Yohanes 13:29

13:29 Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him to buy whatever they needed for the feast, ¹  or to give something to the poor.) ² 

Yohanes 13:2

13:2 The evening meal ³  was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart ⁴  of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray ⁵  Jesus. ⁶ 

Kisah Para Rasul 12:14-15

12:14 When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed she did not open the gate, but ran back in and told ⁷  them ⁸  that Peter was standing at the gate. 12:15 But they said to her, “You’ve lost your mind!” ⁹  But she kept insisting that it was Peter, ¹⁰  and they kept saying, ¹¹  “It is his angel!” ¹² 

Ezra 8:24-34

8:24 Then I set apart twelve of the leading priests, together with ¹³  Sherebiah, Hashabiah, and ten of their brothers, ¹⁴  8:25 and I weighed out to them the silver, the gold, and the vessels intended for the temple of our God – items that the king, his advisers, his officials, and all Israel who were present had contributed. 8:26 I weighed out to them ¹⁵  650 talents of silver, silver vessels worth 100 talents, ¹⁶  100 talents of gold, 8:27 20 gold bowls worth 1,000 darics, and two exquisite vessels of gleaming bronze, as valuable as gold. 8:28 Then I said to them, “You are holy to the Lord, just as these vessels are holy. The silver and the gold are a voluntary offering to the Lord, the God of your fathers. 8:29 Be careful with them and protect them, until you weigh them out before the leading priests and the Levites and the family leaders of Israel in Jerusalem, ¹⁷  in the storerooms of the temple of the Lord.”

8:30 Then the priests and the Levites took charge of ¹⁸  the silver, the gold, and the vessels that had been weighed out, to transport them to Jerusalem to the temple of our God.

8:31 On the twelfth day of the first month we began traveling from the Ahava Canal to go to Jerusalem. The hand of our God was on us, and he delivered us from our enemy and from bandits ¹⁹  along the way. 8:32 So we came to Jerusalem, and we stayed there for three days. 8:33 On the fourth day we weighed out the silver, the gold, and the vessels in the house of our God into the care ²⁰  of Meremoth son of Uriah, the priest, and Eleazar son of Phinehas, who were accompanied by Jozabad son of Jeshua and Noadiah son of Binnui, who were Levites. 8:34 Everything was verified ²¹  by number and by weight, and the total weight was written down at that time.

Ezra 8:2

8:2 from the descendants of Phinehas, Gershom;

from the descendants of Ithamar, Daniel;

from the descendants of David, Hattush

Kolose 1:19-21

1:19 For God ²²  was pleased to have all his ²³  fullness dwell ²⁴  in the Son ²⁵ 

1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, ²⁶  whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Paul’s Goal in Ministry

1:21 And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your ²⁷  minds ²⁸  as expressed through ²⁹  your evil deeds,

Kolose 1:1

Salutation

1:1 From Paul, ³⁰  an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

Kolose 1:22

1:22 but now he has reconciled you ³¹  by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him –

[13:29]  ¹ tn Grk “telling him, ‘Buy whatever we need for the feast.’” The first clause is direct discourse and the second clause indirect discourse. For smoothness of English style, the first clause has been converted to indirect discourse to parallel the second (the meaning is left unchanged).

[13:29]  ² sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.

[13:2]  ³ tn Or “Supper.” To avoid possible confusion because of different regional English usage regarding the distinction between “dinner” and “supper” as an evening meal, the translation simply refers to “the evening meal.”

[13:2]  ⁴ sn At this point the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus. C. K. Barrett (St. John, 365) thought this was a reference to the idea entering the devil’s own heart, but this does not seem likely. It is more probable that Judas’ heart is meant, since the use of the Greek article (rather than a possessive pronoun) is a typical idiom when a part of one’s own body is indicated. Judas’ name is withheld until the end of the sentence for dramatic effect (emphasis). This action must be read in light of 13:27, and appears to refer to a preliminary idea or plan.

[13:2]  ⁵ tn Or “that he should hand over.”

[13:2]  ⁶ tn Grk “betray him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[12:14]  ⁷ tn Or “informed.”

[12:14]  ⁸ tn The word “them” is not in the Greek text, but is implied. Direct objects in Greek were often omitted when clear from the context, but must be supplied for the modern English reader.

[12:15]  ⁹ sn “You’ve lost your mind!” Such a response to the miraculous is not unusual in Luke-Acts. See Luke 24:11; Acts 26:25. The term μαίνομαι (mainomai) can have the idea of being “raving mad” or “totally irrational” (BDAG 610 s.v.). It is a strong expression.

[12:15]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “she kept insisting that the situation was thus” (cf. BDAG 422 s.v. ἔχω 10.a). Most translations supply a less awkward English phrase like “it was so”; the force of her insistence, however, is that “it was Peter,” which was the point under dispute.

[12:15]  ¹¹ tn The two imperfect tense verbs, διϊσχυρίζετο (diiscurizeto) and ἔλεγον (elegon), are both taken iteratively. The picture is thus virtually a shouting match between Rhoda and the rest of the believers.

[12:15]  ¹² sn The assumption made by those inside, “It is his angel,” seems to allude to the idea of an attending angel (cf. Gen 48:16 LXX; Matt 18:10; Test. Jacob 1:10).

[8:24]  ¹³ tc The translation reads וַחֲשַׁבְיָה וְשֵׁרֵבְיָה (vÿsherevÿyah vakhashavyah, “and Sherebiah and Hashabiah”) rather than the reading חֲשַׁבְיָה לְשֵׁרֵבְיָה (lÿsherevyah khashavyah, “to Sherebiah Hashabiah”) of the MT.

[8:24]  ¹⁴ tn Or “relatives”; or “colleagues” (cf. NLT “ten other priests”).

[8:26]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “upon their hand.”

[8:26]  ¹⁶ tn Possibly “100 silver vessels worth [?] talents” or “silver vessels weighing 100 talents.”

[8:29]  ¹⁷ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[8:30]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “received.”

[8:31]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “from the hand of the enemy and the one who lies in wait.” Some modern English versions render the latter phrase as “ambushes” (cf. NASB, NRSV).

[8:33]  ²⁰ tn Heb “upon the hand of.”

[8:34]  ²¹ tn The words “everything was verified” are not in the Hebrew text but have been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[1:19]  ²² tn The noun “God” does not appear in the Greek text, but since God is the one who reconciles the world to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:19), he is clearly the subject of εὐδόκησεν (eudokhsen).

[1:19]  ²³ tn The Greek article τό (to), insofar as it relates to God, may be translated as a possessive pronoun, i.e., “his.” BDAG 404 s.v. εὐδοκέω 1 translates the phrase as “all the fullness willed to dwell in him” thus leaving the referent as impersonal. Insofar as Paul is alluding to the so-called emanations from God this is acceptable. But the fact that “the fullness” dwells in a person (i.e., “in him”) seems to argue for the translation “his fullness” where “his” refers to God.

[1:19]  ²⁴ tn The aorist verb κατοικῆσαι (katoikhsai) could be taken as an ingressive, in which case it refers to the incarnation and may be translated as “begin to dwell, to take up residence.” It is perhaps better, though, to take it as a constative aorist and simply a reference to the fact that the fullness of God dwells in Jesus Christ. This is a permanent dwelling, though, not a temporary one, as the present tense in 2:9 makes clear.

[1:19]  ²⁵ tn Grk “him”; the referent (the Son; see v. 13) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:20]  ²⁶ tc The presence or absence of the second occurrence of the phrase δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (di’ autou, “through him”) is a difficult textual problem to solve. External evidence is fairly evenly divided. Many ancient and excellent witnesses lack the phrase (B D* F G I 0278 81 1175 1739 1881 2464 al latt sa), but equally important witnesses have it (Ì⁴⁶ א A C D¹ Ψ 048^vid 33 Ï). Both readings have strong Alexandrian support, which makes the problem difficult to decide on external evidence alone. Internal evidence points to the inclusion of the phrase as original. The word immediately preceding the phrase is the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou); thus the possibility of omission through homoioteleuton in various witnesses is likely. Scribes might have deleted the phrase because of perceived redundancy or awkwardness in the sense: The shorter reading is smoother and more elegant, so scribes would be prone to correct the text in that direction. As far as style is concerned, repetition of key words and phrases for emphasis is not foreign to the corpus Paulinum (see, e.g., Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 12:7). In short, it is easier to account for the shorter reading arising from the longer reading than vice versa, so the longer reading is more likely original.

[1:21]  ²⁷ tn The article τῇ (th) has been translated as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215).

[1:21]  ²⁸ tn Although διανοία (dianoia) is singular in Greek, the previous plural noun ἐχθρούς (ecqrous) indicates that all those from Colossae are in view here.

[1:21]  ²⁹ tn The dative ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς (en toi" ergoi" toi" ponhroi") is taken as means, indicating the avenue through which hostility in the mind is revealed and made known.

[1:1]  ³⁰ tn Grk “Paul.” The word “from” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

[1:22]  ³¹ tc Some of the better representatives of the Alexandrian and Western texts have a passive verb here instead of the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν (apokathllaxen, “he has reconciled”): ἀποκατηλλάγητε (apokathllaghte) in (Ì⁴⁶) B, ἀποκατήλλακται [sic] (apokathllaktai) in 33, and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες (apokatallagente") in D* F G. Yet the active verb is strongly supported by א A C D² Ψ 048 075 [0278] 1739 1881 Ï lat sy. Internally, the passive creates an anacoluthon in that it looks back to the accusative ὑμᾶς (Juma", “you”) of v. 21 and leaves the following παραστῆσαι (parasthsai) dangling (“you were reconciled…to present you”). The passive reading is certainly the harder reading. As such, it may well explain the rise of the other readings. At the same time, it is possible that the passive was produced by scribes who wanted some symmetry between the ποτε (pote, “at one time”) of v. 21 and the νυνὶ δέ (nuni de, “but now”) of v. 22: Since a passive periphrastic participle is used in v. 21, there may have a temptation to produce a corresponding passive form in v. 22, handling the ὑμᾶς of v. 21 by way of constructio ad sensum. Since παραστῆσαι occurs ten words later, it may not have been considered in this scribal modification. Further, the Western reading (ἀποκαταλλαγέντες) hardly seems to have arisen from ἀποκατηλλάγητε (contra TCGNT 555). As difficult as this decision is, the preferred reading is the active form because it is superior externally and seems to explain the rise of all forms of the passive readings.

[1:22]  tn The direct object is omitted in the Greek text, but it is clear from context that “you” (ὑμᾶς, Jumas) is implied.