12--τ6. ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Β 181 βράνας. 14. ᾿Αλέξανδρος ὃ " χαλκεὺς πολλά μοι κακὰ ” ἐνεδείξατο - v εις only --- ἀποδώσει 1 αὐτῷ 6 Κύριος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα attod -—15. ὃν καὶ σὺ ν αδη.1.15, A 17, ete, Z * φυλάσσου, “λίαν γὰρ *dvtéoTn” τοῖς ἡμετέροις λόγοις. 16. Ἐν Cor. viii. a , a2 , ος 7 b , 8 A 3 24, Tit. ii. τῇ πρώτη µου " ἀπολογίᾳ οὐδείς μοι " παρεγένετο," ἀλλὰ πάντες το, iii. 2, ἥ Fi ἤ Heb. vi. 10, II.
x Luke xii. 15, Acts xxi. 25, 2 Pet. iii. 17. z See 2 Tim. iii. 8. ὃ Ὁ Acts v. 21, xxi. 18, XXiii. 35, Χχῖν. 24, XXV. 7.
y Matt. (4), Mark (4), Luke (1), 2 John 4, 3 John 3. a Acts xxii. 1, xxv. 16, 1 Cor. ix. 3, 2 Cor. vii. 11, Phil. i. 7, 16, 1 Pet. iii. 15.
150 ΝΑΟΡΕΕ, 17, 31, 37, 6733, 80, 108, nine others, f, g, vgclem., go., syrpesh, boh. arm.; ἀποδῴη DcK(8wer)L, most cursives, d, e, am., fuld.
3 ἀνθέστηκε SQCDCKLP.
more costly μεμβράναι contained, in all likelihood, portions of the Hebrew Scrip- tures, hence μάλιστα (see Kenyon, Textual Crit. of N. Τ. p. 22). We know that St. Paul employed in study the enforced leisure of prison (Acts xxvi. 24). We may note that, like Browning’s Grammarian, he did not allow his normal strenuous life to be affected or diverted by the known near approach of death.
Vv. 14,15. Beware of Alexander the smith. Ver. 14. ᾿Αλέξανδρος ὁ χαλκεύς: It
is probable that this is the Alexander mentioned in τ Tim. i. 20, and it is pos- sible that he may be the Jew of that name who was unwillingly prominent in the riot at Ephesus (Acts xix. 33, 34).
χαλκεύς: does not mean that he worked only in copper. The term came to be used of workers in any kind of metal (see Gen. iv. 22, LXX).
πολλά μοι κακὰ ἐνεδείξατο: Multa mala miht ostendit (Vulg.). His odium theologicum expressed itself in deeds as well as in words. For this use of év- δείκνυμαι, compare reff. Moulton and Milligan (Expositor, vii., vii. 282) cite from a papyrus of ii. A.D. πᾶσαν πίστιν μοι ἐνδεικνυμένῃ.
ἀποδώσει: The future indic. is cer- tainly attested by a greater weight of external evidence than the optative. The moral question raised by the clause is quite independent of the mood and tense used: it is, Was the future punish- ment of Alexander, which St. Paul con- sidered equitable, a matter of more satisfaction than distress to the apostle ? The answer would seem to be, Yes. And, provided that no element of personal spite intrudes, such a feeling cannot be logically condemned. If God is a moral governor; if sinis a reality ; those who know themselves to be on God’s side cannot help a feeling of joy in knowing that evil will not always triumph over
3 συμπαρεγένετο SOCDKLP.
good. The sentiment comes from Deut: ΧΧΧΙΙ. 35, aS quoted in Rom. xii. 19, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω. The exact wording is found in Ps. Ixi. (Ixii.) 13, σὺ ἀποδώσεις ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Cf. Ps. ΧΧΥΊΪ. (xxvilil.) 4; Prov. xxiv. 12.
Ver. 15. φυλάσσου: For this sense of φυλάσσω with a direct object, see reff. We infer that Alexander was in Timothy’s vicinity.
ἡμετέροις λόγοις: The λόγοι were expressions of doctrine common to all
Christians with St. Paul; hence ἥμε- τέροις. Vv. 16-18. Ihave spoken of my pre-
sent loneliness. Yet I have no justifica- tion for depression; for since I came to Rome I have had experience, at my pre- liminary trial, that God is a loyal protec- tor when earthly friends fail. And so I have good hope that He will bring me safe through every danger to His hea- venly kingdom.
Ver. 16. The reference in my first defence seems at first sight somewhat uncertain, since ver. 17 states the issue of that “defence”? to have been that ‘ the message was fully proclaimed, and ail the Gentiles heard it”. This would agree with the circumstances of the trials before Felix and Festus, a direct result of which was that Paul was enabled to ‘ bear wit- ness also at Rome”? (Acts xxiii. ττ). On this view, the apostle would be recalling a signal past instance in which God had overruled evil for good. On the other hand, it is a fatal objection to this refer- ence of the phrase that when he was at Czsarea he seems to have been kindly treated by his friends as well as by the officials. And, moreover, the sentence reads like a piece of fresh information. This latter consideration is also an argu- ment against referring it to the first Roman imprisonment (as Euseb. H. E. ii. 22), though the very similar sentiments of Phil. i. 12, 13, render the identification