OT-LAW.filter - rwp earlier:

rwp@1Corinthians:1:16 @{Also the household of Stephanas} (\kai ton Stephan oikon\). Mentioned as an afterthought. Robertson and Plummer suggest that Paul's amanuensis reminded him of this case. Paul calls him a first-fruit of Achaia (1Corinthians:16:15|) and so earlier than Crispus and he was one of the three who came to Paul from Corinth (16:17|), clearly a family that justified Paul's personal attention about baptism. {Besides} (\loipon\). Accusative of general reference, "as for anything else." Added to make clear that he is not meaning to omit any one who deserves mention. See also strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:2; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@2Timothy:4:8|. Ellicott insists on a sharp distinction from \to loipon\ "as for the rest" (2Thessalonians:3:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:1; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@Ephesians:6:10|). Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ (Romans:6:2-6|), but he clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness.

rwp@1Corinthians:5:9 @{I wrote unto you in my epistle} (\egrapsa humin en ti epistoli\). Not the epistolary aorist, but a reference to an epistle to the Corinthians earlier than this one (our First Corinthians), one not preserved to us. What a "find" it would be if a bundle of papyri in Egypt should give it back to us? {To have no company with fornicators} (\m sunanamignusthai pornois\). Present middle infinitive with \m\ in an indirect command of a late double compound verb used in the papyri to mix up with (\sun-ana-mignusthai\, a \mi\ verb). It is in the N.T. only here and verse 11; strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:14| which see. It is used here with the associative instrumental case (\pornois\, from \pera, pernmi\, to sell, men and women who sell their bodies for lust). It is a pertinent question today how far modern views try to put a veneer over the vice in men and women.

rwp@1Corinthians:9:7 @{What soldier ever serveth?} (\tis strateuetai pote;\). "Who ever serves as a soldier?" serves in an army (\stratos\). Present middle of old verb \strateu\. {At his own charges} (\idiois opsniois\). This late word \opsnion\ (from \opson\, cooked meat or relish with bread, and \neomai\, to buy) found in Menander, Polybius, and very common in papyri and inscriptions in the sense of rations or food, then for the soldiers' wages (often provisions) or the pay of any workman. Songs:of the wages of sin (Romans:6:23|). Paul uses \labn opsnion\ (receiving wages, the regular idiom) in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:8|. See Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_; Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 148,266; _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 168. To give proof of his right to receive pay for preaching Paul uses the illustrations of the soldier (verse 7|), the husbandman (verse 7|), the shepherd (verse 7|), the ox treading out the grain (8|), the ploughman (verse 10|), the priests in the temple (13|), proof enough in all conscience, and yet not enough for some churches who even today starve their pastors in the name of piety. {Who planteth a vineyard?} (\tis phuteuei ampelna;\). \Ampeln\ no earlier than Diodorus, but in LXX and in papyri. Place of vines (\ampelos\), meaning of ending \-n\. {Who feedeth a flock?} (\tis poimainei poimnn;\). Cognate accusative, both old words. Paul likens the pastor to a soldier, vinedresser, shepherd. He contends with the world, he plants churches, he exercises a shepherd's care over them (Vincent).

rwp@1Corinthians:9:25 @{corruptible crown} (\phtharton stephanon\). \Stephanos\ (crown) is from \steph\, to put around the head, like the Latin _corona_, wreath or garland, badge of victory in the games. In the Isthmian games it was of pine leaves, earlier of parsley, in the Olympian games of the wild olive. "Yet these were the most coveted honours in the whole Greek world" (Findlay). For the crown of thorns on Christ's head see strkjv@Matthew:27:29; strkjv@Mark:15:17; strkjv@John:19:2,5|. \Diadma\ (diadem) was for kings (Revelation:12:3|). Favourite metaphor in N.T., the crown of righteousness (2Timothy:4:8|), the crown of life (James:1:12|), the crown of glory (1Peter:5:4|), the crown of rejoicing (1Thessalonians:2:9|), description of the Philippians (Phillipians:4:1|). Note contrast between \phtharton\ (verbal adjective from \phtheir\, to corrupt) like the garland of pine leaves, wild olive, or laurel, and \aphtharton\ (same form with \a\ privative) like the crown of victory offered the Christian, the amaranthine (unfading rose) crown of glory (1Peter:5:4|).

rwp@1Corinthians:10:11 @{Now these things happened unto them} (\tauta de sunebainon ekeinois\). Imperfect tense because they happened from time to time. {By way of example} (\tupiks\). Adverb in sense of \tupoi\ in verse 6|. Only instance of the adverb except in ecclesiastical writers after this time, but adjective \tupikos\ occurs in a late papyrus. {For our admonition} (\pros nouthesian hmn\). Objective genitive (\hmn\) again. \Nouthesia\ is late word from \nouthete\ (see on ¯Acts:20:31; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:12,14|) for earlier \nouthetsis\ and \nouthetia\. {The ends of the ages have come} (\ta tel tn ainn katntken\). Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:9:26| \h sunteleia tn ainn\, the consummation of the ages (also strkjv@Matthew:13:40|). The plural seems to point out how one stage succeeds another in the drama of human history. \Katntken\ is perfect active indicative of \katanta\, late verb, to come down to (see on ¯Acts:16:1|). Does Paul refer to the second coming of Christ as in strkjv@7:26|? In a sense the ends of the ages like a curtain have come down to all of us.

rwp@Info_1John @ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL There are few scholars who deny that the Epistles of John and the Fourth Gospel are by the same writer. As a matter of fact "in the whole of the First Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel" (Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann (_Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie_, 1882, P. 128) in a series of articles on the "Problem of the First Epistle of St. John in its Relation to the Gospel" thinks that the similarities are closer than those between Luke's Gospel and the Acts. Baur argued that this fact was explained by conscious imitation on the part of one or the other, probably by the author of the Epistle. The solution lies either in identity of authorship or in imitation. If there is identity of authorship, Holtzmann argues that the Epistle is earlier, as seems to me to be true, while Brooke holds that the Gospel is the earlier and that the First Epistle represents the more complete ideas of the author. Both Holtzmann and Brooke give a detailed comparison of likenesses between the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, syntax, style, ideas. The arguments are not conclusive as to the priority of Epistle or Gospel, but they are as to identity of authorship. One who accepts, as I do, the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel for the reasons given in Volume V of this series, does not feel called upon to prove the Johannine authorship of the three Epistles that pass under the Apostle's name. Westcott suggests that one compare strkjv@John:1:1-18| with strkjv@1John:1:1-4| to see how the same mind deals with the same ideas in different connections. "No theory of conscious imitation can reasonably explain the subtle coincidences and differences in these two short crucial passages."

rwp@Info_1Peter @ THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 65 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THE AUTHOR The Epistle is not anonymous, but claims to be written by "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1Peter:1:1|), that is Cephas (Simon Peter). If this is not true, then the book is pseudonymous by a late writer who assumed Peter's name, as in the so-called Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc. "There is no book in the New Testament which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation, though Irenaeus is the first to quote it by name" (Bigg). Eusebius (_H.E_. iii. 25.2) places it among the acknowledged books, those accepted with no doubt at all. We here assume that Simon Peter wrote this Epistle or at any rate dictated it by an amanuensis, as Paul did in Romans (Romans:16:22|). Bigg suggests Silvanus (Silas) as the amanuensis or interpreter (1Peter:5:12|), the obvious meaning of the language (\dia\, through). He may also have been the bearer of the Epistle. It happens that we know more of Peter's life than of any of the twelve apostles because of his prominence in the Gospels and in the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. In the _Student's Chronological New Testament_ I have given a full list of the passages in the Gospels where Peter appears with any clearness and the material is rich and abundant. The account in Acts is briefer, though Peter is the outstanding man in the first five chapters during his career in Jerusalem. After the conversion of Saul he begins to work outside of Jerusalem and after escaping death at the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts:12:3ff.|) he left for a while, but is back in Jerusalem at the Conference called by Paul and Barnabas (Acts:15:6-14; Gal strkjv@2:1-10|). After that we have no more about him in Acts, though he reappears in Antioch and is rebuked by Paul for cowardice because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-21). He travelled for the Gospel among the Jews of the Dispersion (Galatians:2:9|) with his wife (1Corinthians:9:5|), and went to Asia Minor (1Peter:1:1|) and as far as Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|). Besides Silvanus he had John Mark with him also (1Peter:5:13|), who was said by the early Christian writers to have been Peter's "interpreter" in his preaching, since Peter was not expert in the Greek (Acts:4:13|), and who also wrote his Gospel under the inspiration of Peter's preaching. We are not able to follow clearly the close of his life or to tell precisely the time of his death. He was apparently put to death in A.D. 67 or 68, but some think that he was executed in Rome in A.D. 64.

rwp@1Thessalonians:5:3 @{When they are saying} (\hotan legsin\). Present active subjunctive picturing these false prophets of {peace and safety} like strkjv@Ezekiel:13:10| (Peace, and there is no peace). \Asphaleia\ only in N.T. in strkjv@Luke:1:4| (which see); strkjv@Acts:5:23| and here. {Sudden destruction} (\aiphnidios olethros\). \Olethros\ old word from \ollumi\, to destroy. See also strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:9|. \Aiphnidios\, old adjective akin to \aphn\ and in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:21:34| where Westcott and Hort spell it \ephnidios\. {Cometh upon them} (\autois epistatai\). Unaspirated form instead of the usual \ephistatai\ (present middle indicative) from \ephistmi\ perhaps due to confusion with \epistamai\. {As travail upon a woman with child} (\hsper h din ti en gastri echousi\). Earlier form \dis\ for birth-pang used also by Jesus (Mark:13:8; strkjv@Matthew:24:8|). Technical phrase for pregnancy, {to the one who has it in belly} (cf. strkjv@Matthew:1:18| of Mary). {They shall in no wise escape} (\ou m ekphugsin\). Strong negative like that in strkjv@4:15| \ou m\ (double negative) and the second aorist active subjunctive.

rwp@1Timothy:1:4 @{To give heed} (\prosechein\). With \noun\ understood. Old and common idiom in N.T. especially in Luke and Acts (Acts:8:10ff.|). Not in Paul's earlier Epistles. strkjv@1Timothy:3:8; strkjv@4:1,13; strkjv@Titus:1:14|. {To fables} (\muthois\). Dative case of old word for speech, narrative, story, fiction, falsehood. In N.T. only strkjv@2Peter:1:16; strkjv@1Timothy:1:4; strkjv@4:7; strkjv@Titus:1:14; strkjv@2Timothy:4:4|. {Genealogies} (\genealogiais\). Dative of old word, in LXX, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:9|. {Endless} (\aperantois\). Old verbal compound (from \a\ privative and \perain\, to go through), in LXX, only here in N.T. Excellent examples there for old words used only in the Pastorals because of the subject matter, describing the Gnostic emphasis on aeons. {Questionings} (\ekztseis\). "Seekings out." Late and rare compound from \ekzte\ (itself _Koin_ word, strkjv@Romans:3:11| from LXX and in papyri). Here only in N.T. Simplex \ztsis\ in strkjv@Acts:15:2; strkjv@1Timothy:6:4; strkjv@Titus:3:9; strkjv@2Timothy:2:23|. {A dispensation} (\oikonomian\). Pauline word (1Corinthians:9:17; strkjv@Colossians:1:25; strkjv@Ephesians:1:9; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@1Timothy:1:4|), strkjv@Luke:16:2-4| only other N.T. examples. {In faith} (\en pistei\). Pauline use of \pistis\.

rwp@1Timothy:3:3 @{No brawler} (\m paroinon\). Later word for the earlier \paroinios\, one who sits long at (beside, \para\) his wine. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:1:3|. {No striker} (\m plktn\). Late word from \plss\, to strike. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:1:3|. {Gentle} (\epieik\). See on ¯Phillipians:4:5| for this interesting word. {Not contentious} (\amachon\). Old word (from \a\ privative and \mach\), not a fighter. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:2|. {No lover of money} (\aphilarguron\). Late word (\a\ privative and compound \phil-arguros\) in inscriptions and papyri (Nageli; also Deissmann, _Light_, etc., pp. 85f.). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:5|.

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE RESEMBLANCE TO THE EPISTLE OF JUDE This is undoubted, particularly between Jude:and the second chapter of II Peter. Kuhl argues that strkjv@2Peter:2:1-3:2| is an interpolation, though the same style runs through out the Epistle. "The theory of interpolation is always a last and desperate expedient" (Bigg). In II Peter 2 we have the fallen angels, the flood, the cities of the plain with Lot, Balaam. In Jude:we have Israel in the wilderness, the fallen angels, the cities of the plain (with no mention of Lot, Cain, Balaam, Korah). Jude:mentions the dispute between Michael and Satan, quotes Enoch by name. There is rather more freshness in Jude:than in II Peter, though II Peter is more intelligible. Evidently one had the other before him, besides other material. Which is the earlier? There is no way to decide this point clearly. Every point is looked at differently and argued differently by different writers. My own feeling is that Jude:was before (just before) II Peter, though it is only a feeling and not a conviction.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE DATE There are three views about the date of the Acts. Baur and his Tubingen School held the second century to be the date of this late pamphlet as they termed it after the fashion of the Clementine Homilies. But that view is now practically abandoned save by the few who still strangely oppose the Lukan authorship. Probably the majority of those who accept the Lukan authorship place it in the latter part of the first century for two reasons. One is that the Gospel according to Luke is dated by them after the destruction of Jerusalem because of the prophecy by Jesus of the encompassing of the city by armies. Predictive prophecy that would be and so it is considered a prophecy _post eventum_. The other reason is the alleged use of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus by Luke. Josephus finished this work A.D. 93 so that, if Luke did use it, he must have written the Acts after that date. Usually this argument is made to show that Luke could not have written it at all, but some hold that he may have lived to an age that would allow it. But it cannot be assumed that Luke used Josephus because of his mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. They differ so widely (Acts:5:36f|. and Josephus, _Ant_. XX. v, 1, 2) that Von Dobschutz (_Dictionary of the Apostolic Church_, art. Josephus) argues that the two accounts are entirely independent of each other. Songs:Luke (Luke:13:1f.|) alludes to a Galilean revolt not mentioned by Josephus and Josephus records three revolts under Pilate not referred to by Luke. A comparison of the accounts of the death of Agrippa I in strkjv@Acts:12:20-23| and _Ant_. XIX. viii, 2 redounds to the credit of Luke. The Josephus phase of the argument may be brushed to one side. The third view, held by Harnack and adopted here, is that Luke wrote the Acts while with Paul in Rome and finished the book before Paul's release, that is by A.D. 63. This is the obvious and natural way to take the language of Luke at the close of Acts. Events had gone no farther and so he ends the narrative right there. It is argued against this that Luke contemplated a third volume and for this reason closed with the arrival of Paul in Rome. But the use of \prton\ (first) in strkjv@Acts:1:1| is a common _Koin_ idiom and does not imply three volumes any more than first and second stories with us means that the house has three. Of course this date for the Acts puts the date of the Gospel further back either in Caesarea (57 to 59) or in Rome (60 to 62). And that means that Mark's Gospel is still earlier since Luke used it for his Gospel and the Logia (Q) earlier still. But all these dates are probable in the light of all the known facts.

rwp@Acts:21:21 @{They have been informed concerning thee} (\katchthsan peri sou\). First aorist passive indicative of \katche\. A word in the ancient Greek, but a few examples survive in the papyri. It means to sound (echo, from \ch\, our word) down (\kata\), to resound, re-echo, to teach orally. Oriental students today (Arabs learning the Koran) often study aloud. In the N.T. only in strkjv@Luke:1:4| which see; strkjv@Acts:18:25; strkjv@21:21; strkjv@1Corinthians:14:19; strkjv@Galatians:6:6; strkjv@Romans:2:18|. This oral teaching about Paul was done diligently by the Judaizers who had raised trouble against Peter (Acts:11:2|) and Paul (15:1,5|). They had failed in their attacks on Paul's world campaigns. Now they try to undermine him at home. In Paul's long absence from Jerusalem, since strkjv@18:22|, they have had a free hand, save what opposition James would give, and have had great success in prejudicing the Jerusalem Christians against Paul. Songs:James, in the presence of the other elders and probably at their suggestion, feels called upon to tell Paul the actual situation. {That thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses} (\hoti apostasian didaskeis apo Muses tous kata ta ethn pantas Ioudaious\). Two accusatives with \didaskeis\ (verb of teaching) according to rule. Literally, "That thou art teaching all the Jews among (\kata\) the Gentiles (the Jews of the dispersion as in strkjv@2:9|) apostasy from Moses." That is the point, the dreadful word \apostasian\ (our apostasy), a late form (I Macc. strkjv@2:15) for the earlier \apostasis\ (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:3| for \apostasia\). "In the eyes of the church at Jerusalem this was a far more serious matter than the previous question at the Conference about the status of Gentile converts" (Furneaux). Paul had brought that issue to the Jerusalem Conference because of the contention of the Judaizers. But here it is not the Judaizers, but the elders of the church with James as their spokesman on behalf of the church as a whole. They do not believe this false charge, but they wish Paul to set it straight. Paul had made his position clear in his Epistles (I Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) for all who cared to know. {Telling them not to circumcise their children} (\legn m peritemnein autous ta tekna\). The participle \legn\ agrees with "thou" (Paul), the subject of \didaskeis\. This is not indirect assertion, but indirect command, hence the negative \m\ instead of \ou\ with the infinitive (Robertson, _Grammar_, p.1046). The point is not that Paul stated what the Jewish Christians in the dispersion do, but that he says that they (\autous\ accusative of general reference) are not to go on circumcising (\peritemnein\, present active infinitive) their children. Paul taught the very opposite (1Corinthians:7:18|) and had Timothy circumcised (Acts:16:3|) because he was half Jew and half Greek. His own practice is stated in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:19| ("to the Jews as a Jew"). {Neither to walk after the customs} (\mde tois ethesin peripatein\). Locative case with infinitive \peripatein\. The charge was here enlarged to cover it all and to make Paul out an enemy of Jewish life and teachings. That same charge had been made against Stephen when young Saul (Paul) was the leader (6:14|): "Will change the customs (\eth\ the very word used here) which Moses delivered unto us." It actually seemed that some of the Jews cared more for Moses than for God (Acts:6:11|). Songs:much for the charge of the Judaizers.

rwp@Acts:24:27 @{But when two years were fulfilled} (\dietias de plrtheiss\). Genitive absolute first aorist passive of \plro\, common verb to fill full. \Dietia\, late word in LXX and Philo, common in the papyri, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:28:30|. Compound of \dia\, two (\duo, dis\) and \etos\, year. Songs:Paul lingered on in prison in Caesarea, waiting for the second hearing under Felix which never came. Caesarea now became the compulsory headquarters of Paul for two years. With all his travels Paul spent several years each at Tarsus, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, though not as a prisoner unless that was true part of the time at Ephesus for which there is some evidence though not of a convincing kind. We do not know that Luke remained in Caesarea all this time. In all probability he came and went with frequent visits with Philip the Evangelist. It was probably during this period that Luke secured the material for his Gospel and wrote part or all of it before going to Rome. He had ample opportunity to examine the eyewitnesses who heard Jesus and the first attempts at writing including the Gospel of Mark (Luke:1:1-4|). {Was succeeded by} (\elaben diadochon\). Literally, "received as successor." \Diadochos\ is an old word from \diadechomai\, to receive in succession (\dia, duo\, two) and occurs here alone in the N.T. Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, p. 115) gives papyri examples where \hoi diadochoi\ means "higher officials at the court of the Ptolemies," probably "deputies," a usage growing out of the "successors" of Alexander the Great (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_), though here the original notion of "successor" occurs (cf. Josephus, _Ant_. XX. 8, 9). Luke does not tell why Felix "received" a successor. The explanation is that during these two years the Jews and the Gentiles had an open fight in the market-place in Caesarea. Felix put the soldiers on the mob and many Jews were killed. The Jews made formal complaint to the Emperor with the result that Felix was recalled and Porcius Festus sent in his stead. {Porcius Festus} (\Porkion Phston\). We know very little about this man. He is usually considered a worthier man than Felix, but Paul fared no better at his hands and he exhibits the same insincerity and eagerness to please the Jews. Josephus (_Ant_. XX. 8, 9) says that "Porcius Festus was sent as a successor to Felix." The precise year when this change occurred is not clear. Albinus succeeded Festus by A.D. 62, so that it is probable that Festus came A.D. 58 (or 59). Death cut short his career in a couple of years though he did more than Felix to rid the country of robbers and _sicarii_. Some scholars argue for an earlier date for the recall of Felix. Nero became Emperor Oct. 13, A.D. 54. Poppaea, his Jewish mistress and finally wife, may have had something to do with the recall of Felix at the request of the Jews. {Desiring to gain favour with the Jews} (\theln te charita katathesthai tois Ioudaiois\). Reason for his conduct. Note second aorist (ingressive) middle infinitive \katathesthai\ from \katatithmi\, old verb to place down, to make a deposit, to deposit a favour with, to do something to win favour. Only here and strkjv@25:9| in N.T., though in some MSS. in strkjv@Mark:15:46|. It is a banking figure. {Left Paul in bonds} (\katelipe ton Paulon dedemenon\). Effective aorist active indicative of \kataleip\, to leave behind. Paul "in bonds" (\dedemenon\, perfect passive participle of \de\, to bind) was the "deposit" (\katathesthai\) for their favour. Codex Bezae adds that Felix left Paul in custody "because of Drusilla" (\dia Drousillan\). She disliked Paul as much as Herodias did John the Baptist. Songs:Pilate surrendered to the Jews about the death of Jesus when they threatened to report him to Caesar. Some critics would date the third group of Paul's Epistles (Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians) to the imprisonment here in Caesarea, some even to one in Ephesus. But the arguments for either of these two views are more specious than convincing. Furneaux would even put strkjv@2Timothy:4:9-22| here in spite of the flat contradiction with strkjv@Acts:21:29| about Trophimus being in Jerusalem instead of Miletus (2Timothy:4:20|), a "mistake" which he attributes to Luke! That sort of criticism can prove anything.

rwp@Ephesians:4:17 @{That ye no longer walk} (\mketi humas peripatein\). Infinitive (present active) in indirect command (not indirect assertion) with accusative \humas\ of general reference. {In vanity of their mind} (\en mataiotti tou noos autn\). "In emptiness (from \mataios\, late and rare word. See strkjv@Romans:8:20|) of their intellect (\noos\, late form for earlier genitive \nou\, from \nous\).

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ SOME BOOKS ON THE PAULINE EPISTLES Bate, _As a Whole Guide to the Epistles of St. Paul_ (1927). Bonnet-Schroeder, _Epitres de Paul_ (4 ed. 1912). Champlain, _The Epistles of Paul_ (1906). Clemen, _Einheitlichkeit d. paul. Briefe_ (1894). Conybeare and Howson, _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_. Drummond, _The Epistles of Paul the Apostle_ (1899). Hayes, _Paul and His Epistles_ (1915). Heinrici, _Die Forschungen uber die paul. Briefe_ (1886). Lake, _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_ (1915). Lewin, _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_. (1875). Neil, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1906). Scott, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1909). Shaw, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1903). Vischer, _Die Paulusbriefe_ (1910). Voelter, _Die Composition der paul. Haupt Briefe_ (1890). Voelter, _Paulus und seine Briefe_ (1905). Way, _The Letters of Paul to Seven Churches and Three Friends_ (1906) Weinel, _Die Echtheit der paul. Hauptbriefe_ (1920). Weiss, B., _Present Status of the Inquiry Concerning the Genuineness of the Pauline Epistles_ (1901). Weiss, B., _Die Paulinische Briefe_ (1902). Wood, _Life, Letters, and Religion of St. Paul_ (1925). strkjv@Galatians:1:1 @{Not from men, neither through men} (\ouk ap' anthrpn oude di' anthrpou\). The bluntness of Paul's denial is due to the charge made by the Judaizers that Paul was not a genuine apostle because not one of the twelve. This charge had been made in Corinth and called forth the keenest irony of Paul (2Corinthians:10-12|). In strkjv@Galatians:1; 2| Paul proves his independence of the twelve and his equality with them as recognized by them. Paul denies that his apostleship had a human source (\ouk ap' anthrpn\) and that it had come to him through (\di' anthrpou\) a human channel (Burton). {But through Jesus Christ and God the Father} (\alla dia Isou Christou kai theou patros\). The call to be an apostle came to Paul through Jesus Christ as he claimed in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:1| and as told in strkjv@Acts:9:4-6; strkjv@22:7ff.; strkjv@26:16ff|. He is apostle also by the will of God. {Who raised him from the dead} (\tou egeirantos auton ek nekrn\). And therefore Paul was qualified to be an apostle since he had seen the Risen Christ (1Corinthians:9:1; strkjv@15:8f.|). This verb \egeir\ is often used in N.T. for raising from the sleep of death, to wake up the dead.

rwp@Hebrews:8:6 @{But now} (\nun de\). Logical use of \nun\, as the case now stands, with Jesus as high priest in heaven. {Hath he obtained} (\tetuchen\). Perfect active indicative of \tugchan\ with the genitive, a rare and late form for \teteuchen\ (also \teteuchken\), old verb to hit the mark, to attain. {A ministry the more excellent} (\diaphorteras leitourgias\). "A more excellent ministry." For the comparative of \diaphoros\ see strkjv@1:4|. This remark applies to all the five points of superiority over the Levitical priesthood. {By how much} (\hosi\). Instrumental case of the relative \hosos\ between two comparative adjectives as in strkjv@1:4|. {The mediator} (\mesits\). Late word from \mesos\ (amid) and so a middle man (arbitrator). Already in strkjv@Galatians:3:19f.| and see strkjv@1Timothy:2:5|. See strkjv@Hebrews:9:15; strkjv@12:24| for further use with \diathk\. {Of a better covenant} (\kreittonos diathks\). Called "new" (\kains, neas\ in strkjv@9:15; strkjv@12:24|). For \diathk\ see strkjv@Matthew:26:28; strkjv@Luke:1:72; strkjv@Galatians:3:17|, etc. This idea he will discuss in strkjv@8:7-13|. {Hath been enacted} (\nenomothettai\). Perfect passive indicative of \nomothete\ as in strkjv@7:11| which see. {Upon better promises} (\epi kreittosin epaggeliais\). Upon the basis of (\epi\). But how "better" if the earlier were also from God? This idea, alluded to in strkjv@6:12-17|, Will be developed in strkjv@10:19-12:3| with great passion and power. Thus it is seen that "better" (\kreissn\) is the keynote of the Epistle. At every point Christianity is better than Judaism.

rwp@Hebrews:12:19 @{Unto blackness} (\gnophi\). Dative case of \gnophos\ (late form for earlier \dnophos\ and kin to \nephos\, cloud), here only in N.T. Quoted here from strkjv@Exodus:10:22|. {Darkness} (\zophi\). Old word, in Homer for the gloom of the world below. In the Symmachus Version of strkjv@Exodus:10:22|, also in strkjv@Jude:1:6; strkjv@2Peter:2:4,15|. {Tempest} (\thuelli\). Old word from \thu\ (to boil, to rage), a hurricane, here only in N.T. From strkjv@Exodus:10:22|. {The sound of a trumpet} (\salpiggos chi\). From strkjv@Exodus:19:16|. \Echos\ is an old word (our \echo\) as in strkjv@Luke:21:25; strkjv@Acts:2:2|. {The voice of words} (\phni rmatn\). From strkjv@Exodus:19:19; strkjv@Deuteronomy:4:12|. {Which voice} (\hs\). Relative referring to \phn\ (voice) just before, genitive case with \akousantes\ (heard, aorist active participle). {Intreated} (\paritsanto\). First aorist middle (indirect) indicative of \paraiteomai\, old verb, to ask from alongside (Mark:15:6|), then to beg away from oneself, to depreciate as here, to decline (Acts:25:11|), to excuse (Luke:14:18|), to avoid (1Timothy:4:7|). {That no word should be spoken unto them} (\prostethnai autois logon\). First aorist passive infinitive of \prostithmi\, old word to add, here with accusative of general reference (\logon\), "that no word be added unto them." Some MSS. have here a redundant negative \m\ with the infinitive because of the negative idea in \paritsanto\ as in strkjv@Galatians:5:7|.

rwp@John:4:1 @{When therefore} (\Hs oun\). Reference to strkjv@3:22f|. the work of the Baptist and the jealousy of his disciples. \Oun\ is very common in John's Gospel in such transitions. {The Lord} (\ho Kurios\). Songs:the best manuscripts (Neutral Alexandrian), though the Western class has \ho Isous\. Mark usually has \ho Isous\ and Luke often \ho Kurios\. In the narrative portion of John we have usually \ho Isous\, but \ho Kurios\ in five passages (4:1; strkjv@6:23; strkjv@11:2; strkjv@20:20; strkjv@21:12|). There is no reason why John should not apply \ho Kurios\ to Jesus in the narrative sections as well as Luke. Bernard argues that these are "explanatory glosses," not in the first draft of the Gospel. But why? When John wrote his Gospel he certainly held Jesus to be \Kurios\ (Lord) as Luke did earlier when he wrote both Gospel and Acts This is hypercriticism. {Knew} (\egn\). Second aorist active indicative of \ginsk\. The Pharisees knew this obvious fact. It was easy for Jesus to know the attitude of the Pharisees about it (2:24|). Already the Pharisees are suspicious of Jesus. {How that} (\hoti\). Declarative \hoti\ (indirect assertion). {Was making and baptizing more disciples than John} (\pleionas mathtas poiei kai baptizei Ians\). Present active indicative in both verbs retained in indirect discourse. Recall the tremendous success of John's early ministry (Mark:1:5; strkjv@Matthew:3:5; strkjv@Luke:3:7,15|) in order to see the significance of this statement that Jesus had forged ahead of him in popular favour. Already the Pharisees had turned violently against John who had called them broods of vipers. It is most likely that they drew John out about the marriage of Herod Antipas and got him involved directly with the tetrarch so as to have him cast into prison (Luke:3:19f.|). Josephus (_Ant_. XVIII. v. 2) gives a public reason for this act of Herod Antipas, the fear that John would "raise a rebellion," probably the public reason for his private vengeance as given by Luke. Apparently John was cast into prison, though recently still free (John:3:24|), before Jesus left for Galilee. The Pharisees, with John out of the way, turn to Jesus with envy and hate.

rwp@John:6:5 @{Lifting up his eyes} (\eparas tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active participle of \epair\. See the same phrase in strkjv@4:35| where it is also followed by \theaomai\; strkjv@11:41; strkjv@17:1; strkjv@Luke:6:20|. Here it is particularly expressive as Jesus looked down from the mountain on the approaching multitude. {Cometh unto him} (\erchetai pros auton\). Present middle indicative, "is coming to him." The same \ochlos polus\ (here \polus ochlos\) of verse 2| that had followed Jesus around the head of the lake. {Whence are we to buy?} (\Pothen agorasmen;\). Deliberative subjunctive (aorist active). John passes by the earlier teaching and healing of the Synoptics (Mark:6:34f.; strkjv@Matthew:14:14f.; strkjv@Luke:9:11f.|) till mid-afternoon. In John also Jesus takes up the matter of feeding the multitude with Philip (from the other Bethsaida, strkjv@1:44|) whereas in the Synoptics the disciples raise the problem with Jesus. Songs:the disciples raise the problem in the feeding of the four thousand (Mark:8:4; strkjv@Matthew:15:33|). See strkjv@Numbers:11:13-22| (about Moses) and strkjv@2Kings:4:42f|. (about Elisha). {Bread} (\artous\). "Loaves" (plural) as in strkjv@Matthew:4:3|. {That these may eat} (\hina phagsin houtoi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \esthi\ (defective verb).

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Luke:5:1 @{Pressed upon him} (\epikeisthai\). Luke in this paragraph (5:1-11; strkjv@Mark:1:16-20; strkjv@Matthew:4:18-22|) does not follow the chronology of Mark as he usually does. It seems reasonably clear that the renewed call of the four fishermen came before the first tour of Galilee in strkjv@Luke:4:42-44|. It is here assumed that Luke is describing in his own way the incident given in Mark and Matthew above. Luke singles out Simon in a graphic way. This verb \epikeisthai\ is an old one and means to \lie upon\, rest upon as of a stone on the tomb (John:11:38|) or of fish on the burning coals (John:21:9|). Songs:it is used of a tempest (Acts:27:20|) and of the urgent demands for Christ's crucifixion (Luke:23:23|). Here it vividly pictures the eager crowds around Jesus. \En ti epikeisthai\ is a favourite idiom with Luke as we have already seen, \en\ with the articular infinitive in the locative case. {That} (\kai\). \Kai\ does not technically mean the declarative conjunction "that," but it is a fair rendering of the somewhat awkward idiom of Luke to a certain extent imitating the Hebrew use of _wav_. {Was standing} (\n hests\). Periphrastic second past perfect of \histmi\ which here is equal to a practical imperfect. {By the lake} (\para tn limnn\). The use of the accusative with \para\, alongside, after a verb of rest used to be called the pregnant use, came and was standing. But that is no longer necessary, for the accusative as the case of extension is the oldest of the cases and in later Greek regains many of the earlier uses of the other cases employed for more precise distinctions. See the same idiom in verse 2|. We need not here stress the notion of extension. "With characteristic accuracy Luke never calls it a sea, while the others never call it a lake" (Plummer).

rwp@Luke:5:12 @{Behold} (\kai idou\). Quite a Hebraistic idiom, this use of \kai\ after \egeneto\ (almost like \hoti\) with \idou\ (interjection) and no verb. {Full of leprosy} (\plrs lepras\). strkjv@Mark:1:40| and strkjv@Matthew:8:2| have simply "a leper" which see. Evidently a bad case full of sores and far advanced as Luke the physician notes. The law (Leviticus:13:12f.|) curiously treated advanced cases as less unclean than the earlier stages. {Fell on his face} (\pesn epi prospon\). Second aorist active participle of \pipt\, common verb. strkjv@Mark:1:40| has "kneeling" (\gonupetn\) and strkjv@Matthew:8:40| "worshipped" (\prosekunei\). All three attitudes were possible one after the other. All three Synoptics quote the identical language of the leper and the identical answer of Jesus. His condition of the third class turned on the "will" (\thelis\) of Jesus who at once asserts his will (\thl\) and cleanses him. All three likewise mention the touch (\hpsato\, verse 13|) of Christ's hand on the unclean leper and the instantaneous cure.

rwp@Luke:15:8 @{Ten pieces of silver} (\drachmas deka\). The only instance in the N.T. of this old word for a coin of 65.5 grains about the value of the common \dnarius\ (about eighteen cents), a quarter of a Jewish shekel. The double drachma (\didrachmon\) occurs in the N.T. only in strkjv@Matthew:17:24|. The root is from \drassomai\, to grasp with the hand (1Corinthians:3:19|), and so a handful of coin. Ten drachmas would be equal to nearly two dollars, but in purchasing power much more. {Sweep} (\saroi\). A late colloquial verb \saro\ for the earlier \sair\, to clear by sweeping. Three times in the N.T. (Luke:11:25; strkjv@15:8; strkjv@Matthew:12:44|). The house was probably with out windows (only the door for light and hence the lamp lit) and probably also a dirt floor. Hence Bengel says: _non sine pulvere_. This parable is peculiar to Luke.

rwp@Luke:22:11 @{Goodman of the house} (\oikodespoti\). Master of the house as in strkjv@Mark:14:14; strkjv@Matthew:10:25|. A late word for the earlier \despots oikou\. {I shall eat} (\phag\). Second aorist futuristic (or deliberative) subjunctive as in strkjv@Mark:14:14|.

rwp@Info_Mark @ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark's Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that A.D. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_. Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark's Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q (_Logia of Jesus_) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark's work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter (_The Four Gospels_) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter's own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Peter:5:13|).

rwp@Matthew:1:19 @{A Righteous Man} (\dikaios\). Or just, not benignant or merciful. The same adjective is used of Zacharias and Elizabeth (Luke:1:6|) and Simeon (Luke:2:25|). "An upright man," the _Braid Scots_ has it. He had the Jewish conscientiousness for the observance of the law which would have been death by stoning (Deuteronomy:22:23|). Though Joseph was upright, he would not do that. "As a good Jew he would have shown his zeal if he had branded her with public disgrace" (McNeile). {And yet not willing} (\kai m theln\). Songs:we must understand \kai\ here, "and yet." Matthew makes a distinction here between "willing" (\theln\) and "wishing" (\eboulth\), that between purpose (\thel\) and desire (\boulomai\) a distinction not always drawn, though present here. It was not his purpose to "make her a public example" (\deigmatisai\), from the root (\deiknumi\ to show), a rare word (Colossians:2:15|). The Latin Vulgate has it _traducere_, the Old Latin _divulgare_, Wycliff _pupplische_ (publish), Tyndale _defame_, Moffatt _disgrace_, Braid Scots "Be i the mooth o' the public." The substantive (\deigmatismos\) occurs on the Rosetta Stone in the sense of "verification." There are a few instances of the verb in the papyri though the meaning is not clear (Moulton and Milligan's _Vocabulary_). The compound form appears (\paradeigmatiz\) in strkjv@Hebrews:6:6| and there are earlier instances of this compound than of the uncompounded, curiously enough. But new examples of the simple verb, like the substantive, may yet be found. The papyri examples mean to furnish a sample (P Tebt. 5.75), to make trial of (P Ryl. I. 28.32). The substantive means exposure in (P Ryl. I. 28.70). At any rate it is clear that Joseph "was minded to put her away privily." He could give her a bill of divorcement (\apolusai\), the \gt\ laid down in the Mishna, without a public trial. He had to give her the writ (\gt\) and pay the fine (Deuteronomy:24:1|). Songs:he proposed to do this privately (\lathrai\) to avoid all the scandal possible. One is obliged to respect and sympathize with the motives of Joseph for he evidently loved Mary and was appalled to find her untrue to him as he supposed. It is impossible to think of Joseph as the actual father of Jesus according to the narrative of Matthew without saying that Matthew has tried by legend to cover up the illegitimate birth of Jesus. The Talmud openly charges this sin against Mary. Joseph had "a short but tragic struggle between his legal conscience and his love" (McNeile).

rwp@Matthew:13:25 @{While men slept} (\en ti katheudein tous anthrpous\). Same use of the articular present infinitive with \en\ and the accusative as in strkjv@13:4|. {Sowed tares also} (\epespeiren ta zizania\). Literally "sowed upon," "resowed" (Moffatt). The enemy deliberately sowed "the darnel" (\zizania\ is not "tares," but "darnel," a bastard wheat) over (\epi\) the wheat, "in the midst of the wheat." This bearded darnel, _lolium temulentum_, is common in Palestine and resembles wheat except that the grains are black. In its earlier stages it is indistinguishable from the wheat stalks so that it has to remain till near the harvest. Modern farmers are gaining more skill in weeding it out.

rwp@Matthew:14:6 @{When Herod's birthday came} (\genesiois genomenois tou Hridou\). Locative of time (cf. strkjv@Mark:6:21|) without the genitive absolute. The earlier Greeks used the word \genesia\ for funeral commemorations (birthdays of the dead), \genethlia\ being the word for birthday celebrations of living persons. But that distinction has disappeared in the papyri. The word \genesia\ in the papyri (_Fayum Towns_, 114-20, 115-8, 119-30) is always a birthday feast as here in Matthew and Mark. Philo used both words of birthday feasts. Persius, a Roman satirist (_Sat_. V. 180-183), describes a banquet on Herod's Day. {Danced in the midst} (\rchsato en ti mesi\). This was Salome, daughter of Herodias by her first marriage. The root of the verb means some kind of rapid motion. "Leaped in the middle," Wycliff puts it. It was a shameful exhibition of lewd dancing prearranged by Herodias to compass her purpose for John's death. Salome had stooped to the level of an \almeh\, or common dancer.

rwp@Matthew:22:4 @{My dinner} (\to ariston mou\). It is breakfast, not dinner. In strkjv@Luke:14:12| both \ariston\ (breakfast) and \deipnon\ (dinner) are used. This noon or midday meal, like the French breakfast at noon, was sometimes called \deipnon mesmbrinon\ (midday dinner or luncheon). The regular dinner (\deipnon\) came in the evening. The confusion arose from applying \ariston\ to the early morning meal and then to the noon meal (some not eating an earlier meal). In strkjv@John:21:12,15| \arista\ is used of the early morning meal, "Break your fast" (\aristsate\). When \ariston\ was applied to luncheon, like the Latin _prandium_, \akratisma\ was the term for the early breakfast. {My fatlings} (\ta sitista\). Verbal from \sitiz\, to feed with wheat or other grain, to fatten. Fed-up or fatted animals.

rwp@Matthew:22:20 @{This image and superscription} (\h eikn haut kai h epigraph\). Probably a Roman coin because of the image (picture) on it. The earlier Herods avoided this practice because of Jewish prejudice, but the Tetrarch Philip introduced it on Jewish coins and he was followed by Herod Agrippa I. This coin was pretty certainly stamped in Rome with the image and name of Tiberius Caesar on it.

rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ainos\) or consummation of the age. In a painting the artist by skilful perspective may give on the same surface the inside of a room, the fields outside the window, and the sky far beyond. Certainly in this discourse Jesus blends in apocalyptic language the background of his death on the cross, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, his own second coming and the end of the world. He now touches one, now the other. It is not easy for us to separate clearly the various items. It is enough if we get the picture as a whole as it is here drawn with its lessons of warning to be ready for his coming and the end. The destruction of Jerusalem came as he foretold. There are some who would date the Synoptic Gospels after A.D. 70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).

rwp@Revelation:18:22 @{The voice} (\phn\). Cf. strkjv@Ezekiel:26:13|. Or "sound" as in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:8| with \salpigx\ (trumpet). For this song of judgment see strkjv@Jeremiah:25:10|. {Of harpers} (\kitharidn\). Old word (from \kithara\, harp, and \idos\, singer) as in strkjv@14:2|. {Of minstrels} (\mousikn\). Old word (from \mousa\, music), here only in N.T., one playing on musical instruments. {Of flute-players} (\aultn\). Old word (from \aule\, to play on a flute, strkjv@Matthew:11:17|, \aulos\, flute, strkjv@1Corinthians:14:7|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:9:23|. {Of trumpeters} (\salpistn\). Late form for the earlier \salpigkts\ (from \salpiz\), here only in N.T. {Shall be heard no more at all} (\ou m akousthi\). First aorist passive subjunctive of \akou\ with the double negative as below, with \phn mulou\ (sound of the millstone), and as in verse 21| with \ou me heurethi\ and again with \ps technits\ (craftsman). This old word is from \techn\, art, as here in some MSS. ("of whatsoever craft," \pass techns\). \Technits\ occurs also in this sense in strkjv@Acts:19:24,38|; and in strkjv@Hebrews:11:10| of God as the Architect. There is power in this four-fold sonorous repetition of \ou m\ and the subjunctive with two more examples in verse 23|.

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."