... Hebrew text of 1 Kgs. 12:2 reads “he remained in” (with the preposition also differing in Hebrew). Since the Septuagint and Vulgate translations of 1 Kgs. 12:2 also have the equivalent of “he returned from,” this is probably the more original reading. However, the change in vocalization and preposition to read “he remained in” is understandable in light of the beginning of 2 Chron. 10:3, which states that they sent for Jeroboam. This may, however, also mean that, while he settled somewhere else ...
... omission in Chronicles either intends to show the writer’s disdain for Amon or (more likely) results from an accidental scribal transmission error. Additional Notes 33:21 Dominic Rudman (“Note on the Personal Name Amon,” pp. 403–5) proposes an Egyptian origin for the name Amon. He argues that Manasseh, who participated in Ashurbanipal’s first campaign in Egypt (667 B.C.), named his son to commemorate the Assyrian’s capture of the rebel capital Thebes (Hebrew Na-Amon) during his second campaign ...
... (36:7), is not present in the source text in Kings but is reflected in the book of Daniel (which mentions in 1:1 that Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar). It was impossible for the Chronicler to make use of Daniel, since this book originated only much later, so one should therefore assume that some other available sources documented this event. The carrying off of “articles from the temple of the LORD” would certainly mean the tragic defilement of the temple of Solomon and the desecration of the ...
... of Yahweh’s people. Although 36:22–23 is not to be found in the Deuteronomistic source text, these verses are present in the introduction to the book of Ezra (in Ezra 1:1–3). Scholars debate intensely which one of these versions is the original, but a consensus has emerged that the Chronicler probably copied these verses from the earlier book of Ezra in order to establish a unity of some sort with the historiography contained in Ezra-Nehemiah (which describes the history after the exile). However, the ...
... (9–11) give an account of the event that brought this period to a close. They are the fullest and perhaps the only account of the ascension in the New Testament, since the texts of Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51 are probably not original. Because the passage stands alone, its historical value has been questioned and Luke accused of translating a purely spiritual event into an event in the material world. But even if the ascension is not actually described elsewhere, it is certainly implied in the frequent ...
... of the eastern Mediterranean that otherwise would be unrepresented. But we should not exaggerate the difficulty of interpreting Judea in the ordinary sense. A distinction was made between Jerusalem and the rest of the province (see notes on 1:8), and to the original compilers it may not have seemed as incongruous as it does to us to include the neighboring Judeans among the visitors. Mention is then made of the visitors from Asia Minor—Pontus in the northeast (see disc. on 18:2); Cappadocia, south of ...
... reports (cf. v. 40). Nevertheless, we have every reason for confidence that Luke has done no more than play the part of an editor, not inventing, but faithfully retaining the gist of what was said and sometimes even the actual words of the original speakers. As for this present speech in particular, we should note the following: first, it fits very well the occasion to which it purports to belong; second, in its exposition of Scripture there survives a very primitive argument for the messiahship of Jesus ...
... you) had sent to his death, but God has raised him from the dead (v. 10). 4:11 Already the speech had become another declaration of Jesus’ messiahship—he is the Christ (v. 10)—and this theme was maintained as Peter quoted Psalm 118:22. Originally the stone was intended to represent Israel or Israel’s king and the builders who rejected the stone equalled the heathen, the builders of the empires of this world. Or perhaps “the builders” was used initially of those in Israel who despised some small ...
... :23; cf. Psalms of Solomon 17:24ff.; 4QFlor. 1.10–13). In applying it to Jesus, therefore, the Christians were drawing on an established tradition. But for them uniquely the Messiah was at the same time the Servant of God (v. 27)—a juxtaposition of ideas that owed its origin to Jesus’ own messianic consciousness (see notes on 3:13; 8:32f.; 11:20). For as early as his baptism, Jesus had seen himself in terms of both Psalm 2:7 (cf. 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5) and Isaiah 42:1, part of the first “Servant Song ...
... Johannine account of the raising of Lazarus and this story in Acts (The Gospel of Signs [London: Cambridge University Press, 1970], p. 84). Parallels have also been found in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Kings 17:17–24; 2 Kings 4:32–37). But none of these account for the origin of the story. Dunn, Jesus, p. 165, thinks it quite likely that the tradition goes back to a genuine episode in the ministry of Peter, though he does wonder whether Tabitha was simply in a coma.
... have been mounted, since they appear to have arrived in Joppa soon after noon the next day. Additional Notes 10:1 A man named Cornelius: The name of a great Roman family to which belonged the Scipios and Sulla, though the centurion may have been of much humbler origin. Sulla had manumitted ten thousand slaves in 82 B.C., all of whom would have taken the name Cornelius. By now it must have been widespread. The name is the second of the three that a Roman normally bore (see note on 13:9). This brief form of ...
... . 6:18ff.). These words take us back to the teaching of Jesus in Mark 7:15 and to the inference drawn by the Evangelist (who is traditionally associated with Peter): “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’ ” (Mark 7:19)—an inference that may owe its origin to this housetop experience, for the voice that had said, “Kill and eat” added, Do not call anything impure that God has made clean (v. 15; cf. 6:12ff.; for the Petrine tradition, see disc. on 3:7f; 10:34–43; 12:1–5). Twice the ...
... had declined that role (the same verb “to reject” is found both here and in Rom. 11:1, 2), and it had passed instead to the church. This perception is expressed in terms of Isaiah 49:6 (slightly shortened), from the second of the Servant Songs. The original meaning of the Servant is uncertain, but that he denotes Israel is at least the oldest interpretation for which literary evidence can be found (see disc. on 8:32–35, also the note on 3:13). This is the interpretation adopted by Paul, except that he ...
... been classed as a we-passage, as though Luke were including himself (see disc. on 16:10). It is better treated, however, as simply a general use of the first person—“we Christians.” 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders: Though the verb meant originally “to elect by show of hands,” it appears as though the choice, humanly speaking, was with the apostles. But cf. Titus 1:5ff. where perhaps the same procedure is used but at least the opinion of the congregation seems to be taken into account ...
... the council may well have been conducted in Greek. Most Palestinians, and especially Galileans, would have been familiar with that language, whereas some of the Antiochenes may not have spoken Aramaic. That the prophecy was used in a sense very different from the original intention was in accordance with the exegetical methods of the day. A belief that Christ could be found in all the Scriptures enabled James to interpret the house of David of his church and the prophecy as a whole of the church gathering ...
... shaken,” v. 24). This was the work of prophets, and so they are called in this verse (see note on 11:27). After a time they returned to Jerusalem, the Antiochenes sending them off with prayers for their peace and safety (v. 33). Verse 34 is not original and thus is relegated to the margin by NIV. It was an attempt to explain Silas’ presence in Antioch at a later date for the “second missionary journey.” But verse 33 presents no real difficulty as long as we allow for the elapse of some time between ...
... ), Paul did not want to take him [present tense, i.e., as a continuing member of the missionary team, liable at any time to desert them], because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work (v. 38). In the original account of Mark’s defection (13:13), a different word is used—a neutral term that means simply “to go away.” The expression here (from the Greek word, we get “apostate”) has more the sense of “disloyalty.” A sharp disagreement ensued (v. 39, Gk ...
... particular subdivision (NIV). That distinction belonged to Amphipolis, and Thessalonica was the capital of the whole province. The missionaries appear not to have lingered in Neapolis, but to have gone straight to Philippi, about ten miles to the west. Originally a small mining town founded to exploit the gold deposits of the nearby Pangaeus Mountains, Philippi had survived the failure of the lodes because of the commercial importance of its position astride the Via Egnatia, the chief route between Asia ...
... –7 But their plans went awry. Paul and Silas could not be found, and without them they could hardly appear before the assembly. In frustration, therefore, they seized Jason and some other brothers (v. 6) and dragged them, not to the assembly as originally planned, but to the politarchs, accusing them of offering hospitality to the seditionists. The charge had to be shouted because of the melee. Concerning Paul and Silas they alleged that they had caused trouble all over the world (lit., “have turned the ...
... also uncertainty as to how every should be understood. Was Paul contemplating “the whole human race,” or should we translate pan ethnos, “every nation,” as though he would draw attention to their distinctiveness while at the same time asserting their common origin? Either could be argued from the Scripture, but the latter is probably the better rendering of the Greek (many Athenians would have cared for neither, for it was popularly held that they had “sprung from the soil,” i.e., that they were ...
... of references in Paul’s own writings that he regarded Apollos as a friend and a valued colleague (1 Cor. 3:5–9; 16:12; Titus 3:13). Apollos was a Jew, a native of Alexandria, and endowed with considerable gifts consistent with his city of origin (see note on 6:9). He was a learned man, where the Greek can mean “learned” or “eloquent,” and in this case probably both—he had a learning that he effectively communicated. More specifically, he had a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. This was the ...
... someone had started in the earlier meeting: Great is Artemis of the Ephesians! (v. 34; cf. v. 28). They may have regarded this chanting as itself an act of worship. Ramsay contends that no verb should be introduced here (there is none in the original) and that the expression is not a statement of fact but an apostrophe, a cry of adoration—“Great Artemis of the Ephesians” (Church, pp. 135ff.). The noise must have been deafening. The acoustics of the theater are excellent even today and at that time ...
... . Trophimus certainly was and because of this became the unwitting cause of Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem (21:29; see also 2 Tim. 4:20). Paul himself may have taken responsibility for the money raised by the Achaean churches, though this had not been his original intention (1 Cor. 16:3). It is odd that the church in Philippi is not mentioned, but Luke, who apparently joined the company in Philippi, may have been their representative. The difficulty that the company only went to Philippi at the last minute is ...
... Tim. 3:1ff.). Once this is recognized, any doubts about the authenticity of the speech on the grounds that Paul would not have paraded himself in this way are laid to rest (cf. also 1 Cor. 1:11). But some still contend that the speech is too apologetic to be original and that Luke must have composed it himself in defense of Paul against his later detractors—those of Luke’s day, not the apostle’s. But Paul had no lack of critics in his own day (cf., e.g., 2 Cor. 10–13; 1 Thess. 1–2). Even if they ...
... (vv. 9–12). This called for a period of purification lasting seven days, at the end of which, on the seventh day, that man shaved his head and on the next day offered the appropriate sacrifice in the temple. He could then proceed with the original vow to its completion (vv. 13–21). From the references here to “purification” (vv. 24, 26) and to “seven days” (v. 27), it would seem that Paul was being asked to join with the four men in rites connected with accidental defilement and to pay ...