![]() has oiktirmonaj, merciful the rest, akthmonaj, without possessions, which is certainly the true reading. Other conjectures are: Barnabas, Mark, Erastus, and an actual brother of Titus.-G. It cannot be determined who this "brother" was. states too confidently that "the brother" whose praise is referred to in 2 Cor. The events narrated presuppose the resurrection and would have been impossible without it.-G. The immediate purpose of the book is to record the labors and triumphs of the Apostolic Church as supplementary to the narrative of the teaching and work of Jesus (i. The resurrection of Jesus is a prominent theme in the Apostolic discourses but the book is no mre designed primarily to prove the resurrection than are the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. "The demonstration of the Resurrection is, the Apostolic miracles: and of the Apostolic miracles this Book is the school."Ħ The statement that the Acts is a "Demonstration of the Resurrection" has a certain profound truth, but is incorrect if intending to assert that such was the conscious purpose of the author. "First we must see who wrote the Book.whether a man, or God: and if man, let us reject it for, `Call no man master upon earth: but if God, let us receive it.ŀ' "ĥ Hom. The use of euaggelion to denote a book is post apostolic.- G. Paul speaks of it as the gospel which he preached unto them. 1) to Luke's "gospel" is, of course, groundless. S.ģ The reference in the Text of the expression: "the Gospel which ye received," (1 Cor. When they are combined with those mentioned under (1) and when the dedication of both books to a certain Theophilus is considered, the argument becomes very cogent and complete. These considerations demonstrate the fitness of Luke to prepare such a treatise as the Acts and render the supposition of his authorship plausible. In the part of the Book of Acts which treats especially of the work of Paul, the writer frequently refers to himself in the use of the first person plural as an associate of the apostle (vid. 11, we learn that Luke was a close companion of Paul. They are in substance, (1) The continuity of the history as connected with the gospels and, particularly, coincidences of style, matter and diction with the third gospel, and (2) The remarkable undesigned coincidences of statement between the Acts and Pauline Epistles which exclude the possibility of inter-dependence. For peradventure you do not hear this Book read from year's end to year's end."Ģ The two reasons which Chrysostom urges for the study of the Acts are also the two chief grounds upon which modern criticism depends for establishing not only the general trust-worthiness of the book, but also its authorship by Luke. Certainly, there are many to whom this Book is not even known ( polloij goun to biblion touto oude gnwrimon eoti) and many again think it so plain, that they slight it: thus to some men their knowledge, to some their ignorance, is the cause of their neglect.We are to enquire then who wrote it, and when, and on what subject: and why it is ordered ( nenomoqethtai) to be read at this festival. Not strange for it belongs to the order of Holy Scripture: and yet strange because peradventure your ears are not accustomed to such a subject. "We are about to set before you a strange and new dish.strange, I say, and not strange. had made the same complaint at Antioch in the Homilies (a.d. #Oikon stewardship solutions series#Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |