Cambridge Greek Testament: Hebrews by Alexander Nairne

Alexander Nairne [1863-1936], The Epistle to the Hebrews with Introduction and Notes. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges

A commentary on the Greek text of Hebrews in the Cambridge New Testament for Schools and Colleges series by Alexander Nairne. It is worth oting that the author devotes a considerable space in the introduction to the theology of Hebrews.

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

Alexander Nairne [1863-1936], The Epistle to the Hebrews with Introduction and Notes. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922. Hbk. pp.141. [Click here to visit the download page for this title]

Table of Contents

  • Introduction
    1. Plan and analysis of the epistle
    2. History of the reception, criticism and interpretation of the epistle
    3. The theology of the epistle
    4. The text of the epistle
    5. The style of the epistle
  • The Greek Text
  • Notes
  • Index of Contents

Disussion of authorship

That no doubt had already struck Luther when he conjectured Apollos as the author. Possibly Luther, and the modems who have accepted his conjecture, read more into the few lines in which .Apollos is described (Acts xviii. 24 f.) than is really to be found there. The conjecture is not supported by tradition. Harnack’s idea that Priscilla was the authoress is a development from Luther’s inference. Blass in the short preface to his rythmical text pays no attention to the philosophical colouring, and accepts the Barnabas tradition, because Barnabas as a Levite would have been familiar with the cadences of the Greek Psalter. Barnabas is the only name which can be connected with anything like a. real tradition. Scholarship is more respectful to tradition of late. It is felt that there are few fresh starts in thought; tradition generally lies behind, and what seems to be tradition is at least to be respectfully examined. That is the spirit of a book which has not yet been so carefully criticised as it deserves. Mr Edmundson thinks Hebrews was written to Judaeo-Christians in Rome by Barnabas in 66 A.D. S. Paul was still living; had been released from his captivity; and at the close of the same year was himself in Rome, again in prison and soon to die. I Peter had been already written and is quoted in Hebrews. The Apocalypse was written three years later, at the beginning of A.D. 70. Early in the same year, A.D. 70, Clement, a younger brother of M. Arrecinus Clemens and the same Clement as is named in Phil. iv., gave literary expression to the message from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth ; he was not yet the official head of the Roman Church. That is a consistent view of our epistle and the other epistles that are related to it. Without necessarily adopting the whole of it, we may at least welcome the support Mr Edmundson gives to the early date of Hebrews. That judgement is hardly fashionable at present, but, as will presently be shown, it does fit many important characteristics of the epistle.

As for the author’s name, that search may as well be given up. The Barnabas tradition only emerges for a moment or two and is lost in darkness on either side. The other names proposed, Luke, Clement, Apollos, Silas, Philip the deacon, Aristion – one writer has even suggested S. Peter – are mere conjectures; some of which are surely impossible. That there should be one letter in the New Testament which was not written by any person who happens to be mentioned in the other books, is quite in accordance with the analogies of literary history. It may be added, though not as an argument, that our interest in the apostolic Church and our reverence for its rich inspiration would be increased hereby. The character, education and to a large extent the circumstances of the author may be gathered from the letter itself. The mere precision of a name would not illuminate the background very much….

Pages iv-lvii

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

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.