) – 14:25 – 14:26 – 14:27 (In the video here Dr. Plummer mentions Zachariah 13:7; I believe here St. Mark quotes, in Greek, Jesus quoting from the Jewish proto-Masoretic Text, as the LXX of Zacharias 13:7 reads slightly different.) – 14:28 – 14:29 – 14:30 – 14:31 – 14:32 – 14:33 – 14:34 – 14:35 – 14:36 – 14:37 – 14:38 – 14:39 – 14:40 – 14:41 (Apollonios Dyskolos) – 14:42 – 14:43 – 14:44 – 14:45 – 14:46 – 14:47 – 14:48 – 14:49 (Zerwick’s Biblical Greek & diachronic Greek) – 14:50 – 14:51 – 14:52 – 14:53 – 14:54 – 14:55 – 14:56 – 14:57 – 14:58 – 14:59 – 14:60 – 14:61 – 14:62 – 14:63 – 14:64 – 14:65 – 14:66 – 14:67 – 14:68 – 14:69 – 14:70 – 14:71 – 14:72 – 15:1 – 15:2 – 15:3 – 15:4 – 15:5 – 15:6 – 15:7 – 15:8 – 15:9 – 15:10 – 15:11 – 5:12 – 5:13 – 15:14 – 15:15 – 15:16 – 15:17 – 15:18 – 15:19 – 15:20 – 15:21 – 

 

PHILIPPIANS

1:1 (In the video here, “Baptist-type” Dr. Varner is incorrect, as the 2000 year witness of the Greek Orthodox Church testifies that the correct understanding here is with the English words “bishops” and “deacons;” this is even attested by Presbyterian minister Marvin R. Vincent:

Bishops (ἐπισκόποις). Lit., overseers. See on visitation, 1 Peter 2:12. The word was originally a secular title, designating commissioners appointed to regulate a newly-acquired territory or a colony. It was also applied to magistrates who regulated the sale of provisions under the Romans. In the Septuagint it signifies inspectors, superintendents, taskmasters, see 2 Kings 11:19; 2 Chronicles 34:12, 17; or captains, presidents, Nehemiah 11:9, 14, 22. In the apostolic writings it is synonymous with presbyter or elder; and no official distinction of the episcopate as a distinct order of the ministry is recognized. Rev. has overseers in margin.

Deacons (διακόνοις). The word means servant, and is a general term covering both slaves and hired servants. It is thus distinct from δοῦλος bond-servant. It represents a servant, not in his relation, but in his activity. In the epistles it is often used specifically for a minister of the Gospel, 1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Ephesians 3:7. Here it refers to a distinct class of officers in the apostolic church. The origin of this office is recorded Acts 6:1–6. It grew out of a complaint of the Hellenistic or Graeco-Jewish members of the Church, that their widows were neglected in the daily distribution of food and alms. The Palestinian Jews prided themselves on their pure nationality and looked upon the Greek Jews as their inferiors. Seven men were chosen to superintend this matter, and generally to care for the bodily wants of the poor. Their function was described by the phrase to serve tables, Acts 6:2, and their appointment left the apostles free to devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. The men selected for the office are supposed to have been Hellenists, from the fact that all their names are Greek, and one is especially described as a proselyte, Acts 6:5; but this cannot be positively asserted, since it was not uncommon for Jews to assume Greek names. See on Romans 16:5. The work of the deacons was, primarily, the relief of the sick and poor; but spiritual ministrations naturally developed in connection with their office. The latter are referred to by the term helps, 1 Corinthians 12:28. Stephen and Philip especially appear in this capacity, Acts 8:5–40; 6:8–11. Such may also be the meaning of ministering, Romans 12:7. Hence men of faith, piety, and sound judgment were recommended for the office by the apostles, Acts 6:3; 1 Timothy 3:8–13. Women were also chosen as deaconesses, and Phoebe, the bearer of the epistle to the Romans, is commonly supposed to have been one of these. See on Romans 16:1.

Ignatius says of deacons: “They are not ministers of food and drink, but servants (ὑπηρέται, See on Matthew 5:25) of the Church of God” (“Epistle to Tralles,” 2.). “Let all pay respect to the deacons as to Jesus Christ” (“Tralles,” 3.). “Respect the deacons as the voice of God enjoins you” (“Epistle to Smyrna,” 8.). In “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” the local churches or individual congregations are ruled by bishops and deacons. “Elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord; men meek and not lovers of money, and truthful and approved; for they too minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Therefore despise them not, for they are those that are the honored among you with the prophets and teachers” (15:1, 2). Deaconesses are not mentioned.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Accordance electronic ed. 4 vols.; 2004), paragraph 15298.

accord://read/Vincent-Word_Studies#15298

or from the great Greek grammarian and Southern Baptist A.T. Robertson:

With the bishops (sun episkopois). “Together with bishops,” thus singled out from “all the saints.” See Acts 20:17, 28 for the use of this most interesting word as equivalent to presbuteros (elder). It is an old word from episkeptomai, to look upon or after, to inspect, so the overseer or superintendent. In the second century episcopos (Ignatius) came to mean one superior to elders, but not so in the N.T. The two New Testament church officers are here mentioned (bishops or elders and deacons). The plural is here employed because there was usually one church in a city with several pastors (bishops, elders). And deacons (kai diakonois). Technical sense here of the other church officers as in 1 Tim. 3:8-13, not the general use as in Matt. 22:13. The origin of the office is probably seen in Acts 6:1-6. The term is often applied to preachers (1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6). The etymology (dia, konis) suggests raising a dust by hastening.

A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Accordance electronic ed. (Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2001), paragraph 5021.

accord://read/Word_Pictures#5021

or from the so-called “paleo-orthodox” Protestant compilation of Patristic comments, edited by United Methodist Thomas C. Owen:

WITH THEIR BISHOPS AND DEACONS. THEODORET: He applies the term bishops to presbyters, for at that time they had both names.6 … And it is clear that he makes this assumption here also. For he joins the deacons to the bishops, making no mention of the presbyters. Furthermore, it was not possible for many bishops to be shepherds to one city. So it is clear that he is calling the presbyters bishops; yet in this same letter he calls the blessed Epaphroditus their apostle,7 … and thus he indicates plainly that he was entrusted with an episcopal function because he had the name of an apostle. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 1.1–2.8

WHY HE ADDRESSES THE CLERGY IN PHILIPPI AND NOT ELSEWHERE. CHRYSOSTOM: Nowhere else does Paul write specifically to the clergy—not in Rome, in Corinth, in Ephesus or anywhere. Rather he typically writes jointly to all who are holy, faithful and beloved. But in this case he addresses specifically the bishops and deacons. Why? Because it was they who had borne fruit and they who had sent Epaphroditus to him. HOMILY ON PHILIPPIANS 2.1.1–2.9

M. J. Edwards and Thomas C. Oden, eds., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, ACCS 8; ICCS/Accordance electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 218.

accord://read/ACCS_Complete#149273

and to give more of the quote from St. Chrysostom:

“To the fellow-Bishops and Deacons.” What is this? were there several Bishops of one city? Certainly not; but he called the Presbyters so. For then they still interchanged the titles, and the Bishop was called a Deacon. For this cause in writing to Timothy, he said, “Fulfil thy ministry,” when he was a Bishop. For that he was a Bishop appears by his saying to him, “Lay hands hastily on no man.” (1 Tim. 5:22) And again, “Which was given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.” (1 Tim. 4:14) Yet Presbyters would not have laid hands on a Bishop. And again, in writing to Titus, he says, “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge. If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife” (Tit. 1:5, 6); which he says of the Bishop. And after saying this, he adds immediately, “For the Bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward, not self willed:” (Tit. 1:7) So then, as I said, both the Presbyters were of old called Bishops and Deacons of Christ, and the Bishops Presbyters; and hence even now many Bishops write, “To my fellow-Presbyter,” and, “To my fellow-Deacon.” But otherwise the specific name is distinctly appropriated to each, the Bishop and the Presbyter. “To the fellow-Bishops,” he says, “and Deacons,

Ver. 2. “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

How is it that though he nowhere else writes to the Clergy, not in Rome, nor in Corinth, nor in Ephesus, nor anywhere, but in general, to “all the saints, the believers, the beloved,” yet here he writes to the Clergy? Because it was they that sent, and bare fruit, and it was they that dispatched Epaphroditus to him.

accord://read/Chrysostom_Commentary#15280

as I said, in my opinion, Dr. Verner is mistaken here.) –

1 john

1:1 (see Wallace GGBB, pp. 239-240) – 2:2 (see “Expiation” Rather Than “Propitiation” by Fr. John Breck) –

ΙΟΥΔΑ

0:8-9 –


APOSTOLIC FATHERS


Clement of Rome, ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α’ (First Letter to the Corinthians)

1:0 – 1:1 – 1:1 (continued) – 1:2 – 1:2 (continued) – 1:3 – 1:3 (continued) – 2:1 – 2:1 (continued) – 2:2 – 2:3 – 2:4 – 2:5-6 – 2:7-8 – 3:1 – 3:2 – 3:3 – 3:4 – 4:1 – 4:2 – 4:3-4 – 4:5-6 –