OT-LAW.filter - rwp Renan:

rwp@Acts:13:12 @{Believed} (\episteusen\). Ingressive aorist active indicative. Renan considers it impossible that a Roman proconsul could be converted by a miracle. But it was the teaching about the Lord (\tou kuriou\, objective genitive) by which he was astonished (\ekplssomenos\, present passive participle of \ekplss\, see on ¯Matthew:7:28|) or struck out as well as by the miracle. The blindness came "immediately" (\paraehrma\) upon the judgment pronounced by Paul. It is possible that Sergius Paulus was converted to Christ without openly identifying himself with the Christians as his baptism is not mentioned as in the case of Cornelius. But, even if he was baptized, he need not have been deposed from his proconsulship as Furneaux and Rackham argue because his office called for "official patronage of idolatrous worship." But that could have been merely perfunctory as it probably was already. He had been a disciple of the Jewish magician, Elymas Barjesus, without losing his position. Imperial persecution against Christianity had not yet begun. Furneaux even suggests that the conversion of a proconsul to Christianity at this stage would have called for mention by the Roman and Greek historians. There is the name Sergia Paullina in a Christian cemetery in Rome which shows that one of his family was a Christian later. One will believe what he wills about Sergius Paulus, but I do not see that Luke leaves him in the category of Simon Magus who "believed" (8:13|) for revenue only.

rwp@Acts:16:9 @{A vision} (\horama\). Old word, eleven times in Acts, once in strkjv@Matthew:17:9|. Twice Paul had been hindered by the Holy Spirit from going where he wanted to go. Most men would have gone back home with such rebuffs, but not so Paul. Now the call is positive and not negative, to go "far hence to the Gentiles" (22:21|). He had little dreamed of such a call when he left Antioch. Paul's frequent visions always came at real crises in his life. {A man of Macedonia} (\anr Makedn\). Ramsay follows Renan in the view that this was Luke with whom Paul had conversed about conditions in Macedonia. Verse 10| makes it plain that Luke was now in the party, but when he joined them we do not know. Some hold that Luke lived at Antioch in Syria and came on with Paul and Silas, others that he joined them later in Galatia, others that he appeared now either as Paul's physician or new convert. Ramsay thinks that Philippi was his home at this time. But, whatever is true about Luke, the narrative must not be robbed of its supernatural aspect (10:10; strkjv@22:17|). {Was standing} (\n hests\). Second perfect active participle of \histmi\, intransitive, periphrastic imperfect. Vivid picture. {Help us} (\bothson hmin\). Ingressive first aorist active imperative of \bothe\ (\bo, the\), to run at a cry, to help. The man uses the plural for all including himself. It was the cry of Europe for Christ.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64, this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_ (1921). Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII) notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the amanuensis for the Pastorals.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THIS COMPANION AND AUTHOR LUKE All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in the title. We should know that Luke wrote these two books if there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. Even Renan says: "There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name."

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL In his Preface or Prologue (Luke:1:1-4|) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

rwp@Revelation:2:16 @{Repent therefore} (\metanoson oun\). First aorist (tense of urgency) active imperative of \metanoe\ with the inferential particle \oun\ (as a result of their sin). {I come} (\erchomai\). Futuristic present middle indicative, "I am coming" (imminent), as in strkjv@2:5| with \tachu\ as in strkjv@3:11; strkjv@11:14; strkjv@22:7,12,20|. As with \en tachei\ (1:1|), we do not know how soon "quickly" is meant to be understood. But it is a real threat. {Against them} (\met' autn\). This proposition with \poleme\ rather than \kata\ (against) is common in the LXX, but in the N.T. only in strkjv@Revelation:2:16; strkjv@12:7; strkjv@13:4; strkjv@17:14| and the verb itself nowhere else in N.T. except strkjv@James:4:2|. "An eternal roll of thunder from the throne" (Renan). "The glorified Christ is in this book a Warrior, who fights with the sharp sword of the word" (Swete). {With} (\en\). Instrumental use of \en\. For the language see strkjv@1:16; strkjv@2:12; strkjv@19:15|.

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS SPRING OF A.D. 57 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:2|) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul's long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Romans:16:3-5|) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D) give chapter 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. Marcion rejected it and chapter 15 also for reasons of his own. Renan's theory that Romans was a circular letter like Ephesians sent in different forms to different churches (Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Corinthians:1:20|, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul's remarks about going to Rome (Romans:1:9-16|) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added strkjv@Romans:16:25-27| some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves strkjv@Romans:15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.