OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp external:

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@Info_Acts @ SOURCES OF THE ACTS Beyond a doubt Luke employed a variety of sources for this great history as he did for the Gospel (Luke:1:1-4|). In fact, Cadbury argues that this Prologue was meant to apply to the Acts also as Volume II whether he intended to write a third volume or not. Certainly we are entitled to say that Luke used the same historical method for Acts. Some of these sources are easy to see. Luke had his own personal experience for the "we" sections. Then he had the benefit of Paul's own notes or suggestions for all that portion where Paul figures from chapters 8 to 28, since Luke was apparently with Paul in Rome when he finished the Book. This would include Paul's sermons and addresses which Luke gives unless one wishes to say, as some do, that Luke followed the style of Thucydides and composed the kind of addresses that he thought Paul would make. I see no evidence of that for each address differs from the others and suits precisely the occasion when it was delivered. The ancients frequently employed shorthand and Paul may have preserved notes of his addresses. Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University, argues in his _Composition and Date of Acts_ (1916) that Luke used an Aramaic document for the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. There is an Aramaic element in certain portions of these chapters, but nothing like so pronounced as in Luke 1 and 2 after strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. It cannot be said that Torrey has made out his case for such a single document. Luke may have had several such documents besides access to others familiar with the early days of the work in Jerusalem. There was Simon Peter whom Paul visited for two weeks in Jerusalem (Galatians:1:18|) besides other points of contact with him in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts:15| and strkjv@Galatians:2|). There was also Barnabas who was early Paul's friend (Acts:9:27|) and who knew the beginnings as few did (Acts:4:36f.|). Besides many others it is to be observed that Paul with Luke made a special visit to Caesarea where he spent a week with the gifted Philip and his daughters with the gift of prophecy (Acts:21:8f.|). But with all the inevitable variety of sources for the information needed to cover the wide field of the Book of Acts the same mind has manifestly worked through it and it is the same style all through that appears in the "we" sections where the writer is confessedly a companion of Paul. No other companion of Paul carries this claim for the authorship and no other was a physician and no author has the external evidence from early writers.

rwp@Acts:7:51 @{Stiffnecked} (\sklrotrachloi\). From \sklros\ (hard) and \trachlos\, neck, both old words, but this compound only in the LXX and here alone in the N.T. Critics assume that Stephen was interrupted at this point because of the sharp tone of the speech. That may be true, but the natural climax is sufficient explanation. {Uncircumcised in heart} (\aperitmtoi kardiais\). Late adjective common in LXX and here only in the N.T. Verbal of \peritemn\, to cut around and \a\ privative. Both of these epithets are applied to the Jews in the O.T. (Exodus:32:9; strkjv@33:3,5; strkjv@34:9; strkjv@Leviticus:26:41; strkjv@Deuteronomy:9:6; strkjv@Jeremiah:6:10|). \Kardiais\ is locative plural like \sin\ (ears), but some MSS. have genitive singular \kardias\ (objective genitive). No epithet could have been more galling to these Pharisees than to be turned "uncircumcised in heart" (Romans:2:29|). They had only the physical circumcision which was useless. {Ye always} (\humeis aei\). Emphatic position of humeis and "always" looks backward over the history of their forefathers which Stephen had reviewed. {Resist} (\antipiptete\). Old word to fall against, to rush against. Only here in the N.T., but used in the O.T. which is here quoted (Numbers:27:14|). Their fathers had made "external worship a substitute for spiritual obedience" (Furneaux). Stephen has shown how God had revealed himself gradually, the revelation sloping upward to Christ Jesus. "And as he saw his countrymen repeating the old mistake--clinging to the present and the material, while God was calling them to higher spiritual levels--and still, as ever, resisting the Holy Spirit, treating the Messiah as the patriarchs had treated Joseph, and the Hebrews Moses--the pity of it overwhelmed him, and his mingled grief and indignation broke out in words of fire, such as burned of old on the lips of the prophets" (Furneaux). Stephen, the accused, is now the accuser, and the situation becomes intolerable to the Sanhedrin.

rwp@John:8:13 @{Of thyself} (\peri seautou\). This technical objection was according to the rules of evidence among the rabbis. "No man can give witness for himself" (_Mishnah, Ketub_. 11. 9). Hence, they say, "not true" (\ouk althes\), not pertinent. "They were still in the region of pedantic rules and external tests." In strkjv@John:5:31| Jesus acknowledged this technical need of further witness outside of his own claims (John:19-30|) and proceeded to give it (John:32-47|) in the testimony of the Baptist, of the Father, of his works, of the Scriptures, and of Moses in particular.

rwp@John:13:10 @{He that is bathed} (\ho leloumenos\). Perfect passive articular participle of \lou\, to bathe the whole body (Acts:9:37|). {Save to wash his feet} (\ei m tous podas nipsasthai\). Aleph and some old Latin MSS. have only \nipsasthai\, but the other words are genuine and are really involved by the use of \nipsasthai\ (first aorist middle infinitive of \nipt\, to wash parts of the body) instead of \lousasthai\, to bathe the whole body (just used before). The guest was supposed to bathe (\lou\) before coming to a feast and so only the feet had to be washed (\nipt\) on removing the sandals. {Clean} (\katharos\). Because of the bath. For \katharos\ meaning external cleanliness see strkjv@Matthew:23:26; strkjv@27:59;| but in strkjv@John:15:3| it is used for spiritual purity as here in "ye are clean" (\katharoi\). {Every whit} (\holos\). All of the body because of the bath. For this same predicate use of \holos\ see strkjv@9:34|. {But not all} (\all' ouchi pantes\). Strongly put exception (\ouchi\). Plain hint of the treachery of Judas who is reclining at the table after having made the bargain with the Sanhedrin (Mark:14:11|). A year ago Jesus knew that Judas was a devil and said to the apostles: "One of you is a devil" (6:64,70|). But it did not hurt them then nor did they suspect each other then or now. It is far-fetched to make Jesus here refer to the cleansing power of his blood or to baptism as some do.

rwp@Revelation:7:15 @{Therefore} (\dia touto\). Because of the washing described in verse 14|. {They serve him} (\latreuousin auti\). Dative case with \latreu\ (present active indicative, old verb, originally to serve for hire \latron\, then service in general, then religious service to God, strkjv@Matthew:4:10|, then in particular ritual worship of the priests, strkjv@Hebrews:8:5|). All the redeemed are priests (Revelation:16:5,10|) in the heavenly temple (6:9|) as here. But this service is that of spiritual worship, not of external rites (Romans:12:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:3|). {Day and night} (\hmeras kai nuktos\). Genitive of time, "by day and night," as in strkjv@4:8| of the praise of the four living creatures. {Shall spread his tabernacle over them} (\sknsei ep' autous\). Future (change of tense from present in \latreuousin\) active of \skno\, old verb from \sknos\ (tent, tabernacle), used in strkjv@John:1:14| of the earthly life of Christ, elsewhere in N.T. only in Rev. (7:14; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|). In strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6| of those who dwell in tents, here of God spreading his tent "over" (\ep' autous\) the redeemed in heaven, in strkjv@21:3| of God tabernacling "with" (\met' autn\) the redeemed, in both instances a picture of sacred fellowship, and "the further idea of God's Presence as a protection from all fear of evil" (Swete) like the overshadowing of Israel by the Shekinah and a possible allusion also to the tents (\sknai\) of the feast of tabernacles and to the tent of meeting where God met Moses (Exodus:33:7-11|).

rwp@Romans:10:2 @{A zeal for God} (\zlon theou\). Objective genitive like strkjv@Phillipians:3:9|, "through faith in Christ" (\dia pistes Christou\). {But not according to knowledge} (\all' ou kat' epignsin\). They had knowledge of God and so were superior to the Gentiles in privilege (2:9-11|), but they sought God in an external way by rules and rites and missed him (9:30-33|). They became zealous for the letter and the form instead of for God himself.