OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp prejudice:

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@Acts:6:11 @{Then they suborned men} (\tote hupebalon andras\). Second aorist active indicative of \hupoball\, old verb, but here only in the N.T., to put under like a carpet, to bring men under one's control by suggestion or by money. One recalls the plight of Caiaphas in the trial of Jesus when he sought false witnesses. _Subornaverunt_. They put these men forward in an underhand way for fraud. {Blasphemous words against Moses and God} (\blasphma eis Musn kai ton theon\). The punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death. See strkjv@Matthew:12:31| for discussion of the word \blasphmia, blasphme, blasphmos\, all in the N.T. from \blapt\, to harm, and \phm\, speech, harmful speech, or \blax\, stupid, and \phm\. But the charge against Stephen was untrue. Please note that Moses is here placed before God and practically on a par with God in the matter of blasphemy. The purpose of this charge is to stir the prejudices of the people in the matter of Jewish rights and privileges. It is the Pharisees who are conducting this attack on Stephen while the Sadducees had led them against Peter and John. The position of Stephen is critical in the extreme for the Sadducees will not help him as Gamaliel did the apostles.

rwp@Acts:9:43 @{Many days} (\hmeras hikanas\). See on verse ¯23|. Luke is fond of the phrase and uses it for time, number, size. It might be "ten days, ten months, or ten years" (Page). {With one Simon a tanner} (\para tini Simni bursei\). The use of \para\ is usual for staying with one (by his side). "The more scrupulous Jews regarded such an occupation as unclean, and avoided those who pursued it. The conduct of Peter here shows that he did not carry his prejudices to that extent" (Hackett). One of the rabbis said: "It is impossible for the world to do without tanners; but woe to him who is a tanner." A Jewess could sue for divorce if she discovered that her husband was a tanner. And yet Peter will have scruples on the housetop in the tanner's house about eating food considered unclean. "The lodging with the tanner was a step on the road to eating with a Gentile" (Furneaux).

rwp@Acts:10:16 @{Thrice} (\epitris\). For three times. Peter remained unconvinced even by the prohibition of God. Here is a striking illustration of obstinacy on the part of one who acknowledges the voice of God to him when the command of the Lord crosses one's preferences and prejudices. There are abundant examples today of precisely this thing. In a real sense Peter was maintaining a pose of piety beyond the will of the Lord. Peter was defiling what God had cleansed. {Was received up} (\anelmphth\). First aorist passive indicative of \analamban\, to take up. The word used of the Ascension (1:22|).

rwp@Acts:11:24 @{For} (\hoti\). Because. This is the explanation of the conduct of Barnabas. The facts were opposed to the natural prejudices of a Jew like Barnabas, but he rose above such racial narrowness. He was a really good man (\agathos\). See strkjv@Romans:5:7| for distinction between \agathos\ and \dikaios\, righteous, where \agathos\ ranks higher than \dikaios\. Besides, Barnabas was full of the Holy Spirit (like Peter) and of faith and so willing to follow the leading of God's Spirit and take some risks. This is a noble tribute paid by Luke. One wonders if Barnabas was still living when he wrote this. Certainly he was not prejudiced against Barnabas though he will follow the fortunes of Paul after the separation (15:36; 41|). {Was added unto the Lord} (\proseteth ti kurii\). First aorist passive indicative of \prostithmi\, common verb to add to. These people were added to the Lord Jesus before they were added to the church. If that were always true, what a difference it would make in our churches.

rwp@Acts:13:27 @{Because they knew him not} (\touton agnosantes\). First aorist active participle (causal) of \agnoe\, old verb, not to know. Peter gives "ignorance" (\agnoia\) as the excuse of the Jews in the death of Christ (3:17|) and Paul does the same about his conduct before his conversion (1Timothy:1:13|). This ignorance mitigated the degree of their guilt, but it did not remove it, for it was willing ignorance and prejudice. {The voices of the prophets which are read} (\tas phnas tn prophtn tas anaginskomenas\). Object also of \agnosantes\, though it could be the object of \eplrsan\ (fulfilled) if \kai\ is taken as "also". The "voices" were heard as they were read aloud each Sabbath in the synagogue. In their ignorant condemnation they fulfilled the prophecies about the suffering Messiah.

rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Acts:16:20 @{Unto the magistrates} (\tois stratgois\). Greek term (\stratos, ag\) for leader of an army or general. But in civic life a governor. The technical name for the magistrates in a Roman colony was _duumviri_ or duumvirs, answering to consuls in Rome. \Stratgoi\ here is the Greek rendering of the Latin _praetores_ (praetors), a term which they preferred out of pride to the term _duumviri_. Since they represented consuls, the praetors or duumvirs were accompanied by lictors bearing rods (verse 35|). {These men} (\houtoi hoi anthrpoi\). Contemptuous use. {Being Jews} (\Ioudaioi huparchontes\). The people of Philippi, unlike those in Antioch (11:26|), did not recognize any distinction between Jews and Christians. These four men were Jews. This appeal to race prejudice would be especially pertinent then because of the recent decree of Claudius expelling Jews from Rome (18:2|). It was about A.D. 49 or 50 that Paul is in Philippi. The hatred of the Jews by the Romans is known otherwise (Cicero, _Pro Flacco_, XXVIII; Juvenal, XIV. 96-106). {Do exceedingly trouble} (\ektarassousin\). Late compound (effective use of \ek\ in composition) and only here in the N.T.

rwp@Acts:16:22 @{Rose up together} (\sunepest\). Second aorist (ingressive) active of the double compound \sunephistmi\, intransitive, old verb, but only here in the N.T. (cf. \katepestsan\ in strkjv@18:12|). There was no actual attack of the mob as Paul and Silas were in the hands of the officers, but a sudden and violent uprising of the people, the appeal to race and national prejudice having raised a ferment. {Rent their garments off them} (\perirxantes autn ta himatia\). First aorist active participle of \perirgnumi\, old verb, to break off all around, to strip or rend all round. Here only in the N.T. The duumvirs probably gave orders for Paul and Silas to be stripped of their outer garments (\himatia\), though not actually doing it with their own hands, least of all not stripping off their own garments in horror as Ramsay thinks. That would call for the middle voice. In II Macc. strkjv@4:38 the active voice is used as here of stripping off the garments of others. Paul in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:2| refers to the shameful treatment received in Philippi, "insulted" (\hubristhentas\). As a Roman citizen this was unlawful, but the duumvirs looked on Paul and Silas as vagabond and seditious Jews and "acted with the highhandedness characteristic of the fussy provincial authorities" (Knowling). {Commanded} (\ekeleuon\). Imperfect active, repeatedly ordered. The usual formula of command was: "Go, lictors; strip off their garments; let them be scourged." {To beat them with rods} (\rhabdizein\). Present active infinitive of \rhabdiz\, old verb, but in the N.T.=_virgis caedere_ only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:11:25| where Paul alludes to this incident and two others not given by Luke (\tris erhabdisthn\). He came near getting another in Jerusalem (Acts:22:25|). Why did not Paul say here that he was a Roman citizen as he does later (verse 37|) and in Jerusalem (22:26f.|)? It might have done no good in this hubbub and no opportunity was allowed for defence of any kind.

rwp@John:7:52 @{Art thou also of Galilee?} (\M kai su ek ts Galilaias ei;\). Formally negative answer expected by \m\, but really they mean to imply that Nicodemus from local feeling or prejudice has lined himself up with this Galilean mob (\ochlos\) of sympathizers with Jesus and is like Jesus himself a Galilean. "These aristocrats of Jerusalem had a scornful contempt for the rural Galileans" (Bernard). {That out of Galilee ariseth no prophet} (\hoti ek ts Galilaias prophts ouk egeiretai\). As a matter of fact Jonah, Hosea, Nahum, possibly also Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were from Galilee. It was simply the rage of the Sanhedrin against Jesus regardless of the facts. Westcott suggests that they may have reference to the future, but that is a mere excuse for them.

rwp@John:8:27 @{They perceived not} (\ouk egnsan\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. "Preoccupied as they were with thoughts of an earthly deliverer" (Westcott) and prejudiced against recognizing Jesus as the one sent from God. {That he spake to them of the Father} (\hoti ton patera autois elegen\). Indirect assertion, but with the present indicative (\legei\) changed to the imperfect (\elegen\) as was sometimes done (2:25|) after a secondary tense.

rwp@John:8:46 @{Which of you convicteth me of sin?} (\Tis ex humn elegchei me peri hamaritas;\). See on strkjv@3:20; strkjv@16:8| (the work of the Holy Spirit) for \elegch\ for charge and proof. The use of \hamartia\ as in strkjv@1:29| means sin in general, not particular sins. The rhetorical question which receives no answer involves sinlessness (Hebrews:4:15|) without specifically saying so. Bernard suggests that Jesus paused after this pungent question before going on. {Why do ye not believe me?} (\Dia ti humeis ou pisteuete moi;\). This question drives home the irrationality of their hostility to Jesus. It was based on prejudice and predilection.

rwp@Luke:5:39 @{The old is good} (\Hosea:palaios chrstos estin\). Songs:the best MSS. rather that \chrstoteros\, comparative (better). Westcott and Hort wrongly bracket the whole verse, though occurring in Aleph, B C L and most of the old documents. It is absent in D and some of the old Latin MSS. It is the philosophy of the obscurantist, that is here pictured by Christ. "The prejudiced person will not even try the new, or admit that it has any merits. He knows that the old is pleasant, and suits him; and that is enough; he is not going to change" (Plummer). This is Christ's picture of the reactionary Pharisees.

rwp@Luke:6:37 @{And judge not} (\kai m krinete\). \M\ and the present active imperative, forbidding the habit of criticism. The common verb \krin\, to separate, we have in our English words critic, criticism, criticize, discriminate. Jesus does not mean that we are not to form opinions, but not to form them rashly, unfairly, like our prejudice. {Ye shall not be judged} (\ou m krithte\). First aorist passive subjunctive with double negative ou \m\, strong negative. {Condemn not} (\m katadikazete\). To give judgment (\dik, dixaz\) against (\kata\) one. \M\ and present imperative. Either cease doing or do not have the habit of doing it. Old verb. {Ye shall not be condemned} (\ou m katadikasthte\). First aorist passive indicative again with the double negative. Censoriousness is a bad habit. {Release} (\apoluete\). Positive command the opposite of the censoriousness condemned.

rwp@Matthew:10:5 @{These twelve Jesus sent forth} (\toutous tous ddeka apesteilen ho Isous\). The word "sent forth" (\apesteilen\) is the same root as "apostles." The same word reappears in strkjv@10:16|. {Way of the Gentiles} (\hodon ethnn\). Objective genitive, way leading to the Gentiles. This prohibition against going among the Gentiles and the Samaritans was for this special tour. They were to give the Jews the first opportunity and not to prejudice the cause at this stage. Later Jesus will order them to go and disciple all the Gentiles (Matthew:28:19|).

rwp@Matthew:10:14 @{Shake off the dust} (\ektinaxate ton koniorton\). Shake out, a rather violent gesture of disfavour. The Jews had violent prejudices against the smallest particles of Gentile dust, not as a purveyor of disease of which they did not know, but because it was regarded as the putrescence of death. If the apostles were mistreated by a host or hostess, they were to be treated as if they were Gentiles (cf. strkjv@Matthew:18:17; strkjv@Acts:18:6|). Here again we have a restriction that was for this special tour with its peculiar perils.

rwp@Romans:10:20 @{Is very bold} (\apotolmi\). Present active indicative of \apotolma\, old word, to assume boldness (\apo\, off) and only here in N.T. Isaiah "breaks out boldly" (Gifford). Paul cites strkjv@Isaiah:65:1| in support of his own courage against the prejudice of the Jews. See strkjv@9:30-33| for illustration of this point. {I was found} (\heurethn\). First aorist passive indicative of \heurisk\.