bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Wordsworth on Virgil, Georgics 4.228–30
Authors: Wu Duncan 
Published: February 2009

When Wordsworth was eighteen he embarked on a series of translations from Virgil's Georgics. All that survives of them today is a series of rough drafts and jottings, among which is a short note in which he attempts to resolve the well-known crux at 4.228–30Suppose we read it thus – ‘prius haustu parcus aquarum / Ora fove, etc.’ – and construe it thus:First sparingly steep the mouth (‘ora’) of the hive in water (‘haustu … aquarum’).
Cornelia and Dido (Lucan 9.174–9)
Authors: Kubiak David P. 
Published: February 2009

Pompey has been treacherously killed, his body decapitated and thrown into the surf. The faithful Cornelia cannot give her husband a proper funeral, but must be content to place on the pyre all that is left of his greatness. Commentators are not of much help in this place, most caught up in tralatician glossing and hence content to echo the scholiastic reference to Pompey's three triumphs. Thomas Farnaby thought of the funeral of Misenus in Aeneid 6; but one looks in vain to Grotius (1639), Oudendorp (1728), Burman (1740), Bentley (1760), Weber (1828–9), Francken (1896–7), Heitland-Haskins (1889), Housman (1926), Bourgery-Ponchont (1947), and Luck (1985) for the most important parallel, which is to Dido in Aeneid. I adduce the passages Heinze well described as examples of ‘das Idealbild eines heroischen Weibes’:tu secreta pyram tecto interiore sub auraserige, et arma uiri thalamo quae fixa reliquitimpius exuuiasque omnis lectumque iugalem,quo perii, super imponas:494–7) super exuuias ensemque relictumeffigiemque toro locat haud ignata futuri.(507–8)hie, postquam Iliacas uestis notumque cubileconspexit, paulum lacrimis et mente morataincubuitque toro dixitque nouissima uerba:‘dulces exuuiae…’
Augustus and the Muses (Suetonius, Tiberius 21.4)
Authors: Powell J. G. F. 
Published: February 2009

Suetonius quotes a number of extracts from Augustus' letters, with the intention of showing that Augustus did not dislike Tiberius as much as some had held, and that he had a high opinion of Tiberius' military qualities. The first of these contains a somewhat vexed textual problem. It reads as follows (in Ihm's Teubner edition):Vale, iucundissime Tiberi, et feliciter rem gere, ⋯μο⋯ κα⋯ ταῖς †μουιcαcαιcτ στρατηγ⋯ν. iucundissime et ita sim felix, vir fortissime et dux νομιμώτατε, vale.
The interrogation of Meletus: Apology 24c4–28al
Authors: Smith Lynette Reid 
Published: February 2009

The interrogation of Meletus in the Apology at 24c4–28al is not infrequently seen as a typical case of all that is intellectually and artistically dissatisfying in Plato's practice of the genre of philosophical dialogue: not only are we presented with a philosopher who makes some claim to being committed to setting a particularly stringent standard for honesty in argumentation making sophistical arguments, but we are presented also with a cardboard interlocutor who is forced by the hand of Plato to acquiesce to those arguments in a fashion that is completely dissatisfying to the reader. The best anyone seems to do to save Plato from these charges of artistic incompetence and intellectual dishonesty is to appeal to such a level of historical accuracy for the text that the stupidity of Meletus' responses can be attributed to the stupidity of Meletus himself, or to point out features of the political and legal situation that might prevent Meletus from answering the questions by drawing on his true motivation—which is presumably more coherent. Taylor says of this passage:The humour of the situation is that the prosecutor cannot venture to say what he means by either of his charges without betraying the fact that, owing to the ‘amnesty’, the matters complained of are outside of the competency of the court… Hence, when Meletus is pressed to explain what he means, he has to take refuge in puerile nonsense.
Analecta Gelliana
Authors: Holford-strevens Leofranc 
Published: February 2009

Not only was Gellius' preface received in the fifteenth century at the end of his work instead of the beginning, but it arrived almost or wholly without the Greek, which had to be patched up by guesswork; between siluarum and quidam early editors read ‘ille κηρ⋯ον, alius κ⋯ρας ⋯μαλӨε⋯ας’, the first two names in the similar passage, Plin. N.H. pr. 24. Salmasius, in the preface to his Plinianae exercitationes, printed a text ‘ex vestigiis antiquae scripturae optimi exemplaris [sc. MS P = Paris, BN lat. 5765] partim etiam coniecturis nostris correctiorem’; following κ⋯ρας he gave, in the right place but with the wrong accent, ‘alius Κ⋯ρια’. But when eleven years later he came to annotate Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Ἐγχειρ⋯διον, alerted by Simplicius' statement (taken from Arrian's own epistle dedicatory) συν⋯ταξεν ⋯ Ἀρριαν⋯ς, τ⋯ καιριὼτατα κα⋯ ⋯ναγκαι⋯τατα ⋯ν øιλοσοø⋯ᾳ κα⋯ κινητικώτατα τ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν ⋯πιλεξ⋯μενος ⋯κ τ⋯ν Ἐπικτ⋯του λ⋯γων, he remarked: ‘Quidam et inscripsere libros suos olim τ⋯ κα⋯ρια, quod maxime ad rem quam tractabant pertinentia eo opere persequebantur’, citing Gellius with ‘alius κα⋯ρια and commenting ‘Ita enim ex veteri codice ibi scribendum est, non ut vulgo editur, κ⋯ριον [sic]'. Nevertheless, editors preferred his first thoughts to his second; Hertz, in his separate edition of Gellius' preface (Progr. Breslau, summer 1877) and in his editio maior (Berlin, 1883–5), gives three parallels:Plin. N.H. pr. 24, ‘Κηρ⋯ον inscripsere quod uolebant intellegi fauom’, where the Latin translation guarantees the reading;Clem. Alex. 6.1.2.1 (pp. 422–3 Stählin-Früchtel-Treu) ⋯ν μ⋯ν οὖν τῷ λειμ⋯νι τ⋯ ἄνӨη ποικ⋯λως ⋯νӨοȗντα κ⋯ν τ⋯ παραδε⋯σ⋯ [‘orchard’] ⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯κροδρ⋯ων øυτε⋯α οὐ κατ⋯ εἶδος ἕκαστον κεχώρισται τ⋯ν ⋯λλογεν⋯ν (ᾗ κα⋯ Λειμ⋯ν⋯ς τινες κα⋯ Ἑλικ⋯νας κα⋯ Κηρ⋯α κα⋯ Π⋯πλους συναγωγ⋯ς øιλομαӨεȋς ποικ⋯λως ⋯ξανӨισ⋯μενοι συνεγρ⋯ψαντο), where again the sense requires the honeycomb;Philost. VS 565 ⋯πιστολα⋯ δ⋯ πλεȋσται Ἡρώδου κα⋯ διαλ⋯ξει κα⋯ ⋯øημερ⋯δες ⋯γχειρ⋯δι⋯ τε κα⋯ καίρια τ⋯ν ⋯ρχα⋯αν πολυμ⋯Өειαν ⋯ν βραχεȋ ⋯πηνӨισμ⋯να, where hertz emends κα⋯ρια to κηρ⋯α.
Why Attic Nights? Or What's in a Name?
Authors: Vardi Amiel D. 
Published: February 2009

In the preface to his Nodes Atticae, Gellius explains his choice of title:quoniam longinquis per hiemem noctibus in agro, sicuti dixi, terrae Atticae commentationes hasce ludere ac facere exorsi sumus, idcirco eas inscripsimus Noctium esse Atticarum (praef. 4)He then proceeds to enumerate other titles used for miscellaneous works similar to his own, both Greek and Latin, which, he claims, are far more refined and witty than his title (§§4–9). Attractive as Gellius' explanation may be, it raises some serious difficulties2 and should not be taken at face value, especially since it seems to establish a novel type of relation between title and work. None of the titles in Gellius' list seems to have been based on the circumstances of the inception of the work, nor indeed does any other extant title prior to the publication of the Nodes Atticae. There is no reason to deny Gellius the credit for inventing a novel principle of titling, yet titles based on the circumstances of composition rather than on the content of the work fail to perform a primary function of titles, namely an initial direction of the expectations of prospective readers.
A Notes onAeneid8.514–517
Authors: Papanghelis Theodore D. 
Published: February 2009

Evander promises Aeneas two hundred of his Arcadians for the war against the Italians, with as many cavalry under Pallas into the bargain; and puts his son under the Trojan leader's command:hunc tibi praeterea, spes et solacia nostri,Pallanta adiungam; sub te tolerare magistromilitiam et graue Martis opus, tua cernere factaadsuescat, primis et te miretur ab annis.
Reflections on the Moscow Conference
Authors: Mason Edward S. 
Published: February 2009

It is a mistake to underestimate the extent and the significance of the failure at Moscow. With respect to Germany the conference ended with the participants further apart than they had been at Potsdam. Nor can a modicum of comfort be salvaged by asserting that Moscow achieved a clearer understanding of the aims and ambitions of the four powers now occupying Germany. While the discussion contributed something in detail to a clarification of points of agreement and disagreement, on major issues the initial positions of the participants were known before the conference assembled. And at Moscow no power receded from its initial position on any major issue. The pertinent question is, why did the Moscow conference fail?There are two possible answers to this question, in both of which some truth is, probably, to be found. The first runs in terms of what has come to be standard negotiating technique at meetings of the Conference of Foreign Ministers. Following the practice favored by Soviet negotiators, no country is willing to make a concession until convinced by protracted and exhausting debate that the positions of others are firm. If one accepts this interpretation a certain measure of optimism is possible even after Moscow. One can refer to the experience of the satellite treaties in the negotiation of which the powers came to final agreement only after some fifteen months of what seemed at times hopeless disagreement. If it took four meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers to obtain agreement on the much less difficult questions involved in the satellite treaties, it can be argued that to write off the possibility of agreement on Germany after only one meeting is, at least, premature.
Tribute to Professor H. R. Mackintosh
Authors: Gardiner T. W. 
Published: February 2009

It Was significant of H. R. Mackintosh and his whole theological position that he made his class for the preparation of sermons a part of his course in theology. He often declared that the test of theology is whether it will preach well. When we first heard it, it may not have carried conviction. But experience taught us how true it is.Professor Mackintosh considered that the task of theology was to assist the proclamation of the Gospel. In his eyes theology was not an academic study but a practical one, because the Gospel is not so much the explanation of life as the cure of its disorder. It was his duty as a theologian to explain and justify the doctrine of the Church. But he never forgot that it would be the duty of his students when they became ministers of the Church to translate that doctrine into proclamation and appeal. If such preaching carried conviction and strengthened faith, then the theology behind it would be justified. To take an example-he used to draw a distinction between the positive and negative sides of the doctrine of election. He argued that the positive form of the doctrine is a conviction of believing experience. It declares that faith rests upon the grace of God which was directed towards the believer before ever he responded to it, and that he can count upon it to sustain him to the end.
The Word of God as Key to Christian Worship
Authors: Katz Peter 
Published: February 2009

In a service of the right kind God speaks to the congregation, and the Holy Spirit opens the hearts and lips of the congregation to reply. The means by which the inscrutable God comes out of the ‘Light unapproachable’ is His ‘Word’. It has been the will of God to limit His self-revelation to mediation through the ‘Word’. This self-revealing ‘Word’ makes itself known in two ways:Firstly, God became man in Christ. He has thus entered our field of vision. From Christ's words and acts and from His character discernible behind them, the Father's nature, heart and will towards us are discerned, so far as such discernment is given to man. Christ is that aspect of God which is turned towards us. He reflects the rays of God, so far as human eyes can bear their light. As making known God's heart and will, Christ is therefore in a special sense ‘God's Word’. To describe Christ as the Word of God is to give a fully adequate picture. It is as the Eternal Word of God that the Risen Lord is in the midst of His faithful.
St. Mark 13
Authors: Cranfield C. E. B. 
Published: February 2009

To these last ten verses of the chapter we may give the general title, Watch therefore! The section falls naturally into three parts (w. 28 f, 30–32, 33–37), marked off by ‘learn’, ‘Verily I say unto you’ and ‘Take ye heed’.The first of these contains the parable of the Fig Tree and its application. Strictly speaking, the word (‘these things’) in v. 29 should refer to the coming of the Son of Man mentioned in the previous section; but, as the sense would then be,‘When you see the Son of Man coming, know that He is at hand’, which would be pointless, we take it rather to refer to the signs of the End described in vv. 5–23 It is unnecessary, however, to conclude that vv. 28 f or vv. 24–27 are out of their original context; for such looseness of structure as is involved, if we understand ‘these things’ to refer to thesigns of vv. 5–23 in spite of vv. 24–27 being in between, is natural enough, and we actually need something like v. 26 here to provide a subject for the verb ‘is’ in v. 29. We take vv. 28 f then to mean that, when the disciples see the various things coming to pass that have been described in vv. 5–23, they are to know that the Son of Man is at hand, His Parousia imminent.
The Protestant World and Mariology
Authors: Knight George A. F. 
Published: February 2009

In various parts of the Protestant world a re-examination of the question of Mariology has been entered upon. Now that we are in sincere dialogue with Rome, and Protestantism and Orthodoxy are united in fellowship in the World Council of Churches, it has become incumbent on Protestants to cease to be merely negative to the Mother of our Lord. Simply because our Roman Catholic brethren hold doctrines about her that Protestants do not appreciate does not mean that the Virgin Mary should have no theological significance for the Churches of the Reformation. Ten years ago an article from my pen, entitled ‘The Virgin and the Old Testament’, appeared inThe Reformed Theological Review(of Australia), Vol. XII, No. 1. That article was occasioned by an uneasy reaction to a reading of the section entitled ‘Mariology’ inWays of Worship, being the Report of a Theological Commission of Faith and Order in preparation for the Lund Conference of 1952. I acknowledge my indebtedness now to my former article, and thank the editor of theRTRfor permitting me to expand it here.The Protestant has to satisfy himself that any doctrine he holds is securely rooted in Scripture. For the early Church ‘Scripture’ meant only the Old Testament. And to it the Church undoubtedly turned as it sought to understand the place of the Virgin Mary in the Gospel it was preaching to Jews and Gentiles alike, and thus to understand her relationship to her Saviour Son.
Stewards of God An examination of the Terms OikonomoΣ and Oikonomia in the New Testament
Authors: Tooley Wilfred 
Published: February 2009

Dr J. Jeremias has rightly observed that Jesus ‘was never tired of expressing the central ideas of his message in constantly changing images’,1 and that he ‘loved to speak of his mission in the various figures and symbols which depict his calling to be the deliverer’.2 Likewise Dr Riesenfeld in an essay on the ministry in the New Testament begins his inquiry from the premise: ‘We are … justified in beginning our investigation of the ministry with Christ Himself.’3 It remains true, however, that of the many images Jesus used to describe His mission to Israel, most are not used by the Early Church and only two metaphors receive any sustained development. These are the metaphors of the steward and shepherd. The purpose of this article is to trace the development of the former and to explore its associations, and its implications for the Early Church's understanding of its own ministry and leadership. We will, therefore, note the literal occurrences of the terms steward (oἰκoν⋯μoς) and stewardship (oἰκoνoμ⋯α) and then examine briefly their metaphorical uses and the associated ideas and terms.These are the only occurrences of these two terms in the Synoptic Gospels and clearly they are literal though the settings call for comment.Both Luke 12 and Matt. 24 reveal secondary features showing how the parable has been recast to suit the hortatory needs of the Church.
Eschatology and Ethics in the New Testament
Authors: Owen H. P. 
Published: February 2009

The aim of this article is to examine the relation that the New Testament posits between ethics and eschatology. The first part will deal with the ethical implications of eschatology as a whole; the second part will be devoted to an examination of one topic only—the Second Coming (Parousia) of Christ; the third part will take the form of a few remarks on the applicability of Christian ethics to the life of the world.The basis of apostolic eschatology is stated in the earliest Christian ‘sermon’ for which we have evidence—Peter's speech on the day of Pentecost. The speech ends with the assertion that the promised Spirit has been given and that the ‘new age’ has dawned. This ‘realised’ eschatology of the Petrine kerygma has parallels in both the gospels and epistles.
The Word of God in the Synoptic Gospels
Authors: Frost G. 
Published: February 2009

Amidst all the current discussion of the and of the early Church and the NT meaning of these expressions, there is one word which curiously seems to have been overlooked—curiously, because when it is the preaching of the Word of God which is under debate one would have expected the word to have received more attention than it has.1 Attention has fallen heavily upon —a rare word in the NT, but scarcely at all upon —a very common word in the NT. Indeed in the Acts of the Apostles, a book whose chief theme is the spread of the preaching of the Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, occurs not at all, only twice (and then in close dependence upon ), but nearly forty times! These figures compel us to pay more attention to the word : if the meaning ‘proclamation’ is important in understanding the , and the meaning of ‘good news’ is important in understanding the , how is the meaning of ‘speaking’ or ‘speech’ important in understanding the designation of the early preaching as ?It is the purpose of this article to examine how the evangelists used the term in the synoptic Gospels, to see what they and Jesus thought of His words, His speech and its relationship to His being, His person.
‘Non-Metaphysical’ Christian Philosophy and Linguistic Philosophy
Authors: Woelfel James W. 
Published: February 2009

In the continuing discussion between Christian theology and linguistic philosophy there is a fundamental division of the theological responses which has weighty implications for the whole encounter between the two disciplines. This basic distinction into two types of Christian response is one of those simple categorisations which by their very obviousness are often overlooked. I refer to two kinds of Christian thinkers who deal with linguistic analysis: the ‘non-metaphysical’ and the ‘metaphysical’. In this article I have chosen to discuss certain types of the ‘non-metaphysical’ response.Whether a Christian theologian deals with Oxford philosophy from a metaphysical or a non-metaphysical perspective is vital to the whole discussion. It is vital to the theologian because linguistic analysis is the latest in a series of philosophical movements beginning with Hume which claim to have undermined metaphysics finally and forever. If the theologian responds in a metaphysical way to the questions asked by the Oxford philosophers, he must justify his appeal to metaphysics over against the critique of metaphysics which lies behind language analysis. If, on the other hand, the theologian replies in a non-metaphysical way, he must demonstrate the epistemological significance of Christian doctrine apart from metaphysical support.The major contemporary criticisms of theological language come not from language analysis considered independently but from a revitalised logical positivism aided by analytical methods. I call this ‘new’ positivism ‘linguistic empiricism’ or ‘analytical positivism’. Linguistic analysis is fundamentally a method, while positivism is a theory of knowledge.
‘The Uniting Church’
Authors: Hebert Fr. Gabriel 
Published: February 2009

‘The Uniting Church’ has been chosen as the name for the proposed united church which is to be composed of the Gongregationalist, Methodist and Presbyterian Churches in Australia, which is described in the Final Report of the Joint Commission of the three Churches which was published in Australia in April of this year.1 The Report includes a Basis of Union which is now submitted to the responsible authorities of the three Churches for full discussion and for final decision.It is impossible in a brief article to do more than summarise what is set out carefully and in detail in the Report itself. It is however a document of great importance, since it recommends union on an episcopal basis; and this is the first time that such a proposal has been made in a Joint Commission set up by non-episcopal churches.Some three years ago we had Part I of their Report, entitled The Faith of the Church—not, be it noted, ‘The doctrinal beliefs of the three churches concerned’, but rather ‘the faith which the Church has held from the beginning’. This is completed by the final Report now published, setting out the doctrine of the Church, the Sacraments and the Ministry, and not envisaging any mere amalgamation of the three church orders, but having in view the structure of the Church as it has been from the beginning and as it was reconsidered at the Reformation.
Early Exegesis of the Parables
Authors: Wiles M. F. 
Published: February 2009

The last fifty years have seen revolutionary progress in the work of the interpretation of the parables of Jesus. This progress has been made possible primarily by the final discarding of the allegorical method and the repudiation of ‘the centuries of distortion and ill-usage that the parables have suffered through allegorical interpretation’.1 Exegesis of the parables in centuries before the present might seem therefore to be of purely antiquarian interest. Nevertheless it seems worth while attempting to discover whether there may not be some light to be gained from the way in which the parables were understood by those who stood nearest to them in point of history. This study is therefore devoted to the interpretation of parables in the ante-Nicene fathers.The way in which anybody interprets the parables will largely be controlled by the answer which he gives to two prior questions—namely: What constitutes a parable? and Why did Jesus use the parabolic method? There is not much direct discussion of these issues. Origen defines a parable as ‘an account of an event which did not literally take place, but which, could have done so. It is a figurative representation of certain things by virtue of their correspondence to the things spoken of in the parable.’ He distinguishes it from a fable (αἴνιγμα) where the event spoken of is something which could not conceivably have happened in real life.2