Cambridge Greek Testament: Galatians by A. Lukyn Williams

Arthur Lukyn Williams [1853-1943], The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians with Introduction and Notes

This is a basic commentary on the Greek text of Galatians, written for Schools and Colleges and should be of great assistance to those learning Greek. My thanks to Book Aid for providing a copy of this public domain work for digitisation.

Arthur Lukyn Williams [1853-1943], The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians with Introduction and Notes. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Hbk. pp.160. [Click here to visit the download page for this book]

Table of Contents

  • Introduction
    1. The History of the Galatians and of the Province of Galatia
    2. The Galatians of the Epistle: Who were they?
    3. The Galatians of the Epistle: Who were they? (continued)
    4. The Time of Writing
    5. The danger to which the Galatians were exposed, and the manner in which St Paul met it
    6. The permanent value of the Epistle
    7. The Canonicity of the Epistle
    8. The Text
    9. A Plan of the Epistle
    10. Commentaries, etc.
    11. Chronology of part of St Paul’s life
  • Text
  • Notes
  • Appendix
    • Note A: The term “Arabia” in the Epistle
    • Note B: ii. 1–10 in relation to Ac. xv. 4–29
    • Note C: Legal customs mentioned in the Epistle
    • Note D: Archbishop Temple on iii. 20
    • νόμος and ὁ νόμος
    • πνεῡμα and τό πνεῡμα
  • Indices
    • General
    • Greek
    • Scriptural
  • Map

Preface

The same methods have been adopted in the preparation of the following Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians as in that of the volume on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, viz. first, the independent use of concordance and grammar, and only afterwards the examination of commentaries and other aids.

The difficulties of the Epistle are not of the same kind as those of Colossians and Philemon. There (especially in Colossians) many strange words which in after years acquired highly technical meanings had to be considered; here rather historical circumstances and Jewish modes of thought.

The former of these unfortunately are still far from certain. Even the district intended by Galatia is doubtful, and the discussion of it is often conducted with more warmth than its importance warrants. Personally I greatly regret that I am unable to accept the very attractive theory presented with so much brilliancy of expression and originality of thought by Sir William Ramsay, viz. that the Churches of Galatia to w horn St Paul here writes are those whose origin is described at length in Acts xiii. and xiv. Its fundamental presupposition is that, as St Paul’s plan of campaign was to win the Roman Empire for Christ by seizing strategic points, he would not have visited so outlying a part as Northern Galatia. Hence if the Acts and our Epistle, backed up though they are by the consensus of Patristic evidence, appear to say that he did do so, this can be only in appearance not in fact. But I confess that the more I study the arguments adduced against the prima facie meaning of the passages in question the less they impress me, and, in particular, all attempts to date the Epistle on what may be called the Southern theory appear to me to fail. I therefore find myself reluctantly compelled to adhere to the older opinion that the Epistle was written to the Churches of North Galatia, at a date between the writing of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Romans.

Of more permanent interest is the revelation in this Epistle of St Paul’s training in Jewish modes of thought and exegesis. These indeed may be traced in every book of the N.T. (though the words and phrases due to them are often grossly misunderstood by friend and foe), but here they obtrude themselves on the most careless of readers. No one but a Jew accustomed to Rabbinic subtlety would have thought of the argument of the curse (iii. 13, 14), or of the seed (iii. 16), or even of Sarah and Hagar (iv. 21- 27). These and other examples in our Epistle of the working of Paul’s mind ought perhaps to have given more stimulus to the study of his mental equipment than has been the case.

Far more important however in our Epistle than either of these two rather academic subjects is its insistence upon the true character of the Gospel. St Paul opposed, with all the warmth of knowledge bought by experience, the supposition that Christ came only to reform Judaism, to open its door more widely to the Gentiles, or to attract them by the substitution of another Law of commands and ordinances for that to which they had been accustomed as heathen. It is the verdict of history that his efforts, though successful for the moment, have to a great extent been a failure….

Pages iv-v

Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? by Sir William Ramsay

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (Photo Source: Wikipedia)

Sir William M. Ramsay’s classic defence of the historicity of Luke-Acts. My thanks to Book Aid for making a copy of this public domain title available for digitisation.

William M. Ramsay [1851-1939], Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? A Study on the Credibility of St Luke. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1898. Hbk. pp.280. [Click here to visit the download page for this title]

Table of Contents

  1. Luke’s History: What it Professes to Be
  2. Plan and Unity of Luke’s History
  3. The Attitude of Luke to the Roman Empire
  4. Importance in Luke’s History of the Story of the Birth of Christ
  5. The Question at Issue
  6. Luke’s Account of the Enrolment
  7. Enrolment by Households in Egypt
  8. The Syrian Enrolment of the Year 8 B.C.
  9. The Enrolment of Palestine by Herod the King
  10. Chronology of the Life of Christ
  11. Some Associated Questions
  • Appendix

Preface

Understanding that a certain criticism implied a sort of challenge to apply my theory of Luke’s character as a historian to the Gospel, I took what is generally acknowledged to be the most doubtful passage, from the historian’s view, in the New Testament, Luke ii. 1-4. Many would not even call it doubtful. Strauss (in his New Life of Jesus) and Renan dismiss it in a short footnote as unworthy even of mention in the text.

This passage, interpreted according to the view which I have maintained – that Luke was a great historian, and that he appreciated the force of the Greek superlative (in spite of the contradiction of Professor Blass and others) – gave the result that Luke was acquainted with a system of Periodic Enrolments in Syria, and probably in the East generally. I looked for evidence of such a system; and it was offered by recent discoveries in Egypt. The confirmation afforded to Luke was explained in the Expositor, April and June, 1897.

Realising better in subsequent thought the bearings of the Egyptian discovery, I have enlarged these two articles into an argument against the view that Luke sinks, in the accessories of his narrative, below the standard exacted from ordinary historians. At the risk of repeating views already stated in previous works, the second chapter attempts to put clearly the present state of the question as regards the two books of Luke, without expecting others to be familiar with my views already published.

The names of those scholars whose views I contend against are hardly ever mentioned. The scholars of the “destructive” school seem to prefer not to be mentioned, when one differs from them. I have learned much from them; I was once guided by them; I believe that the right understanding of the New Testament has been very greatly advanced by their laudable determination to probe and to understand everything, as is stated on p. 33; but I think their conclusions are to a great extent erroneous. It might, however, be considered disingenuous if I concealed that the weighty authority of Gardthausen, the historian of Augustus, is dead against me, p. 102….

Pages vii-ix

Commentary on Mark’s Gospel by Allan Menzies

Allan Menzies [1845-1916], The Earliest Gospel. A Historical Study of the Gospel According to Mark

Allan Menzies was Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of St Andrews. His commentary of the Gospel of Mark (which contains both a Greek and English text) argues for a date of composition around 70 AD. My thanks to Book Aid for providing a copy of this public domain title for digitisation.

Allan Menzies [1845-1916], The Earliest Gospel. A Historical Study of the Gospel According to Mark. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1901. Hbk. pp.306. [Click to visit the download page]

Table of Contents

  • Preface
  • Table of Sections and of the Parallel Passages in the Gospel according to Matthew and Luke

I. Introduction

  • The Synoptic Problem. The Gospel not originally written
  • Motives of the formation of the Gospel tradition. The Gospel to be understood from the Apostolic Age
  • Why the Gospels appear so late
  • Absense from the earliest Christian writings of the details of the gospel ministry
  • Early Christian theology did not require the Gospels
  • The tradition was important practically
  • Aetiological motive in the Gospel tradition
  • Apologetic motive
  • Devotional motive
  • Yet the Gospels are also historical
  • State of the tradition before Mark wrote. Its fragmentary nature
  • Early collections of Gospel materials
  • Nature of Mark’s Gospel as gathered from itself
  • Absence of discourses
  • Sources of this Gospel
  • Mark’s order
  • Progress of Mark’s narrative
  • He treats his materials with freedom
  • Descriptive touches. Was the Gospel written to be read at meetings?
  • The Gospel is addressed to Western readers
  • Aramaisms and Latin words
  • Traces of Paulinism
  • Date of the Gospel
  • Personal history of Mark
  • Mark and Paul
  • Mark and Peter
  • Church traditions of Mark
  • Account of Papias
  • Conclusion

II. Text, Versions and Commentary

III. Index of Subjects

IV. Index of Passages Referred to

Preface

The Gospel according to Mark is now regarded by nearly all scholars as the earliest and also the most original of those which we possess; and if this is the case the study of the Life of Christ must begin with it. As Professor Pfleiderer points out in his Urchristenthum, this Gospel alone admits of examination apart from any other; and the first step in the attempt to see Christ as history reveals him, must be to apprehend as clearly as we can the individual testimony of Mark’s Gospel.

Several recent works on the second Gospel appreciate its importance on this ground. What is now presented to the reader does not enter into competition with the commentaries of Professor Swete or of Professor Gould, but may perhaps to some extent supplement them. On textual and philological questions Dr. Swete’s book must always be consulted, and that of Dr. Gould is full of suggestion on the side of thought. Another English book which should be named is the commentary on the Synoptic Gospels in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, by the late lamented Dr. A. B. Bruce.

The present work seeks to determine the historical outcome of the earliest Gospel taken by itself. On the one hand it strives to approach to the original facts handed down by the tradition; on the other to understand those special interests of the age in which the Gospel was written which necessarily determined in some degree both its contents and its form. The writer has learned most from two German works which are perhaps too solid ever to be translated, Das Marcus-evangelium by Dr. B. Weiss, 1872, and the treatment of the Synoptic Gospels by Dr. H. J. Holtzmann in the Hand-Commentarzum Neuen Testament, first edition, 1889. But he has exercised throughout an independent judgment.

For the sake of the student who may use this work the Greek text which is adopted is given, and the principal variants are pointed out. The English version will show him how the text is understood. The commentary can be read continuously, and the reader who does not know Greek will yet, it is hoped, find the book serviceable. It is written with a profound conviction that as criticism declares the second Gospel to be the porch by which we must go in to find the Saviour as he was and is, the earnest reader of that Gospel may indeed find him there. For his teaching, it is true, we have to look elsewhere; and his figure as here disclosed is homelier and more subject to human limitations than that to which we are accustomed. But though more human it need not be less divine.

Pages v-vi.