Monday with Mounce

When an adjective functions substantivally, generally we have to add in words from the context to make sense of the statement. Normally, it is not hard to do so, but it would appear that Acts 2:23 is somewhat troublesome. When Peters says that Jesus died by the hands of ἀνόμων, is he thinking of lawless people or non-Jewish people? And once more, can we stop saying Luke literally says "men without the Law, i.e. pagans" when Luke did not write English? Literally, Luke said ἀνόμων.

Why do some people resist the new, and why do others think the new is better than the old? Jesus' teaching is the new wine, and the purveyors of the old will almost always fight it, asserting their old forms of thinking are good enough or actually better. Why is it so hard to evaluate the new and decide whether or not it should replace our old? Let's think through Luke 5:39.

When we translate the Greek conjunction γάρ as "for," we sometimes obscure the connection between verses. When Jesus says that the Pharisees wouldn't even get into the kingdom of God, how does that relate to his prior assertion that every iota and stroke of the pen found in the law will be fulfilled in him?

When can a present refer to the future, and what is the "more difficult reading" in textual criticism.

Sometimes, in an attempt to make a translation understandable, functional equivalent translations can lose clues as to meaning, the very thing they are trying not to do. In the case of Acts 1:24, the NIV loses the double use of τόπος.