OT-POET.filter - rwp reached:

rwp@1Corinthians:15:12 @{Is preached} (\krussetai\). Personal use of the verb, Christ is preached. {How say some among you?} (\ps legousin en humin tines?\). The question springs naturally from the proof of the fact of the resurrection of Christ (verses 1-11|) and the continual preaching which Paul here assumes by condition of the first class (\ei--krussetai\). There were sceptics in Corinth, possibly in the church, who denied the resurrection of dead people just as some men today deny that miracles happen or ever did happen. Paul's answer is the resurrection of Christ as a fact. It all turns on this fact.

rwp@1Thessalonians:2:9 @{Travail} (\mochthon\). Old word for difficult labour, harder than \kopos\ (toil). In the N.T. only here, strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:27|. Note accusative case here though genitive with \mnmoneu\ in strkjv@1:3|. {Night and day} (\nuktos kai hmeras\). Genitive case, both by day and by night, perhaps beginning before dawn and working after dark. Songs:in strkjv@3:10|. {That we might not burden any of you} (\pros to m epibarsai tina humn\). Use of \pros\ with the articular infinitive to express purpose (only four times by Paul). The verb \epibare\ is late, but in the papyri and inscriptions for laying a burden (\baros\) on (\epi-\) one. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2Thessalonians:3:8; strkjv@2Corinthians:2:5|. Paul boasted of his financial independence where he was misunderstood as in Thessalonica and Corinth (2Corinthians:9-12|), though he vindicated his right to remuneration. {We preached} (\ekruxamen\). {We heralded} (from \krux\, herald) to you, common verb for preach.

rwp@2Peter:2:5 @{The ancient world} (\archaiou kosmou\). Genitive case after \epheisato\ (with \ei\ understood) repeated (the second example, the deluge). This example not in Jude. Absence of the article is common in the prophetic style like II Peter. For \archaios\ see strkjv@Luke:9:8|. {Preserved} (\ephulaxen\). Still part of the long protasis with \ei\, first aorist active indicative of \phulass\. {With seven others} (\ogdoon\). "Eighth," predicate accusative adjective (ordinal), classic idiom usually with \auton\. See strkjv@1Peter:3:20| for this same item. Some take \ogdoon\ with \kruka\ (eighth preacher), hardly correct. {A preacher of righteousness} (\dikaiosuns kruka\). "Herald" as in strkjv@1Timothy:2:7; strkjv@2Timothy:1:11| alone in N.T., but \kruss\ is common. It is implied in strkjv@1Peter:3:20| that Noah preached to the men of his time during the long years. {When he brought} (\epaxas\). First aorist active participle (instead of the common second aorist active \epagagn\) of \eisag\, old compound verb to bring upon, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:5:28| (by Peter here also). {A flood} (\kataklusmon\). Old word (from \katakluz\, to inundate), only of Noah's flood in N.T. (Matthew:24:38ff.; strkjv@Luke:17:27; strkjv@2Peter:2:5|). {Upon the world of the ungodly} (\kosmoi asebn\). Anarthrous and dative case \kosmi\. The whole world were "ungodly" (\asebeis\ as in strkjv@1Peter:4:18|) save Noah's family of eight.

rwp@Acts:13:14 @{Passing through} (\dielthontes\). It is not clear why Paul and Barnabas left Perga so soon nor why they went to Antioch in Pisidia. Ramsay suggests malaria that spurred them on to the hills after the desertion of John Mark. They preached at Perga on the return (14:25|) and apparently hurried away now. Farrar thinks that the hot weather had driven the population to the hills. At any rate it is not difficult to imagine the perils of this climb over the rough mountain way from Perga to Pisidian Antioch to which Paul apparently refers in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:26|. {Sat down} (\ekathisan\). Ingressive aorist active indicative, took their seats as visiting Jews, possibly in the seats of the rabbis (J. Lightfoot). Whether they expected to be called on or not, they were given the opportunity as prominent visitors. The Pisidian Antioch was really in Phrygia, but towards Pisidia to distinguish it from Antioch on the Maeander (Ramsay, _Church in the Roman Empire_, p. 25). It was a colony like Philippi and so a free city. If Paul is referring to South Galatia and not North Galatia in strkjv@Galatians:4:13| when he says that his preaching in Galatia at first was due to illness, then it was probably here at Pisidian Antioch. What it was we have no means of knowing, though it was a temptation in his flesh to them so severe that they were willing to pluck out their eyes for him (Galatians:4:14f.|). Opthalmia, malaria, epilepsy have all been suggested as this stake in the flesh (2Corinthians:12:7|). But Paul was able to preach with power whatever his actual physical condition was.

rwp@Acts:21:40 @{When he had given him leave} (\epitrepsantos autou\). Genitive absolute of aorist active participle of the same verb \epitrep\. {Standing on the stairs} (\hests epi tn anabathmn\). Second perfect active participle of \histmi\, to place, but intransitive to stand. Dramatic scene. Paul had faced many audiences and crowds, but never one quite like this. Most men would have feared to speak, but not so Paul. He will speak about himself only as it gives him a chance to put Christ before this angry Jewish mob who look on Paul as a renegade Jew, a turncoat, a deserter, who went back on Gamaliel and all the traditions of his people, who not only turned from Judaism to Christianity, but who went after Gentiles and treated Gentiles as if they were on a par with Jews. Paul knows only too well what this mob thinks of him. {Beckoned with the hand} (\kateseise ti cheiri\). He shook down to the multitude with the hand (instrumental case \cheiri\), while Alexander, Luke says (19:33|), "shook down the hand" (accusative with the same verb, which see). In strkjv@26:1| Paul reached out the hand (\ekteinas tn cheira\). {When there was made a great silence} (\polls sigs genomens\). Genitive absolute again with second aorist middle participle of \ginomai\, "much silence having come." Paul waited till silence had come. {In the Hebrew language} (\ti Ebraidi dialekti\). The Aramaean which the people in Jerusalem knew better than the Greek. Paul could use either tongue at will. His enemies had said in Corinth that "his bodily presence was weak and his speech contemptible" (2Corinthians:10:10|). But surely even they would have to admit that Paul's stature and words reach heroic proportions on this occasion. Self-possessed with majestic poise Paul faces the outraged mob beneath the stairs.

rwp@Info_John @ BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOCALYPSE It should be said at once that the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel does not depend on that of the Apocalypse. In fact, some men hold to the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse who deny that of the Gospel while some hold directly the opposite view. Some deny the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse, while the majority hold to the Johannine authorship of Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse as was the general rule till after the time of Origen. The author of the Apocalypse claims to be John (Revelation:1:4,9; strkjv@22:8|), though what John he does not say. Denial of the existence of a "Presbyter John" naturally leads one to think of the Apostle John. Origen says that John, the brother of James, was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he saw the Apocalypse. There is undoubted radical difference in language between the Apocalypse and the other Johannine books which will receive discussion when the Apocalypse is reached. Westcott explained these differences as due to the early date of the Apocalypse in the reign of Vespasian before John had become master of the Greek language. Even J. H. Moulton (_Prolegomena_, p. 9, note 4) says bluntly: "If its date was 95 A.D., the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after." Or before, he would say. But the date of the Apocalypse seems definitely to belong to the reign of Domitian. Songs:one ventures to call attention to the statement in strkjv@Acts:4:13| where Peter and John are described as \agrammatoi kai iditai\ (unlettered and private or unschooled men). It is curious also that it is precisely in 2Peter and the Apocalypse that we have so many grammatical solecisms and peculiarities. We know that the Fourth Gospel was reviewed by a group of John's friends in Ephesus, while he was apparently alone in the Isle of Patmos. The excitement of the visions would naturally increase the uncouth vernacular of the Apocalypse so much like that in the Greek papyri as seen in Milligan's _Greek Papyri_, for instance. This being true, one is able, in spite of Moulton's dictum, to hold to the Johannine authorship of both Gospel and Apocalypse and not far apart in date.

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@Mark:6:12 @{Preached that men should repent} (\ekruxan hina metanosin\). Constative aorist (\ekruxan\), summary description. This was the message of the Baptist (Matthew:3:2|) and of Jesus (Mark:1:15|).

rwp@Mark:7:25 @{Whose little daughter} (\hs to thugatrion auts\). Diminutive with tender touch. Note "whose" and "her" like vernacular today. {Having heard of him} (\akousasa peri autou\). Even in this heathen territory the fame of Jesus was known. When the Sermon on the Mount was preached people were there from "the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon" (Luke:6:17|).

rwp@Matthew:7:22 @{Did we not prophesy in thy name?} (\ou ti si onomati eprophteusamen;\). The use of \ou\ in the question expects the affirmative answer. They claim to have prophesied (preached) in Christ's name and to have done many miracles. But Jesus will tear off the sheepskin and lay bare the ravening wolf. "I never knew you" (\oudepote egnn hms\). "I was never acquainted with you" (experimental knowledge). Success, as the world counts it, is not a criterion of one's knowledge of Christ and relation to him. "I will profess unto them" (\homologs autois\), the very word used of profession of Christ before men (Matthew:10:32|). This word Jesus will use for public and open announcement of their doom.

rwp@Matthew:21:1 @{Unto Bethphage} (\eis Bethphag\). An indeclinable Aramaic name here only in O.T. or N.T. (Mark:11:1; strkjv@Luke:19:29|). It means "house of unripe young figs." It apparently lay on the eastern slope of Olivet or at the foot of the mountain, a little further from Jerusalem than Bethany. Both Mark and Luke speak of Christ's coming "unto Bethphage and Bethany" as if Bethphage was reached first. It is apparently larger than Bethany. {Unto the Mount of Olives} (\eis to oros tn Elain\). Matthew has thus three instances of \eis\ with Jerusalem, Mount of Olives. Mark and Luke use \pros\ with Mount of Olives, the Mount of Olive trees (\elain\ from \elaia\, olive tree), the mountain covered with olive trees.

rwp@Matthew:24:14 @{Shall be preached} (\keruchthsetai\). Heralded in all the inhabited world. \En holi ti oikoumeni\ supply \gi\. It is not here said that all will be saved nor must this language be given too literal and detailed an application to every individual.