OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp expressly:

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL ALSO The author of the Acts expressly states that he wrote "the first treatise (\ton prton logon\) concerning all things, O Theophilus, that Jesus began both to do and to teach until which day he gave command through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen and was received up" (Acts:1:1f.|). There is no room for dispute that the reference is directly to the Gospel according to Luke as we have it now. Like the Gospel the book is dedicated to Theophilus. And, what is even more important, the same style appears in both Gospel and Acts. This fact Harnack has shown with great pains and conclusiveness. There is the same interest in medical matters and even Cadbury, who denies by implication the Lukan authorship, admits identity of authorship for both books.

rwp@Acts:4:4 @{Men} (\andrn\). Strictly, men and not women, for \anthrpos\ is the term for both men and women. But in strkjv@Luke:11:31| \andres\ seems to include both men and women and that is possible here, though by no means certain, for see strkjv@Matthew:14:21| where the women and children are expressly excepted.

rwp@Acts:10:29 @{Without gainsaying} (\anantirrhts\). \A\ privative with compound adverb from \anti\ (back, in return, against) and verbal \rhtos\ (from \errhthn\, to speak). Late and rare and here only in the N.T., but the adjective in strkjv@19:36|. Without answering back. That is true after the Holy Spirit expressly told Peter to go with the messengers of Cornelius (10:19-23|). Peter's objections were made to the Lord in the vision which he did not understand. But that vision prepared him for this great step which he had now taken. He had stepped over the line of Jewish custom. {With what intent} (\tini logi\). More exactly, "for what reason" as in Plato, _Gorgias_ 512 C.

rwp@John:6:10 @{Sit down} (\anapesein\). Literally, "fall back," lie down, recline. Second aorist active infinitive of \anapipt\. {Much grass} (\chortos polus\). Old word for pasture, green grass (Mark:6:39|) or hay (1Corinthians:3:12|). It was spring (John:6:4|) and plenty of green grass on the hillside. {The men} (\hoi andres\). Word for men as distinct from women, expressly stated in strkjv@Matthew:14:21|. {In number} (\ton arithmon\). Adverbial accusative (of general reference). {About} (\hos\). General estimate, though they were arranged in orderly groups by hundreds and fifties, "in ranks" like "garden beds" (\prasiai\, strkjv@Mark:6:40|).

rwp@John:20:27 @{Then saith he to Thomas} (\eita legei ti Thomi\). Jesus turns directly to Thomas as if he had come expressly for his sake. He reveals his knowledge of the doubt in the mind of Thomas and mentions the very tests that he had named (25|). {Be not faithless} (\m ginou apistos\). Present middle imperative of \ginomai\ in prohibition, "stop becoming disbelieving." The doubt of Thomas in the face of the witness of the others was not a proof of his superior intelligence. Sceptics usually pose as persons of unusual mentality. The medium who won Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to spiritualism has confessed that it was all humbug, but he deceived the gullible novelist. But Thomas had carried his incredulity too far. Note play on \apistos\ (disbelieving) and \pistos\ (believing).

rwp@Luke:2:5 @{To enrol himself with Mary} (\apograpsasthai sun Mariam\). Direct middle. "With Mary" is naturally taken with the infinitive as here. If so, that means that Mary's family register was in Bethlehem also and that she also belonged to the house of David. It is possible to connect "with Mary" far back with "went up" (\aneb\) in verse 4|, but it is unnatural to do so. There is no real reason for doubting that Mary herself was a descendant of David and that is the obvious way to understand Luke's genealogy of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:3:23-38|). The Syriac Sinaitic expressly says that both Joseph and Mary were of the house and city of David. {Betrothed} (\emnsteumenn\). Same verb as in strkjv@1:27|, but here it really means "married" or "espoused" as strkjv@Matthew:1:24f.| shows. Otherwise she could not have travelled with Joseph. {Great with child} (\enkui\). Only here in N.T. Common Greek word.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE AUTHOR The writer calls himself John (Revelation:1:1,4,9; strkjv@22:8|). But what John? The book can hardly be pseudonymous, though, with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas, that is the rule with apocalypses. There would have been a clearer claim than just the name. The traditional and obvious way to understand the name is the Apostle John, though Dionysius of Alexandria mentions John Mark as held by some and he himself suggests another John, like the so-called Presbyter John of Papias as quoted by Eusebius. The uncertain language of Papias has raised a deal of questioning. Swete thinks that the majority of modern critics ascribe the Apocalypse to this Presbyter John, to whom Moffatt assigns probably II and III John. Irenaeus represents the Apostle John as having lived to the time of Trajan, at least to A.D. 98. Most ancient writers agree with this extreme old age of John. Justin Martyr states expressly that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse. Irenaeus called it the work of a disciple of Jesus. In the ninth century lived Georgius Hamartolus, and a MS. of his alleges that Papias says that John the son of Zebedee was beheaded by the Jews and there is an extract in an Oxford MS. of the seventh century which alleges that Papias says John and James were put to death by the Jews. On the basis of this slim evidence some today argue that John did not live to the end of the century and so did not write any of the Johannine books. But a respectable number of modern scholars still hold to the ancient view that the Apocalypse of John is the work of the Apostle and Beloved Disciple, the son of Zebedee.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE DATE There are two chief theories, the Neronic, soon after Nero's death, the other in the reign of Domitian. Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius as saying expressly that the Apocalypse of John was written at the close of the reign of Domitian. This testimony is concurred in by Clement of Alexandria, by Origen, by Eusebius, by Jerome. In harmony with this clear testimony the severity of the persecutions suit the later date better than the earlier one. There is, besides, in strkjv@Revelation:17:11f.| an apparent reference to the story that Nero would return again. The fifth king who is one of the seven is an eighth. There was a Nero legend, to be sure, that Nero either was not dead but was in Parthia, or would be _redivivus_ after death. Juvenal termed Domitian "a bald Nero" and others called Domitian "a second Nero." But in spite of all this Hort, Lightfoot, Sanday, Westcott have argued strongly for the Neronic era. Peake is willing to admit allusions to the Neronic period as Swete is also, but both consider the Domitianic date the best supported. Moffatt considers any earlier date than Domitian "almost impossible."

rwp@Romans:2:22 @{That abhorrest} (\ho bdelussomenos\). Old word to make foul, to stink, to have abhorrence for. In LXX, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:21:8|. The very word used by Jesus to express their horror of idols (\eidla\, see on ¯Acts:7:41; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:2|). See strkjv@Matthew:24:15| for "abomination." {Dost thou rob temples?} (\hierosuleis?\). Old verb from \hierosulos\ (Acts:19:37|) and that from \hieron\, temple, and \sula\, to rob. The town clerk (Acts:19:37|) said that these Jews (Paul and his companions) were "not robbers of temples," proof that the charge was sometimes made against Jews, though expressly forbidden the Jews (Josephus, _Ant_. IV. 8, 10). Paul refers to the crime of robbing idol temples in spite of the defilement of contact with idolatry.

rwp@Romans:11:17 @{Branches} (\kladn\). From \kla\, to break. {Were broken off} (\exeklasthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \ekkla\. Play on the word \klados\ (branch) and \ekkla\, to break off. Condition of first class, assumed as true. Some of the individual Jews (natural Israel) were broken off the stock of the tree (spiritual Israel). {And thou} (\kai su\). An individual Gentile. {Being a wild olive} (\agrielaios n\). This word, used by Aristotle, occurs in an inscription. Ramsay (_Pauline Studies_, pp. 219ff.) shows that the ancients used the wild-olive graft upon an old olive tree to reinvigorate the tree precisely as Paul uses the figure here and that both the olive tree and the graft were influenced by each other, though the wild olive graft did not produce as good olives as the original stock. But it should be noted that in verse 24| Paul expressly states that the grafting of Gentiles on to the stock of the spiritual Israel was "contrary to nature" (\para phusin\). {Wast grafted in} (\enekentrisths\). First aorist passive indicative of \enkentriz\, to cut in, to graft, used by Aristotle. Belongs "to the higher _Koin_" (literary _Koin_) according to Milligan. {Partaker} (\sunkoinnos\). Co-partner. {Fatness} (\piottos\). Old word from \pin\ (fat), only here in N.T. Note three genitives here "of the root of the fatness of the olive."