OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp discussed:

rwp@Info_Acts @ LUKE THE AUTHOR It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two volumes (_The Acts of the Apostles_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; _The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911). Ramsay's view may be found in Chapter I of _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_, Chapter XII of _Pauline and Other Studies_. A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_ by Dr. D. A. Hayes, in Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, and in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling, Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass, Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of _The Acts of the Apostles_, Vol. II of _The Beginnings of Christianity_, edited by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented: _The Case for the Tradition_ by C. W. Emmet, _The Case against the Tradition_ by H. Windisch. _The Internal Evidence of Acts_ is discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys _The Tradition_ (the external evidence) and draws a negative conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars. A similar position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, _The Making of Luke--Acts_ (1927). But all the same the traditional view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that Acts is a _Tendenz_ writing for the purpose of healing the breach between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came together had great influence for a while. In fact both Ramsay and Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.

rwp@Hebrews:8:1 @{In the things which we are saying} (\epi tois legomenois\). Locative case of the articular present passive participle of \leg\ after \epi\ as in strkjv@Luke:5:5; strkjv@Hebrews:11:4|, "in the matter of the things being discussed." {The chief point} (\kephalaion\). Neuter singular of the adjective \kephalaios\ (from \kephal\, head), belonging to the head. Vulgate _capitulum_, nominative absolute in old and common sense, the main matter (even so without the article as in Thucydides), "the pith" (Coverdale), common in the papyri as in Greek literature. The word also occurs in the sense of the sum total or a sum of money (Acts:22:28|) as in Plutarch, Josephus, and also in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). {Such an high priest} (\toiouton archierea\). As the one described in chapters strkjv@4:16-7:28| and in particular strkjv@7:26| (\toioutos\) strkjv@7:27,28|. But the discussion of the priestly work of Jesus continues through strkjv@12:3|. \Toioutos\ is both retrospective and prospective. Here we have a summary of the five points of superiority of Jesus as high priest (8:1-6|). He is himself a better priest than Aaron (\toioutos\ in strkjv@8:1| such as shown in strkjv@4:16-7:28|); he works in a better sanctuary (8:2,5|); he offers a better sacrifice (8:3f.|); he is mediator of a better covenant (8:6|); his work rests on better promises (8:6|); hence he has obtained a better ministry as a whole (8:6|). In this resum (\kephelaion\) the author gives the pith (\kephalaion\) of his argument, curiously enough with both senses of \kephalaion\ (pith, summary) pertinent. He will discuss the four points remaining thus: (1) the better covenant, strkjv@8:7-13|. (2) The better sanctuary, strkjv@9:1-12|. (3) The better sacrifice, strkjv@9:13-10:18|. (4) The better promises, strkjv@10:19-12:3|. One point (the better high priest, like Melchizedek) has already been discussed (4:16-7:28|). {Sat down} (\ekathisen\). Repetition of strkjv@1:3| with \tou thronou\ (the throne) added. This phrase prepares the way for the next point.

rwp@Hebrews:10:19 @{Having therefore} (\echontes oun\). The author now gives a second (the first in strkjv@8:1-6|) resum of the five arguments concerning the superior priestly work of Christ (10:19-25|) coupled with an earnest exhortation like that in strkjv@4:14-16|, with which he began the discussion, before he proceeds to treat at length the fifth and last one, the better promises in Christ (10:26-12:3|). {Boldness} (\parrsian\). This is the dominant note all through the Epistle (3:6; strkjv@4:16; strkjv@10:19,35|). They were tempted to give up Christ, to be quitters. Boldness (courage) is the need of the hour. {Into the holy place} (\tn hagin\). That is, the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus is (6:18-20|). This is the better sanctuary (9:1-12|). {By the blood of Jesus} (\en ti haimati Isou\). This is the better sacrifice just discussed (9:13-10:18|).

rwp@Hebrews:10:23 @{Let us hold fast} (\katechmen\). Present (keep on holding fast) active volitive subjunctive of \katech\ as in strkjv@3:6,14|. {That it waver not} (\aklin\). Common compound adjective (alpha privative and \klin\, unwavering, not leaning, here only in N.T. It is a confession of hope, not of despair. {That promised} (\ho epaggeilamenos\). First aorist middle articular participle of \epaggell\. This is the argument remaining to be discussed (10:26-12:3|) and already alluded to (6:13f.; strkjv@8:6|). The ministry of Jesus rests upon "better promises." How better? God is "faithful," but he made the other promises also. We shall see.

rwp@Hebrews:13:12 @{Wherefore Jesus also} (\dio kai Isous\). The parallel is drawn between the O.T. ritual and the better sacrifice of Jesus already discussed (9:13-10:18|). The purpose of Jesus is shown (\hina hagiasi\, \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \hagiaz\, to sanctify), the means employed (\dia tou idiou haimatos\, by his own blood), the place of his suffering (\epathen\, as in strkjv@5:8|) is also given (\ex ts puls\, outside the gate, implied in strkjv@John:19:17|) which phrase corresponds to "outside the camp" of verse 11|.

rwp@Jude:1:5 @{To put you in remembrance} (\hupomnsai\). See strkjv@2Peter:1:12| \hupomimnskein\ (present active infinitive there, first aorist active infinitive here). {Though ye know all things once for all} (\eidotas hapax panta\). Concessive perfect (sense of present) active participle as in strkjv@2Peter:1:12|, but without \kaiper\. {The Lord} (\kurios\). Some MSS. add \Isous\. The use of \kurios\ here is usually understood to mean the Lord Jesus Christ, as Clement of Alex. (_Adumbr_. p. 133) explains, strkjv@Exodus:23:20|, by \ho mustikos ekeinos aggelos Isous\ (that mystical angel Jesus). For the mystic reference to Christ see strkjv@1Corinthians:10:4,9; strkjv@Hebrews:11:26|. Some MSS. here add \theos\ instead of \Isous\. {Afterward} (\to deuteron\). Adverbial accusative, "the second time." After having saved the people out of Egypt. {Destroyed} (\aplesen\). First aorist active indicative of \apollumi\, old verb, to destroy. {Them that believed not} (\tous m pisteusantas\). First aorist active articular participle of \pisteu\. The reference is to strkjv@Numbers:14:27-37|, when all the people rescued from Egypt perished except Caleb and Joshua. This first example by Jude:is not in II Peter, but is discussed in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:5-11; strkjv@Hebrews:3:18-4:2|.

rwp@Matthew:13:13 @{Because seeing} (\hoti blepontes\). In the parallel passages in strkjv@Mark:4:12| and strkjv@Luke:8:10| we find \hina\ with the subjunctive. This does not necessarily mean that in Mark and Luke \hina=hoti\ with the causal sense, though a few rare instances of such usage may be found in late Greek. For a discussion of the problem see my chapter on "The Causal Use of _Hina_" in _Studies in Early Christianity_ (1928) edited by Prof. S.J. Case. Here in Matthew we have first "an adaptation of strkjv@Isaiah:6:9f.| which is quoted in full in v. 14f.|" (McNeile). Thus Matthew presents "a striking paradox, 'though they see, they do not (really) see'" (McNeile). Cf. strkjv@John:9:41|. The idiom here in Matthew gives no trouble save in comparison with Mark and Luke which will be discussed in due turn. The form \suniousin\ is an omega verb form (\suni\) rather than the \mi\ verb (\sunimi\) as is common in the _Koin_.

rwp@Info_Romans @{Paul} @(\Paulos\). Roman name (\Paulus\). See on ¯Acts:13:9| for the origin of this name by the side of Saul. {Servant} (\doulos\). Bond-slave of Jesus Christ (or Christ Jesus as some MSS. give it and as is the rule in the later Epistles) for the first time in the Epistles in the opening sentence, though the phrase already in strkjv@Galatians:1:10|. Recurs in strkjv@Phillipians:1:1| and \desmios\ (bondsman) in strkjv@Philemon:1:1|. {Called to be an apostle} (\kltos apostolos\). An apostle by vocation (Denney) as in strkjv@1Corinthians:1:1|. In strkjv@Galatians:1:1| \kltos\ is not used, but the rest of the verse has the same idea. {Separated} (\aphrismenos\). Perfect passive participle of \aphoriz\ for which verb see on ¯Galatians:1:15|. Paul is a spiritual Pharisee (etymologically), separated not to the oral tradition, but to God's gospel, a chosen vessel (Acts:9:15|). By man also (Acts:13:2|). Many of Paul's characteristic words like \euaggelion\ have been already discussed in the previous Epistles that will call for little comment from now on.