a ou
Wy ΜΗ! πως
] ij Nant we ΤΗ
1] 4
My if LM Shag Teng
4
ae i
η
> any TPT bat hatin vite
lis Mi) be, ΤΗΝ 6 351) foie
Ra δη alibi pay
" Γι η μην,
η Ηλ ene
ii)
1) ης NONPUN ONT Hag ή ή
ΜΗ ΕΙ αἱ kt ' yg A
fie fy ld
ate
[i η)
4 eu πμ
η set ht ὃν
iat
Satie
ty
1 τν νά aN ye Stat 4,
se
he Cee
ας κ.
Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2009 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library
https://archive.org/details/expositorsgreekt02nico
EDITOR OF “THE EXPOSITOR,” ‘‘ THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE,” Ετςι
HODDER AND STOUGHTON LIMITED LONDON NEW YORK TORONTO
ty oa yD Roh ; a ts hex | ' yee om <4
cra oo Mary wa ιν CRON (a3 be fie ay H
ο ο.
ΤΙΣ EXPOSITOR'S το Tes TAMENT
I THE ACTS OF ΤΗΕ APOSTLES
Dy ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
BY THE REV. JAMES DENNEY, D.D.
ΤΠ ST. PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS
HODDER AND STOUGHTON LIMITED LONDON NEW YORK TORONTO
δα ai eemte i πο. hs ame: ο. :
‘ . κι
+
ι να, ρα σε. ο
Ly
Wen ο rs aes eo hi P
ΤΗΕ AUTHOR OF THE Book. Whoever wrote the Acts wrote also the Gospel which bears the name of St. Luke. We find writers far removed in standpoint from each other, eg., H. Holtzmann, Einle:tung®, p. 391, and Zockler, Greifswalder Studien, p. 128, agreeing in this conviction, and appealing to the same work, Priedrich’s Das Lukas Evangelium und die Apostelgeschichte, Werke desselben Verfassers (1890; see commentary), in support of it. In recent years the philologist Gercke seems to be almost the only convert to the opposite view who, with Sorof, regards the author of Acts as the reviser of the δεύτερος λόγος of Luke ; but his efforts in promulgating his views cannot be said to have met with any success (see Zockler, u. s.; Theologische Rundschau, pp. 50,129: 1899; and Wendt, A postelgeschichte, p. 4, 1899).
Friedrich’s pamphlet, which contains a useful summary of the whole evidence on the subject, much of which had been previously collected by Zeller and Lekebusch (although their readings, like those too of Friedrich, sometimes require careful testing), gives instances of language, style, and treatment of various subjects which place the identity of authorship beyond reasonable doubt (see instances noted in commentary).! At the same time it would be misleading to say that recent critics have been unmindful of the linguistic differences which the two books present, although a candid examination shows that these differences are comparatively slight (cf. Hawkins, Hore Synoptice, p. 140; Zahn, Einleztung, Π., p. 381, 1899). In earlier days Zeller had not lost sight of those peculiarities which are entirely linguistic, and he maintains that they are not of a nature to prove anything against the same origin of the two writings, Acts, vol. ii., p. 243, Ε.Τ.
΄
1 Amongst recent writers, Blass, in his Index ii., Acta Apostolorwm, marks fifty-six words as peculiar to St. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts; cf. also the list in Plummer’s St. Luke, lii., liii. The instances of words and phrases characteristic of St. Luke’s Gospel in Sir J. Hawkins’ Hore Synoptica, 1899, pp. 29-41, will enable any one to see at a glance by the references how far such words and phrases are also characteristic of, or peculiar to, Acts: see also in commentary.