Three publications of Papyrus Fouad 266b: The case of Deuteronomy 25:14-18 fragment /Τρεις δημοσιεύσεις του Παπύρου Φουάντ 266b: Η περίπτωση του σπαράγματος του Δευτερονομίου 25:14-18

1.

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,
Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society (1950),
pp./σσ. 12, 14.

Paul Kahle,
“A leather scroll of the Greek Minor Prophets
and the problem of the Septuagint”,
Opera Minora, Brill, 1956, p./σ. 116.

Paul Kahle,
“Problems of the Septuagint”,
Kurt Aland & F. L. Cross (eds.), Studia Patristica,
vol./τόμ. 1, 1957, p./σ. 339.

Alberto Vaccari,
“Papiro Fuad, Inv. 266. Analisi critica dei frammenti pubblicati in:
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures”,
Kurt Aland & F. L. Cross (eds.), Studia Patristica,
vol./τόμ. 1, 1957, p./σ. 339.

W. Baars,
“Papyrus Fouad Inv. No. 266”,
Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, Wageningen,
vol./τόμ. XIII, 1959, pp./σσ. 442-446.

Otto Eissfeldt,
The Old Testament An introduction,
Harper & Row 1966, p./σ. 706.

George Howard,
“The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy”,
Hebrew Union College Annual, Cincinnati,
vol./τόμ. 42, 1971, pp./σσ. 125-131.

Joseph Fitzmyer,
A wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic essays,
Scholars Press, 1979, p./σ. 137.

2.

Françoise Dunand,
“Papyrus Grecs Bibliques (Papyrus F. Inv. 266).
Volumina de la Genèse et du Deutéronome”,
Études de papyrologie,
Société royale égyptienne de papyrologie (1971),
9:151, Pl. IX.

3.

Zaky Ali & Ludwig Koenen,
Three rolls of the early Septuagint Genesis and Deuteronomy:
A photographic edition
(Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, 1980, R. Habelt publ.),
p./σ. 76, 77.

Plato: Only the verb "to be" in present tense is suitable for the Eternal Being /Πλάτων: Μόνο το ρήμα ἔστιν σε ενεστώτα χρόνο είναι κατάλληλο για την Αΐδιο Ουσία

Ὡς δὲ κινηθὲν αὐτὸ καὶ ζῶν ἐνόησεν τῶν ἀιδίων θεῶν γεγονὸς ἄγαλμα ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ, ἠγάσθη τε καὶ εὐφρανθεὶς ἔτι δὴ μᾶλλον ὅμοιον πρὸς τὸ παράδειγμα ἐπενόησεν ἀπεργάσασθαι. καθάπερ οὖν αὐτὸ τυγχάνει ζῷον ἀίδιον ὄν, καὶ τόδε τὸ πᾶν οὕτως εἰς δύναμιν ἐπεχείρησε τοιοῦτον ἀποτελεῖν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ζῴου φύσις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῷ γεννητῷ παντελῶς προσάπτειν οὐκ ἦν δυνατόν· εἰκὼ δ’ ἐπενόει κινητόν τινα αἰῶνος ποιῆσαι, καὶ διακοσμῶν ἅμα οὐρανὸν ποιεῖ μένοντος αἰῶνος ἐν ἑνὶ κατ’ ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν αἰώνιον εἰκόνα, τοῦτον ὃν δὴ χρόνον ὠνομάκαμεν.

ἡμέρας γὰρ καὶ νύκτας καὶ μῆνας καὶ ἐνιαυτούς, οὐκ ὄντας πρὶν οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι, τότε ἅμα ἐκείνῳ συνισταμένῳ τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῶν μηχανᾶται· ταῦτα δὲ πάντα μέρη χρόνου, καὶ τό τ’ ἦν τό τ’ ἔσται χρόνου γεγονότα εἴδη, ἃ δὴ φέροντες λανθάνομεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀίδιον οὐσίαν οὐκ ὀρθῶς. λέγομεν γὰρ δὴ ὡς ἦν ἔστιν τε καὶ ἔσται, τῇ δὲ τὸ ἔστιν μόνον κατὰ τὸν ἀληθῆ λόγον προσήκει, τὸ δὲ ἦν τό τ’ ἔσται περὶ τὴν ἐν χρόνῳ γένεσιν ἰοῦσαν πρέπει λέγεσθαι—κινήσεις γάρ ἐστον, τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον ἀκινήτως οὔτε πρεσβύτερον οὔτε νεώτερον προσήκει γίγνεσθαι διὰ χρόνου οὐδὲ γενέσθαι ποτὲ οὐδὲ γεγονέναι νῦν οὐδ’ εἰς αὖθις ἔσεσθαι, τὸ παράπαν τε οὐδὲν ὅσα γένεσις τοῖς ἐν αἰσθήσει φερομένοις προσῆψεν, ἀλλὰ χρόνου ταῦτα αἰῶνα μιμουμένου καὶ κατ’ ἀριθμὸν κυκλουμένου γέγονεν εἴδη—καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι τὰ τοιάδε, τό τε γεγονὸς εἶναι γεγονὸς καὶ τὸ γιγνόμενον εἶναι γιγνόμενον, ἔτι τε τὸ γενησόμενον εἶναι γενησόμενον καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν μὴ ὂν εἶναι, ὧν οὐδὲν ἀκριβὲς λέγομεν. περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων τάχ’ ἂν οὐκ εἴη καιρὸς πρέπων ἐν τῷ παρόντι διακριβολογεῖσθαι.


And when the Father that engendered it perceived it in motion and alive, a thing of joy to the eternal gods, He too rejoiced; and being well-pleased He designed to make it resemble its Model still more closely. Accordingly, seeing that that Model is an eternal Living Creature, He set about making this Universe, so far as He could, of a like kind. But inasmuch as the nature of the Living Creature was eternal, this quality it was impossible to attach in its entirety to what is generated; wherefore He planned to make a movable image of Eternity, and, as He set in order the Heaven, of that Eternity which abides in unity He made an eternal image, moving according to number, even that which we have named Time.

For simultaneously with the construction of the Heaven He contrived the production of days and nights and months and years, which existed not before the Heaven came into being. And these are all portions of Time; even as “Was” and “Shall be” are generated forms of Time, although we apply them wrongly, without noticing, to Eternal Being. For we say that it “is” or “was” or “will be,” whereas, in truth of speech, “is” alone is the appropriate term; “was” and “will be,” on the other hand, are terms properly applicable to the Becoming which proceeds in Time, since both of these are motions; but it belongs not to that which is ever changeless in its uniformity to become either older or younger through time, nor ever to have become so, nor to be so now, nor to be about to be so hereafter, nor in general to be subject to any of the conditions which Becoming has attached to the things which move in the world of Sense, these being generated forms of Time, which imitates Eternity and circles round according to number. And besides these we make use of the following expressions,—that what is become is become, and what is becoming is becoming, and what is about to become is about to become, and what is non-existent is non-existent; but none of these expressions is accurate.[ftn.: i.e.it is incorrect to use the term “is” (ἐστί) both as a mere copula and in the sense of “exists.”] But the present is not, perhaps, a fitting occasion for an exact discussion of these matters.


Όταν ο πατέρας που τον γέννησε εννόησε ότι ο κόσμος είναι κινούμενος και ζωντανός και έχει γίνει χώρος αγαλλίασης των αΐδιων Θεών, ευχαριστήθηκε και—καθώς ευφράνθηκε—σκέφτηκε να τον κάνει ακόμη πιο όμοιο προς το υπόδειγμα, το οποίο τυγχάνει ον ζωντανό και αΐδιο. Έτσι επιχείρησε να τελειοποιήσει, κατά το δυνατόν, και το σύμπαν. Η φύση, όμως του ζωντανού προτύπου τύχαινε να είναι αιώνια, και δεν ήταν δυνατό να προσδώσει παντελώς στο γέννημά του αυτή την ιδιότητα. Σκέφτηκε, λοιπόν, να κατασκευάσει μια κινητή εικόνα της αιωνιότητας και—διακοσμώντας τον ουρανό—έφτιαξε την αιώνια εικόνα της ενιαίως ακίνητης αιωνιότητας κινούμενη κατά τους αριθμητικούς νόμους. Αυτό έχουμε ονομάσει χρόνο.

Ημέρες νύχτες μήνες και ενιαυτοί δεν υπήρχαν πριν από την γένεση του ουρανού. Μαζί όμως με την σύσταση εκείνου, ο πλάστης επινόησε την γένεσή τους. Όλα αυτά είναι μέρη του χρόνου. Επίσης το «ήταν» και το «θα είναι» είναι είδη του χρόνου, δημιουργήματα, και λαθεύουμε όταν εσφαλμένα τα αποδίδουμε στην αΐδιο ουσία. Γιατί λέμε «ήταν, είναι, θα είναι», αλλά το μόνο ταιριαστό στον αληθινό λόγο είναι το «είναι», ενώ το «ήταν» και το «θα είναι» πρέπει να λέγονται για την γένεση που προχωρά μέσα στον χρόνο, καθώς και τα δύο είναι κινήσεις. Στο αμετάβλητο και ακίνητο δεν ταιριάζει να γίνεται ούτε πρεσβύτερο ούτε νεώτερο μέσα στον χρόνο ούτε κάποτε να έγινε ούτε τώρα να έχει γίνει ούτε στο εξής να γίνει, και γενικά δεν ταιριάζει να του προσδίδουμε τίποτε απ' όσα η γένεση έχει προσάψει στα αισθητά, γιατί αυτά είναι είδη του χρόνου, που μιμείται την αιωνιότητα και κινείται κυκλικά κατά τους αριθμητικούς νόμους. Και επιπλέον λαθεύουμε λέγοντας και τις παρακάτω ανακρίβειες: «το γεγονός είναι γεγονός, το μεταβαλλόμενο είναι μεταβαλλόμενο, το μελλοντικό είναι μελλοντικό, το μη ον είναι μη ον». Γι' αυτά, όμως, ο παρών χρόνος δεν είναι ο κατάλληλος για να μιλήσουμε με ακρίβεια.


* Πλάτων, Τιμαίος / Plato, Timaeus 37c-38b

Greek text / Πρωτότυπο:
J. Burnet, Platonis opera,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902 (repr. 1968),
vol./τόμ. 4.
[Ελληνικά/Greek, PDF]

English translation:
W.R.M. Lamb, Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes,
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press;
London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1925,
vol./τόμ. 7.

Νεοελληνική μετάφραση:
Βασίλης Κάλφας, Πλάτων, Τίμαιος,
εκδ. Πόλις, 1998.

Ο Σιαμάκης & η χρονολογία της άλωσης της Ιερουσαλήμ /Siamakis& the date of Jerusalem's fall

πρῶτο ἔτος τοῦ Κύρου λοιπὸν καὶ ἔτος τῆς ἐπανόδου τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ εἶναι τὸ α’ ἔτος τῆς 55^ης ὀλυμπιάδος. ἂν ἀπὸ τὸ 776 π.Χ., τὴν ἀφετηρία τῶν ὀλυμπιάδων, ἀφαιρέσουμε 54 τετραετίες –ἡ πρώτη ὀλυμπιὰς δὲν μέτρησε προηγούμενη τετραετία–, ἤτοι 216 ἔτη (54 x 4 = 216˙ 776 - 216 = 560 π.Χ.), αὐτὸ εἶναι τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος Κύρου, κατ̉ αὐτὸ ἐκδόθηκε τὸ διάταγμά του γιὰ τὸν ἐπαναπατρισμὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, καὶ κατ̉ αὐτὸ ἔγινε ὁ ἐπαναπατρισμὸς αὐτός. κι ἀφοῦ ἡ αἰχμαλωσία διήρκεσε 70 χρόνια (Ἰε 36,10˙ Δα 9,2˙ Β’ Πα 36,21˙ Ἔσ 1,1), ἡ ἅλωσι τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἔγινε τὸ 630 π.Χ.      

Τὸ 584 π.Χ., ποὺ θέλουν ὡς ἔτος ἁλώσεως οἱ κράχτες τῆς ἀρνητικῆς κριτικῆς δὲν προκύπτει ἀπὸ κανένα ἀρχαῖο κείμενο˙ προκύπτει μόνο ἀπὸ τὴ φαντασία τους, καὶ ἡ φαντασίωσί τους ἀπὸ τὴν ἐπιθυμία τους, καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τους ἀπὸ τὴν ἀντιβιβλικὴ λύσσα τους.

* Δρ Κωνσταντῖνος Σιαμάκης,
«Αρχαιότατο χειρόγραφο της Βίβλου»,
philologus.gr, 24 Ιανουάριος 2010.

Ο Θεός που ονομάζεται ΘΑ ΑΠΟΔΕΙΧΤΩ ΑΥΤΟ ΠΟΥ ΘΑ ΑΠΟΔΕΙΧΤΩ /The God called I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה
אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה
וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל
אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃

—Exodus 3:14, MT / Έξοδος 3:14, ΜΚ

Τότε ο Θεός είπε στον Μωυσή:
«ΘΑ ΑΠΟΔΕΙΧΤΩ ΑΥΤΟ ΠΟΥ ΘΑ ΑΠΟΔΕΙΧΤΩ».
Και πρόσθεσε: «Αυτό θα πεις στους γιους του Ισραήλ:
“Ο ΘΑ ΑΠΟΔΕΙΧΤΩ με έστειλε σε εσάς”».

—Έξοδος 3:14, ΜΝΚ

Λεξικό της κοινής νεοελληνικής
(Τριανταφυλλίδη, 1998), «αποδεικνύω»

Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας
(Μπαμπινιώτη, 2005, σ. 237), «αποδεικνύω»

“ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου”“the one naming the name of the Lord”: Αρνητική αναφορά από την Ο', θετική αναφορά στην ΚΔ / Negative reference at LXX, / positive reference by the NT

g04 22/01 5

ὀνομάζων δὲ τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου θανάτῳ θανατούσθω·
λίθοις λιθοβολείτω αὐτὸν πᾶσα συναγωγὴ Ισραηλ·
ἐάν τε προσήλυτος ἐάν τε αὐτόχθων,
ἐν τῷ ὀνομάσαι αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου τελευτάτω.

Λευιτικό / Leviticus 24:16, Ο' / LXX

ὁ μέντοι στερεὸς θεμέλιος τοῦ θεοῦ ἕστηκεν,

ἔχων τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην· ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ,

καί· ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου.

2 Τιμόθεο / 2 Timothy 2:19, ²⁷NA

Yerushalayim / Ἱερουσαλὲμ

JERUSALEM advanced into production
with an unprecedented aerial shoot throughout Israel and the West Bank.
Scheduled for worldwide release in 2013,
the film will take audiences on a spectacular tour
of the Holy Land and the city
once believed to lie at the centre of the world.

Jerusalem | An Arcane/Cosmic Picture Film

The case of Tsavachidis v. Greece (ECHR): “Jehovah’s Witnesses are not subject to secret surveillance on account of their religious beliefs and will never be subject such surveillance in the future” / Υπόθεση Τσαβαχίδη κατά Ελλάδας (ΕΔΔΑ): “Οι Μάρτυρες του Ιεχωβάδεν υπόκεινται σε μυστική παρακολούθηση εξαιτίας των θρησκευτικών τους πεποιθήσεων και ποτέ στο μέλλον δεν θα υπόκεινται σε τέτοια παρακολούθηση”

TSAVACHIDIS v. GREECE

Case struck out of Court’s list
Respect for private life Article 8
Freedom of religion Article 9

Court had earlier considered systems of secret surveillance, and adequate and effective safeguards against abuses of such systems. Also, Court had earlier ruled on the application of relevant Greek legislation to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Settlement in question was based on respect for human rights.

In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 21 January 1999 in the case of Tsavachidis v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that the case should be struck out of its list.

1. Principal facts

The applicant, Mr Gabriel Tsavachidis, a Greek national, was born in 1941 and lives at Kilkis in Greece. He is a Jehovah’s Witness.

He was charged with having opened a place of worship without the necessary permission from the local church authorities and the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs and was committed for trial at the Kilkis Criminal Court. A week before the trial on 7 April, the defence learned that an anonymous report dated 7 March 1993 and bearing the words “Highly confidential” – containing detailed information about the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ activities and naming the applicant as their leader – had been placed in the case file. At the beginning of the trial the applicant challenged the validity of the indictment, on the ground that the report could not be used as evidence against him as it was unsigned. The court dismissed the objection but decided not to admit the report in evidence as it was anonymous, and acquitted the applicant on the same day.

The Kilkis public prosecutor refused requests by the applicant to send him the original report so that it could be subjected to forensic examination and to open an inquiry in order to determine who had written it.

2. Proceedings of the Court

The application to the European Commission of Human Rights, which was lodged on 20 September 1995, was declared partly admissible on 4 March 1997.

Having attempted unsuccessfully to secure a friendly settlement, the Commission adopted a report on 28 October 1997 in which it established the facts and expressed the following opinion: (a) there had been a violation of Article 8 (thirteen votes to four): (b) there had been no violation of Article 9 (nine votes to eight): (c) no separate issue arose under Article 11 (fourteen votes to three) and (d) it was unnecessary to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 14 taken together with Articles 8, 9 and 11 (unanimously). It referred the case to the old Court on 15 December 1997.

Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was transmitted to a Grand Chamber of the new European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of the Protocol, on 1 November 1998.

On 4 November 1998 the Court received from the Agent of the Government the text of a friendly settlement concluded by the Government and the applicant, under which the Government undertook to pay the applicant GRD 1,500,000 and to state that “the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not subject to secret surveillance on account of their religious beliefs and will never be subject such surveillance in the future”. The applicant’s lawyer had confirmed the agreement.

3. Summary of the judgment

Complaints

The applicant complained that the Greek intelligence services kept him under surveillance on account of his religious beliefs. He relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private life), 9 (right to freedom of religion) and 11 (right to freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, taken individually or together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

Decision of the Court

The Court took formal note of the agreement reached by the Government and Mr Tsavachidis and noted also that the agreement afforded the applicant satisfaction. It would nevertheless be open to the Court, having regard to its responsibilities under Article 37, Section 1 of the Convention, to decide to continue its examination of the case if it were not satisfied that the settlement in question was based on respect for human rights as recognised in the Convention or its Protocols (Rule 62, Section 3).

It pointed out that in a number of earlier cases it had had to consider systems of secret surveillance in States other than Greece and to ascertain, under Article 8 of the Convention, that there were adequate and effective safeguards against abuses of such systems. Furthermore, in the cases of Kokkinakis v. Greece (4 HRCD 90 [1993]) and Manoussakis and Others v. Greece (7 HRCD 844 [1996]) – in which the facts had, however, been different from those of the instant case – the Court had had to rule under Article 9 of the Convention on the application of the relevant Greek legislation to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In so doing, it had clarified the nature and extent of the Contracting States’ obligations in that regard.

It followed that the case should be struck out of the list.

Judgment was given by a Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:
Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President, Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss), Pranas Kuris (Lithuanian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Nina Vajic (Croatian), John Hedigan (Irish), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonian), Tudor Pantiru (Moldovan), Egils Levits (Latvian), Judges, and Mr Christos Yeraris (Greek), ad hoc Judge.

Appendix

Relevant provision of Rules

Rule 62 (Friendly Settlement)
…
3. If the Chamber is informed by the Registrar that the parties have agreed to a friendly settlement, it shall, after verifying that the settlement has been reached on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto, strike the case out of the Court’s list in accordance with Rule 44, Section 2.

* "Tsavachidis v. Greece"
["Τσαβαχίδης κατά Ελλάδας"],
Human Rights Case Digest: The European Convention System,
Vol./Τόμ. 10, Issue/Τεύχος 1, January/Ιανουάριος 1999,
pp./σσ. 20-22.

 = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- 

 Tsavachidis v. Greece

Tribunal: European Court of Human Rights
Application number: 28802/95
Application filed: 20 Sep 1995
Communication issued:
Judgment rendered: 21 Jan 1999


Decision or Judgment:

• [French] Tsavachidis c. Grèce - Arrêt de Grande Chambre
• [English] Tsavachidis v. Greece - Grand Chamber Judgment   

Other Court or Tribunal Document:

• [English] Tsavachidis v. Greece - Report of the Commission   

[French/Γαλλικά & English/Αγγλικά, PDF]

 = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- = -- 

Tsavachidis v. Greece (21 January 1999),
Strasbourg, Application No. 28802/95 (ECHR)

Gabriel Tsavachidis was also accused of operating a church “without the necessary permission from the local church authorities and the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs.”

But this case contained an additional element. Mr. Tsavachidis had been placed under secret surveillance by the National Intelligence Service because of his religious affiliation. A newspaper exposed a confidential Intelligence Service report, which contained “allegations prejudicial to Greek citizens who were not members of the Greek Orthodox Church.”

The European Commission of Human Rights found that Mr. Tsavachidis’ privacy had been violated by the unwarranted surveillance. The Greek government stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses “are not subject to secret surveillance on account of their religious beliefs” and agreed that they “will never be subject to such surveillance in the future.” Greece also agreed to cover Mr. Tsavachidis’ court costs. This offer of a friendly settlement was accepted.

The European Court of Human Rights, when rendering its judgment on this settlement, reinforced its earlier decisions on Kokkinakis v. Greece and Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, identifying Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “known religion” entitled to practice their religion freely and reminding other Council of Europe countries of their obligations in this regard.

* "Our View of Authority: Legal Cases"

[Η Άποψή μας για την Εξουσία: Νομικές Υποθέσεις],

Jehovah’s Witnesses Official Media Web Site,

Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

A textual commentary on Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians by Jeffrey John Kloha /Σχολιολόγιο κειμένου της Α' Προς Κορινθίους Επιστολής του Παύλου υπό Τζέφρι Τζον Κλόχα

Jeffrey John Kloha (2006)

A textual commentary
on Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians.

PhD thesis, University of Leeds.

	PDF (Volume 1) 22Mb
	PDF (Volume 2) 22Mb
	PDF (Volume 3: appendix) 16Mb
	PDF (Volume 4: appendix) 12Mb

Abstract

The textual problems of the Pauline epistles have rarely received systematic study since the work of Günther Zuntz in 1953. This thesis is a study of the text of 1 Corinthians using a different methodology, called "thoroughgoing eclecticism. " The textual data was gathered from collations of manuscripts and critical editions, and is provided as an appendix to the thesis. The discussion of the textual problems in 1 Corinthians comprises most of the thesis. In them, effort was made to determine whether a given type of variation is typical of any single manuscript or of manuscripts in general. The focus is placed on determining the cause of corruption in each place. This required study of the history of the development of the Greek language and comparison with theological and ethical discussions among early Christians. Detailed discussions are necessary for many problems, including 6: 5, where a conjecture is found to be necessary; 7: 33-34 and 9: 5, where issues of marriage and sexuality led to corruption; 13: 3, where transcriptional and structural issues become prominent, and 14: 34-35, where a complicated displacement of text involved issues of manuscript attestation, interpolation, and anti-feminism. The manuscripts that most frequently attest to early readings and unique forms of the text are then assessed. The most unique witnesses to the text of 1 Corinthians are the Greco-Latin bilinguals D F G. Their relationship and unique causes of corruption are described, with the result that F G are shown to frequently preserve the earliest reading. P N A B are also discussed. These witnesses attest many excellent readings, but have undergone their own types of corruptions. The "Byzantine" witnesses are summarized, demonstrating that they carry only a late form of the text.

* Πηγή: White Rose etheses Online

The sacred Tetragrammaton in the Pentateuchal Targumim /Το ιερό Τετραγράμματο στα Ταργκουμίμ της Πεντατεύχου

Schøyen Collection MS 206

 

* Andrew Chester,
Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim
(Texte Und Studien Zum Antiken Judentum/Texts and studies in ancient Judaism vol. 14),
Mohr Siebeck, 1986,
pp./σσ. 325, 384.

Όπλα & άνθρωποι /Guns 'n' humans

Ο θρίαμβος των όπλων οδηγεί πάντοτε σε πικρή ήττα των ανθρώπων.

Το βασικό λάθος της ένοπλης πάλης
είναι ότι δίνει προτεραιότητα σε έναν στόχο στρατιωτικό
έναντι της δημιουργίας μιας ζωής καλύτερης για όλους.
Αν πρέπει να διεισδύσεις στο πεδίο του εχθρού για να επιτύχεις τον στόχο σου,
τότε έχεις ήδη προδώσει τη βούληση για ζωή υπέρ της βούλησης για δύναμη.


* Κείμενο του Raoul Vaneigem,
17 Ioυλίου 2010.

2 Βασιλέων / 4 Βασιλειών 2:14, Ο': Απόπειρες απόδοσης & ερμηνείας του αμετάφραστου εβραϊκού όρου αφφω / 2 Kings / 4 Kingdoms 2:14, LXX: Attempts to render and interpret the untranslated Hebrew term αφφω (aphpho)

Καὶ ἔλαβεν τὴν μηλωτὴν Ηλιου,
ἣ ἔπεσεν ἐπάνωθεν αὐτοῦ,
καὶ ἐπάταξεν τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ οὐ διέστη·
καὶ εἶπεν: Ποῦ ὁ θεὸς Ηλιου αφφω;
καὶ ἐπάταξεν τὰ ὕδατα,
καὶ διερράγησαν ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα, καὶ διέβη Ελισαιε.
(LXX / Ο')

וַיִּקַּח֩ אֶת־אַדֶּ֨רֶת אֵלִיָּ֜הוּ
אֲשֶׁר־נָפְלָ֤ה מֵֽעָלָיו֙
וַיַּכֶּ֣ה אֶת־הַמַּ֔יִם
וַיֹּאמַ֕ר אַיֵּ֕ה יְהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֵלִיָּ֑הוּ אַף־ה֣וּא׀
וַיַּכֶּ֣ה אֶת־הַמַּ֗יִם
וַיֵּֽחָצוּ֙ הֵ֣נָּה וָהֵ֔נָּה וַֽיַּעֲבֹ֖ר אֱלִישָֽׁע׃
(MT / ΜΚ)

 

Πήρε το μανδύα του Ηλία, χτύπησε μ’ αυτόν τα νερά και είπε: «Πού είναι ο Κύριος, ο Θεός του Ηλία;» Όταν χτύπησε τα νερά, αυτά άνοιξαν στα δύο και πέρασε ο Ελισαίος.
(ΜΠΚ)

Και πήρε το επίσημο ένδυμα του Ηλία, το οποίο είχε πέσει από αυτόν, και χτύπησε τα νερά και είπε: «Πού είναι ο Ιεχωβά, ο Θεός του Ηλία, ναι, Αυτός;» Και όταν χτύπησε τα νερά, τότε αυτά σιγά σιγά χωρίστηκαν από εδώ και από εκεί, ώστε ο Ελισαιέ πέρασε απέναντι.
(ΜΝΚ)

Επήρε την μηλωτήν του Ηλιού, η οποία έπεσεν επάνω εις αυτόν, εκτύπησε το ύδωρ, αλλ' εκείνο δεν διηρέθη, όπως προηγουμένως. Ο Ελισαίος είπε τότε· “που είναι ο Θεός του Ηλιού, που είναι;” Κατόπιν όμως εκτύπησε πάλιν τα ύδατα και εκείνα εχωρίσθησαν εις δύο, από εδώ και από εκεί, και ο Ελισαίος διέβη τον Ιορδάνην ποταμόν.
(Κολιτσάρας)

Καὶ λαβὼν τὴν μηλωτήν τοῦ Ἠλία, ἥτις ἔπεσεν ἐπάνωθεν ἐκείνου, ἐκτύπησε τὰ ὕδατα καὶ εἶπε, Ποῦ εἶναι Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Ἠλία; Καὶ ὡς ἐκτύπησε καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὕδατα, διηρέθησαν ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν· καὶ διέβη ὁ Ἐλισσαιέ.
(Βάμβας)

Έπειτα, λαβών την μηλωτήν του Ηλιού, η οποία έπεσεν από αυτόν, εκτύπησε τα ύδατα και είπε· «πού είναι τώρα Κύριος, ο Θεός του Ηλιού»; Και όταν εκτύπησε τα ύδατα, ταύτα διηρέθησαν ένθεν και ένθεν και ο Ελισαιέ διέβη.
(Χαστούπης)

And he took the sheepskin of Eliou that fell from upon him and struck the water, and it did not part, and he said, "Where is the God of Eliou—aphpho?" And he struck the waters, and they burst here and there, and Elisaie went over.
(NETS)

And he taketh the robe of Elijah that fell from off him, and smiteth the waters, and saith, 'Where is Jehovah, God of Elijah—even He?' and he smiteth the waters, and they are halved, hither and thither, and Elisha passeth over.
(Young's Literal Translation)

And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said: ‘Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?’ and when he also had smitten the waters, they were divided hither and thither; and Elisha went over.
(Tanak)

And he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord the God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither; and Elisha' passed over.
(Leeser)

And took the mantle of Elijah which had fallen from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is Yahweh, the God of Elijah? And when he also smote the waters they were divided, hither and thither, and Elisha passed over.
(Rotherham)

Then he took the official garment of E·li′jah that had fallen off him and struck the waters and said: “Where is Jehovah the God of E·li′jah, even He?” When he struck the waters, then they were gradually divided this way and that way, so that E·li′sha went across.
(NWT)

Et percussit aquas, et non sunt divisae; et dixu, Ubi est Deus Eliae etiam nunc? Percussitque aquas, et divisae sunt huc et illuc.
"And he smote the waters, but they did not divide; and he said, Where is the God of Elijah even now? And he struck the waters and they were divided hither and thither." 
(Vulgate / Βουλγάτα)

o o o - - - O O - - - o o o

Ἄρα οὖν ὁ Θεὸς, τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμά ἐστι. Καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ, ὅτε ἀνελαμβάνετο ὁ Ἡλίας, ᾔτει ὁ Ἐλισσαῖος παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὸ Πνεῦμα γενέσθαι διπλοῦν. Ἐπηγγέλλετο οὖν ὁ Ἡλίας, ἐὰν ἴδῃ αὐτὸν ἀναλαμβανόμενον. Ἰδὼν οὖν, καὶ λαβὼν τὴν μηλωτὴν, ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην· καὶ πατάξαντος αὐτοῦ τῇ μηλωτῇ τὸν ποταμὸν, οὐχ ὑπήκουσε τὸ ὕδωρ. Λέγει οὖν· Ποῦ ὁ Θεὸς ἀφφώ; Ἀφφὼ δὲ ἑρμηνεύεται ἄμφω, τουτέστι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ διπλοῦν. Ποῦ οὖν ὁ Θεὸς ἀμφὼ, ἀντὶ τοῦ, τὸ Πνεῦμα διπλοῦν.
(Athanasius Alex., Testimonia e scriptura [Sp.] (de communi essentia patris et filii et spiritus sancti) /
Αθανάσιος Αλεξανδρείας, Μαρτυρίαι ἐκ τῆς Γραφῆς [Νόθο] (τῆς κατὰ φύσιν κοινωνίας, ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίως εἶναι τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα πρὸς θεωρίαν δυσέφικτον, καὶ μίαν ἔχειν ἐνέργειαν) [MPG 28:37.9])

ΕΡΩΤ. Θʹ.
Πῶς νοητέον· «Ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς Ἠλιοῦ ἀφφῶ;»
Διαβῆναι βουληθεὶς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὁ προφήτης ἐμιμήσατο τὸν διδάσκαλον, καὶ τῇ μηλωτῇ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐπάταξεν οὐδὲν εἰρηκὼς, ἀλλ’ ἀποχρῆν νομίσας εἰς θαυματουργίαν τὴν μηλωτήν. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐχ ὑπήκουσε τῶν ὑδάτων ἡ φύσις, ἐκάλεσε τὸν τοῦ διδασκάλου Θεὸν, τὸν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀόρατον καὶ ἀνέφικτον. Ἀφφὼ γὰρ ὁ κρύφιος ἑρμηνεύεται, κατὰ τὴν ἔκδοσιν τῶν ἄλλων ἑρμηνευτῶν.
(Theodoret of Cyrus, Quaestiones in libros Regnorum et Paralipomenon /
Θεοδώρητος ο Κύρου, Εις τα ζητούμενα των Βασιλειών και Παραλειπομένων [MPG 80:749.32])


Τί ἐστιν τὸ ἀπὸ Ἐλισσαίου, ἀναλαμβανομένου τοῦ Ἡλίου, ῥηθὲν «ποῦ ὁ θεὸς ἀφφώ;»
Κατὰ τρεῖς ἐπιβολὰς ἑρμηνεύεται· ἢ «ποῦ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός μου;» ἢ «ποῦ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ μεγάλου μου;» ἢ «ποῦ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ κρυβέντος;»
(Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones et dubia
/ Μάξιμος ο Ομολογητής, Πεύσεις και αποκρίσεις και ερωτήσεις 1.7)

o o o - - - O O - - - o o o

"Where ..." - Some prefer, "Where is the Lord God of Elijah, even he? And when he had smitten, etc." Or, according to others, "now when he, etc." Elisha's smiting of the waters seems to have been tentative. He was not sure of its result. Hence, the form of his invocation - "Where is the Lord God of Elijah? Is He here - i. e. - with me, or is He not?" Answered by the event, he appears never subsequently to have doubted.
(Barnes' Notes on the Bible)


And when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither; as when Elijah smote them. The words "aph-hu", rendered "he also", is left untranslated by the Septuagint, and is interpreted by Theodoret (n) "hidden". They stand immediately after "the God of Elijah", and may be rendered, "yea he", even he himself; meaning not Elijah, as if he was inquired after, or was present and smote the waters; but rather, as we and others, Elisha, even he also smote the waters; though some take it to be the name of God, as "Hu" was, and is with the Arabs to this day; see Gill on Isaiah 43:13. Athanasius (o) interprets it of God, "Appho"; and so Elisha calls him by his title and attribute, "Aph-hu": but the words may be an answer to the prophet's question, "where is the Lord God of Elijah?" here he is, even he himself, in the faith of which the water, being smitten, parted; and with this agrees Abarbinel's note on the text; the meaning is, though we are deprived of Elijah, yet not of the providence of God; and though the servant is wanting, the Lord or master is not; for even he, the blessed God, is in his room, and his excellency is as it was before; which sense is approved of by Frischmuth (p).
(Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible)


Return of Elisha to Jericho and Bethel, and his First Miracles. - 2 Kings 2:14, 2 Kings 2:15. Having returned to the banks of the Jordan, Elisha smote the water with Elijah's mantle, saying, "Where is Jehovah the God of Elijah, yea He?" and the water divided hither and thither, so that he was able to go through. אף־הוּא, which the lxx did not understand, and have simply reproduced in Greek characters, ἀφφώ, is an emphatic apposition, "yea He," such as we find after suffixes, e.g., Proverbs 22:19; and אף is only a strengthened גּם, which is more usual when emphatic prominence is given to the suffix (vid., Ges. 121, 3). The Masoretic accentuation, which separates it from the preceding words, rests upon a false interpretation. There is no need either for the alteration proposed by Ewald, 362, a., of אף into אך, "he had scarcely smitten the water," especially as not a single analogous example can be adduced of the use of הוּא אך followed by a Vav consec.; or for the conjecture that the original reading in the text was אפוא (Houb., Bttch., Then.), "where is now the God of Elijah?" which derives no critical support from the ἀφφώ of the lxx, and is quite at variance with Hebrew usage, since אפוא generally stands immediately after איּה, when it serves to strengthen the interrogation (vid., Judges 9:38; Job 17:15; Isaiah 19:12; Hosea 13:10). This miracle was intended partly to confirm Elisha's conviction that his petition had been fulfilled, and partly to accredit him in the eyes of the disciples of the prophets and the people generally as the divinely appointed successor of Elijah. All the disciples of the prophets from Jericho saw also from this that the spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha, and came to meet him to do homage to him as being now their spiritual father and lord.
(Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament)

Το κύριο όνομα γΙεΧωΒάχ & η σημασία του ριζικού του ρήματος ΧαγΙάΧ /The proper name YeHoWaH & the meaning of its root verb HaYaH

Το ρήμα χαγιάχ αναφορικά με τον Θεό σημαίνει να ενεργεί ως Θεός, να πολιτεύεται ως Θεός και να πραγματοποιεί ως Θεός. Καθώς το έκανε αυτό ως έναν συγκεκριμένο βαθμό όταν οδήγησε το έθνος έξω από την Αίγυπτο, το ότι είναι Θεός ο Ιαχβέ είναι συνδεδεμένο με αυτή την εκδήλωση χάρης και ισχύος. [...]

* Thorleif Boman,
Hebrew thought compared with Greek
[Η εβραϊκή σκέψη συγκρινόμενη με την ελληνική],
Westminster Press, 1960,
p./σ. 47.

Μια εβδομηκόντεια ασυνέπεια; ὁ ὤν ή ὁ ἐσόμενος, [ἐγώ] εἰμι ή [ἐγώ] ἒσομαι; / A Septuagintal inconsistency? ὁ ὤν [the he-being] or ὁ ἐσόμενος [the will-be he-being], [ἐγώ] εἰμι [I am] or [ἐγώ] ἒσομαι [I will be]?

καὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν,
καὶ ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν,
λέγει κύριος

וְהָ֥יוּ לִ֣י לְעָ֗ם
וַֽאֲנִי֙ אֶהְיֶ֤ה לָהֶם֙ לֵֽאלֹהִ֔ים
נְאֻ֖ם אֲדֹנָ֥י יְהוִֽה

Ιεζεκιήλ / Ezekiel 14:11

εἶπεν δὲ <ὁ θεὸς Μωυσεῖ λέγων ὅτι>
῎Εσομαι μετὰ σοῦ

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ כִּֽי־
אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ

 Έξοδος / Exodus 3:12

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν
᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν·
καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ
῾Ο ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה
אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה
וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל
אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃

Έξοδος / Exodus 3:14

The New Testament in relation to Platonism & Stoicism /Η Καινή Διαθήκη σε σχέση με τον πλατωνισμό και τον στωικισμό

Plato & Aristotle / Πλάτων & Αριστοτέλης

Henry Chadwick,
The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy
(ed. A. Armstrong) Cambridge University Press, 1970/2008,
p. 159.

Henry Chadwick,
Ο Φίλων και οι απαρχές της χριστιανικής σκέψης,
μετάφρ. Ν. Παπαδάκης & Μ. Κόφφα,
εκδ. Ενάλιος, 2006,
σ. 61.

Αν επρόκειτο να σώσετε ένα μόνο βιβλίο από τη βιβλιοθήκη σας που κινδύνευε από πυρκαγιά, ποιο θα σώζατε;

Αν επρόκειτο να σώσετε ένα μόνο βιβλίο από τη βιβλιοθήκη σας που κινδύνευε από πυρκαγιά, ποιο θα σώζατε; Το κρίσιμο αυτό ερώτημα ετέθη στον Γερμανό συγγραφέα Γκύντερ Γκρας (βραβείο Νόμπελ λογοτεχνίας 2000). Ο Γκρας αναγνωρίζοντας τη δυσκολία επιλογής, απάντησε, τελικά, ότι θα έσωζε τη Βίβλο, γιατί «είναι μια πολύτιμη συλλογή συλλογικής μνήμης με μια μεγάλη ποικιλία γραπτού λόγου».

* Δημήτρης Τσινικόπουλος,
«Η επίδραση της Βίβλου
στις Τέχνες και τα Γράμματα»,
Χρονικά,
έκδ. Κ.Ι.Σ., Ιανουάριος-Μάρτιος 2012,
σ. 3.
[Ελληνικά/Greek, PDF]

The "anti-Jewishness" of John: Being not children of Abraham any more but of God /Ο «αντιουδαϊσμός» του Ιωάννη: Όχι πλέον παιδιά του Αβραάμ αλλά του Θεού

Anyone reading certain parts of the New Testament, John’s Gospel especially, will soon discover negative attitudes being expressed towards Judeans (for example, in John 8:31-59). It is entirely appropriate to investigate the extent to which, over the centuries, such passages have provided resources for anti-Jewish and (since the late nineteenth century) anti-Semitic views. Anti-Semitism is a vicious reality in our world and needs to be opposed in a vigorous and informed way. But the moral seriousness of this endeavor is no excuse for interpreting anything in the Fourth Gospel as “anti-Semitic.” That would be a gross anachronism. We owe it to the cause of historical truth to do all we can to understand phenomena in terms appropriate to them. While the framework of ethnicity is appropriate to the first century CE world, that of “race” and anti-Semitism is not. What we find in John is antipathy being expressed to a populous and impressive ethnic group, the Judeans, by a small group needing to differentiate themselves from them and whose identity was certainly not ethnic however we might choose to describe it. John wanted his readers to accept that they were born “not (in the ethnic language of shared descent) of blood nor the will of the flesh nor of the will of man” but of God; he wanted his readers to regard themselves not as Ioudaioi (= children of Abraham) but as children of God.

Ενώ το πλαίσιο της εθνικότητας είναι κατάλληλο όσον αφορά τον κόσμο του πρώτου αιώνα Κ.Χ., εκείνο της «φυλής» και του αντισημιτισμού δεν είναι. Αυτό που βρίσκουμε στο [ενν. Ευαγγέλιο του] Ιωάννη είναι αντιπάθεια προς μια πολυπληθή και εντυπωσιακή εθνότητα, τους Ιουδαίους, από μια μικρή ομάδα που ένιωθε την ανάγκη να διαχωρίσει τον εαυτό της από αυτούς και της οποίας η ταυτότητα σίγουρα δεν ήταν εθνοτική όπως κι αν επιλέξουμε να την περιγράψουμε. Ο Ιωάννης ήθελε να αποδεχτούν οι αναγνώστες του ότι ήταν γεννημένοι «όχι (με την εθνοτική γλώσσα της κοινής καταγωγής) από αίμα ούτε από το σαρκικό θέλημα ούτε από θέλημα άντρα» αλλά από τον Θεό· ήθελε να θεωρούν οι αναγνώστες του τους εαυτούς τους όχι ως Ιουδαίους (=παιδιά του Αβραάμ) αλλά ως παιδιά του Θεού.

* Philip F. Esler,
"“Race” and Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World?",
The Bible and Interpretation,
May/Μάιος 2012.

Φιλιππησίους / Philippians 2:6: Ποιες είναι οι δυνατές ερμηνείες της φράσης οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ;What are the possible interpretationsof the phrase οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ?

Κριτικό κείμενο 27NA	ΜΠΚ	ΜΝΚ
6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων	6 ο οποίος, αν και ήταν Θεός,	6 ο οποίος, αν και υπήρχε με μορφή Θεού,
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,	δε θεώρησε την ισότητά του με το Θεό αποτέλεσμα αρπαγής,	δεν διανοήθηκε κάποια αρπαγή, δηλαδή το να είναι ίσος με τον Θεό.
7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν	7 αλλά τα απαρνήθηκε όλα,	7 Όχι! Αλλά άδειασε τον εαυτό του
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών,	πήρε μορφή δούλου	και πήρε μορφή δούλου
ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος·	κι έγινε άνθρωπος·	και έγινε όμοιος με τους ανθρώπους.
καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος	και όντας πραγματικός άνθρωπος	8 Και όταν βρέθηκε ως άνθρωπος κατά το σχήμα,
8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν	8 ταπεινώθηκε θεληματικά	ταπείνωσε τον εαυτό του
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου,	υπακούοντας μέχρι θανάτου,	και έγινε υπάκουος μέχρι θανάτου,
θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.	και μάλιστα θανάτου σταυρικού.	ναι, θανάτου πάνω σε ξύλο βασανισμού.
9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν	9 Γι’ αυτό και ο Θεός τον ανέβασε πολύ ψηλά	9 Γι’ αυτόν το λόγο και ο Θεός τον εξύψωσε σε ανώτερη θέση
καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα.	και του χάρισε το όνομα που είναι πάνω απ’ όλα τα ονόματα.	και του έδωσε με καλοσύνη το όνομα που είναι πάνω από κάθε άλλο όνομα,

* Ralph P. Martin,
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians:
An Introduction and Commentary
[Η Επιστολή του Παύλου προς του Φιλιππησίους:
Εισαγωγή και Σχολιολόγιο],
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1987,
pp./σσ. 101-104.

*