OT-PROPHET.filter - rwp editors:

rwp@1Corinthians:Note @\m melei\ expects the negative answer, impersonal verb with dative and genitive cases (\theoi\, God, \bon\, oxen). {Altogether} (\pants\). But here probably with the notion of doubtless or assuredly. The editors differ in the verse divisions here. The Canterbury Version puts both these questions in verse 10|, the American Standard the first in verse 9|, the second in verse 10|.

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:3:19 @{Repent therefore} (\metanosate oun\). Peter repeats to this new crowd the command made in strkjv@Acts:2:38| which see. God's purpose and patience call for instant change of attitude on their part. Their guilt does not shut them out if they will turn. {And turn again} (\kai epistrepsate\). Definitely turn to God in conduct as well as in mind. {That your sins may be blotted out} (\pros to exaliphthnai humn tas hamartias\). Articular infinitive (first aorist passive of \exaleiph\, to wipe out, rub off, erase, smear out, old verb, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:2:14|) with the accusative of general reference and with \pros\ and the accusative to express purpose. {That so} (\hops an\). Final particle with \an\ and the aorist active subjunctive \elthsin\ (come) and not "when" as the Authorized Version has it. Some editors put this clause in verse 20| (Westcott and Hort, for instance). {Seasons of refreshing} (\kairoi anapsuxes\). The word \anapsuxis\ (from \anapsuch\, to cool again or refresh, strkjv@2Timothy:1:16|) is a late word (LXX) and occurs here alone in the N.T. Surely repentance will bring "seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord."

rwp@Revelation:4:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). Change in the panorama, not chronology (7:1,9; strkjv@15:5; strkjv@18:1; strkjv@19:1|). This vision is of heaven, not of earth as was true of chapters strkjv@Revelation:1; 2|. The first vision of Christ and the messages to the seven churches began in strkjv@1:12f|. This new vision of the throne in heaven (4:1-11|) succeeds that to which it here alludes. {I saw} (\eidon\). Second aorist active indicative of \hora\. {Behold} (\idou\). Exclamation of vivid emotion as John looked. No effect on the structure and nominative case \thura\ (door) follows it. {Opened} (\neigmen\). Perfect (triple reduplication) passive participle of \anoig\ as in strkjv@3:8| (door of opportunity) and strkjv@3:20| (door of the heart), here the door of revelation (Swete). {In heaven} (\en ti ourani\). As in strkjv@Ezekiel:1:1; strkjv@Mark:1:10; strkjv@John:1:51|. In Revelation always in singular except strkjv@12:12|. {The first} (\h prt\). Reference is to strkjv@1:10|. {Speaking} (\lalouss\). From \lale\, rather \legouss\ of strkjv@1:10| from \leg\, both agreeing with \salpiggos\ (trumpet). {Saying} (\legn\). Present active participle of \leg\ repeating the idea of \lalouss\, but in the nominative masculine singular construed with \phn\ (feminine singular), construction according to sense because of the person behind the voice as in strkjv@11:15; strkjv@19:14|. {Come up} (\anaba\). Short _Koin_ form for \anabthi\ (second aorist active imperative second person singular of \anabain\). {Hither} (\hde\). Originally "here," but vernacular use (John:6:25; strkjv@10:27|). {I will show} (\deix\). Future active of \deiknumi\ in same sense in strkjv@1:1|. {Hereafter} (\meta tauta\). Some editors (Westcott and Hort) connect these words with the beginning of verse 2|.

rwp@Titus:2:6 @{The younger men} (\tous neterous\). Just one item, besides "likewise" (\hosauts\ as in 3; strkjv@1Timothy:2,9|), "to be soberminded" (\sphronein\, old verb as in Rom strkjv@12:3|). It is possible to take "in all things" (\peri panta\) with \sphronein\, though the editors take it with verse 7|.