Commentary on 2 Peter and Jude by E.H. Plumptre

Edward Hayes Plumptre [1821-1891], St. Peter & St. Jude with Notes and IntroductionEdward Hayes Plumptre was Dean of Wells Cathedral. Wikipedia notes, Plumptre:

…wrote much on the interpretation of scripture, endeavouring to combine and popularise, in no superficial fashion, the results attained by labourers in special sections of the subject. He contributed to the commentaries known respectively as the Cambridge Bible, the Speaker’s Commentary, that edited by Bishop Ellicott, and the Bible Educator. He also wrote Biblical Studies, 1870 (3rd edit. 1885), St. Paul in Asia (1877), a Popular Exposition of the Epistles to the Seven Churches (1877 and 1879), Movements in Religious Thought: Romanism, Protestantism, Agnosticism (1879), and Theology and Life (1884). His most remarkable theological work was The Spirits in Prison, and other studies on Life after Death (1884 and 1885). The book comprises a review of previous teaching on the subject of eschatology. His characteristic sympathy with ‘the larger hope’ is moderated throughout by a characteristic caution. He had passed beyond the influence of Maurice, and, though his loyal admiration for his earlier teacher remained unchanged, he had rejected his conclusions.

My thanks to Book Aid for providing a copy of this public domain title for digitisation.

Edward Hayes Plumptre [1821-1891], St. Peter & St. Jude with Notes and Introduction. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893. Hbk pp.220. [Click to visit the download page]

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Text and Notes
  3. Index

Introduction. The Training of the Disciple

The early years of the Apostle whose writings are now before us appear to have been passed in the village of Bethsaida (=Fishtown, or more literally Home of Fish), on the West coast of the Sea of Galilee, not far from Chorazin and Capernaum (John i. 44). Its exact position cannot be determined with any certainty, but it has been identified with the modern ‘Ain et Tabi’galt, and must be distinguished from the town of the same name on the North-Eastern shore of the Lake, which, after it had been enlarged and rebuilt by Philip the Tetrarch, was known as Bethsaida Julias, the latter name having been 1 given to it in honour of the daughter of the Emperor Augustus.

Among the fishermen from whose occupation the town derived its name was one who bore the name either of Jona (John i. 42; Matt. xvi. 17) or Joannes (in the best MSS. of John xxi. 15-17)…

Daniel in the Critics Den by Sir Robert Anderson

Daniel in the Lions' Den by Briton Rivière (1890)Sir Robert Anderson [1841-1918] was an Assistant Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police and member of the Open Brethren. In 1885 he wrote this response to F.W. Farrar, then the Dean of Canterbury, who had recently written a commentary on the Book of Daniel in The Expositor’s Bible series. Farrar roundly dismissed the historical claims of that book, so Anderson countered with this defence of a 7th Century dating of Daniel.

This title has been widely republished both in print and on-line, but as I came across a copy at Book Aid I thought it would do not harm to make is available here as well. My thanks to Book Aid for their assistance.

Robert Anderson [1841-1918], Daniel in the Critics’ Den. A Reply to Dean Farrar’s ‘Book of Daniel. Edinburgh & London: William Blackwood & Sons, 1895. Hbk. pp.126. [Click to visit the download page]

Chapter 1

Bv “all people of discernment” the “Higher Criticism” is now held in the greatest repute. And discernment is a quality for which the dullest of men are keen to claim credit. It may safely be assumed that not one person in a score of those who eagerly disclaim belief in the visions of Daniel has ever seriously considered the question. The literature upon the subject is but dull reading at best, and the inquiry demands a combination of qualities which is comparatively rare. A newspaper review of some ponderous treatise, or a frothy discourse by some popular preacher, will satisfy most men. The German literature upon the controversy they know nothing of, and the writings of scholars like Professor Driver of Oxford are by no means to their taste, and probably beyond their capacity. Dean Farrar’s Book of Daniel will therefore supply a much – felt want…

More resources on Daniel can be found here. Of these Alan R. Millard’s recent defence of the book’s historicity is especially helpful.

Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings by C.F. Burney

Solomon greeting the Queen of Sheba – gate of Florence Baptistry. Source: Wikipedia

Rev. Charles Fox Burney [1868–1925] was a lecturer in Hebrew at the University of Oxford, becoming Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture in 1914. This work is effectively a commentary on the Hebrew text of the Books of 1 & 2 Kings.

I had thought, once again, that I would save time by using an on-line text, but on closer examination the one I had chosen had missing and blurred pages and took extra work to correct.

Charles Fox Burney [1868-1925], Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings with an Introduction and Notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903. Hbk. pp.384. [Click to visit the download page]

Table of Contents

Introduction

  1. Structure of Kings
  2. Characteristics of the Chief Ancient Versions of Kings
  3. The Synchrinisms of the Compiler

List of Abbreviations

Notes on 1 Kings

Notes on 2 Kings

Appendix:

  1. Inscription of Mesha’, King of Moab
  2. The Siloam Inscription
  3. Inscription of the Monolith of Shalmanezer II, II. 78-102
  4. Fragment of the Annals of Shalmeneser II. Descriptive Inscription from the Obleish of Shalmanser
  5. Narrative of Sennacherib’s Third Campaign (B.C. 701) from the Taylor Cylinder, Col. II. I. 34-Col. III.I.41

Additions

Index

Introduction: The Structure of Kings

The fact that Kings, like the other historical books of the Old Testament, is based upon pre-existing written sources is universally recognized; and the evidence upon which this elementary proposition is based need not here be set forth. That the main editor or compiler of these sources was a Deuteronomist, i.e. that his work was inspired by the religious revival which took place in the eighteenth year of Josiah (B.C. 621) under the influence of the newly discovered book of Deuteronomy, appears both from his religious standpoint and from his phraseology. This editor is therefore hereinafter cited under the symbol RD (Deuteronomic Redactor).

To RD is due the stereotyped form into which the introduction and conclusion of a reign is thrown, and which constitutes, as it were, the framework upon which the narrative as a whole is built. The regularity of the method of RO in the construction of this framework is worthy of special notice.