This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 Excerpt: ...of ignorance only, not of the absence of a higher faculty of knowledge. Such ignorance was not inaccessible to light, as is shown by the instances of the converted Gentiles; but so far as it was due to the hardness of their hearts, it was culpable. It is only by the subordination of the latter clause to the former that the use of Ttjv ovo-av iv avrois instead of the simple avriov finds a satisfactory explanation. Compare Rom. i. 18-33. Ellicott, following Harless, explains these words as pointing out the indwelling deep-seated nature of the ayvoia, and forming a sort of parallelism to T»?s Kaphas avriov, and so, as Harless adds, opposed to mere external occasions. But there is nothing of this in the context, nor in the words oSo-av iv avrots. The ignorance must be in them; and, unless we take the connexion as above (with Meyer), the words express nothing more than aJrw. 7ruipio-i« is "hardness," not "blindness," as most of the ancient versions interpret. Indeed, it is so explained also by Suidas and Hesychius, as if derived from an adjective iriap6s, "blind "; which seems, however, to be only an invention of the grammarians (perhaps from confusion with mjp6, with which it is often confounded by copyists). It is really derived (through irapow) from iruipos, which originally meant "tufa," and then "callus," a callosity or hardening of the skin. (It is also used by medical writers of the "callus" formed at the end of fractured bones, and of "chalkstones" in the joints.) Hence, from the insensibility of the parts covered with hard skin, the verb means to make dull or insensible. It is thus correctly explained by Theodoret, irt!poo-iv n)v (rd.Triv avaXyrjaiav Aeyfi icai yap ai T3 0&q...
Die Inhaltsangabe kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 Excerpt: ...of ignorance only, not of the absence of a higher faculty of knowledge. Such ignorance was not inaccessible to light, as is shown by the instances of the converted Gentiles; but so far as it was due to the hardness of their hearts, it was culpable. It is only by the subordination of the latter clause to the former that the use of Ttjv ovo-av iv avrois instead of the simple avriov finds a satisfactory explanation. Compare Rom. i. 18-33. Ellicott, following Harless, explains these words as pointing out the indwelling deep-seated nature of the ayvoia, and forming a sort of parallelism to T»?s Kaphas avriov, and so, as Harless adds, opposed to mere external occasions. But there is nothing of this in the context, nor in the words oSo-av iv avrots. The ignorance must be in them; and, unless we take the connexion as above (with Meyer), the words express nothing more than aJrw. 7ruipio-i« is "hardness," not "blindness," as most of the ancient versions interpret. Indeed, it is so explained also by Suidas and Hesychius, as if derived from an adjective iriap6s, "blind "; which seems, however, to be only an invention of the grammarians (perhaps from confusion with mjp6, with which it is often confounded by copyists). It is really derived (through irapow) from iruipos, which originally meant "tufa," and then "callus," a callosity or hardening of the skin. (It is also used by medical writers of the "callus" formed at the end of fractured bones, and of "chalkstones" in the joints.) Hence, from the insensibility of the parts covered with hard skin, the verb means to make dull or insensible. It is thus correctly explained by Theodoret, irt!poo-iv n)v (rd.Triv avaXyrjaiav Aeyfi icai yap ai T3 0&q...
„Über diesen Titel“ kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.