Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Full download Knight of the Tiger: The Betrayals of Henry Fountain Farmer file pdf all chapter on 2024
Full download Knight of the Tiger: The Betrayals of Henry Fountain Farmer file pdf all chapter on 2024
https://ebookmass.com/product/marianas-knight-the-revenge-of-
henry-fountain-farmer/
https://ebookmass.com/product/blood-of-the-devil-farmer/
https://ebookmass.com/product/blood-of-the-devil-w-michael-
farmer/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-true-heir-the-secrets-of-
nedworth-hall-book-6-merry-farmer/
The False Heir (The Secrets of Nedworth Hall Book 5)
Merry Farmer
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-false-heir-the-secrets-of-
nedworth-hall-book-5-merry-farmer/
https://ebookmass.com/product/knight-of-darkness-the-knights-of-
the-anarchy-book-1-sherry-ewing/
https://ebookmass.com/product/death-of-a-bookseller-bernard-
farmer/
https://ebookmass.com/product/pindar-and-the-poetics-of-
permanence-henry-spelman/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-tiger-and-the-rabbit-
harnessing-the-power-of-the-metaverse-web3-and-ai-for-business-
success-sandy-carter/
KNIGHT OF THE TIGER
LEGENDS OF THE DESERT, BOOK 3
W. MICHAEL FARMER
FIVE STAR
A part of Gale, a Cengage Company
Copyright © 2018 by W. Michael Farmer
Maps were designed by W. Michael Farmer Copyright © 2018
1. Trail of Pancho Villa in 1916 after the Columbus, New Mexico, Raid
2. The March to Agua Prieta
Five Star Publishing, a part of Gale, a Cengage Company
Historical Characters
Bunk Spencer
C. R. Jefferis
Candelario Cervantes
Colonel Nicolás Fernández
Colonel Slocum
Comandante Macario Bracamontes
Doctor Miller
Doctor Thigpin
E. B. Stone
Edward Wright
Father Abelino Flores
Frank Hayden
General Francisco Villa (also known as Pancho Villa)
General Funston
General Pershing
General Rodolfo Fierro
George Carothers
Henry Fountain
Hipólito Villa
Johnnie Wright
Lieutenant George Patton
Lieutenant Martin Shallenberger
Mariana Fountain
Maud Wright
Sam Ravel
Sara Hoover
Susan Moore
Texas John Slaughter
Will Hoover
PROLOGUE
The same day the university gave me my medical degree in May of
1915, I headed for a train to New Mexico. I’d left Las Cruces more
than six years earlier to attend medical school, left my aging mother,
who had pulled strings to get me into Stanford, and left my grown
siblings, who had no idea of my true identity. I was no longer known
as Henry Fountain or Hombrecito, as Rufus and Yellow Boy had
called me. I was Doctor Henry Grace.
In the years since I’d left to study medicine, New Mexico had
become a state and many other changes had come. I returned home
to find much of Las Cruces lighted by electrical power. Automobiles
stirred up dust on the roads, and the ring of telephones was
becoming common in town. In Mexico, a revolución had started, had
been won, and then a civil war had begun. My friend, Doroteo
Arango, also known as Pancho Villa, had been one of the
revolución’s most important generals and was now at the center of
Mexico’s civil war. I didn’t know it at that time, but I was about to be
drawn into that war.
PART 1
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
interfere with their reasonable conveniences, he adds, “they broke bread,” (a Hebraistic
form of expression for simply “taking food,”) “at home, and partook of their food in humility
and thankfulness.” This seems to me, to require a sort of opposition in sense between ἱερον,
(hieron,) “temple,” and οικος, (oikos,) “house” or “home,” for it seems as if the writer of the
Acts wished in these few words, to give a complete account of the manner in which they
occupied themselves, devoting all their time to public devotion in the temple except that, as
was most seemly, they returned to their houses to take their ♦necessary food, which they
did humbly and joyfully. But the distributive force which some wish to put upon κατ’ οἶκον, by
translating it “from house to house,” is one which does not seem to be required at all by any
thing in the connection, and one which needs a vast deal of speculation and explanation to
make it appear why they should go “from house to house,” about so simple a matter of fact
as that of eating their victuals, which every man could certainly do to best advantage at one
steady boarding-place. That the expression, κατ’ οἶκον, most commonly means “at home,” is
abundantly proved by standard common Greek usage, as shown in the best Lexicons. But
κατα, in connexion with a singular noun, has the distributive force only when the noun itself
is of such a character and connection in the sentence as to require this meaning. Thus κατα
μηνα, would hardly ever be suspected of any other meaning than “monthly,” or “every
month,” or “from month to month;”――so κατα πολεις means “from city to city,” but the
singular κατα πολιν, almost uniformly means “in a city,” without any distributive application,
except where the other words in the sentence imply this idea. (Acts xv. 21: xx. 23.) But here
the simple common meaning of the preposition κατα, when governing the accusative, (that
is, the meaning of “at” or “in” a place,) is not merely allowed, but required by the other words
in the connection, in order to give a meaning which requires no other explanation, and
which corresponds to the word “temple” in the other clause; for the whole account seems to
require an opposition in these words, as describing the two places where the disciples
passed their time.
There are great names, however, opposed to this view, which seem enough to
overpower almost any testimony that can be brought in defense of an interpretation which
they reject. Among these are Kuinoel, Rosenmueller, Ernesti, and Bloomfield, whose very
names will perhaps weigh more with many, than the hasty statement of the contrary view
which I am able here to give. Yet I am not wholly without the support of high authorities; for
De Dieu, Bengel, Heinrichs, Hammond, and Oecumenius, reject the distributive sense here.
The beautiful gate.――The learned Lightfoot has brought much deep research to bear
on this point, as to the position of this gate and the true meaning of its name; yet he is
obliged to announce the dubious result in the expressive words, “In bivio hic stamus,” (“we
here stand at a fork of the road.”) The main difficulty consists in the ambiguous character of
the word translated “beautiful,” in Greek, Ὡραιαν, (horaian,) which may have the sense of
“splendid,” “beautiful,” or, in better keeping with its root, Ὡρα, (hora,) “time,” it may be made
to mean the “gate of time.” Now, what favors the latter derivation and translation, is the fact
that there actually was, as appears from the Rabbinical writings, a gate called Hhuldah,
( )חולדהprobably derived from ( חלדhheledh) “age,” “time,” “life,”――from the Arabic root خلد
(khaladh) “endure,” “last,” so that it may mean “lasting or permanent.” There were two gates
of this name distinguished by the terms greater and smaller, both opening into the court of
the Gentiles from the great southern porch or colonnade, called the Royal colonnade.
Through these, the common way from Jerusalem and from Zion led into the temple, and
through these would be the natural entrance of the apostles into it. This great royal porch,
also, where such vast numbers were passing, and which afforded a convenient shelter from
the weather, would be a convenient place for a cripple to post himself in.
There was, however, another gate, to which the epithet “beautiful” might with eminent
justice be applied. This is thus described by Josephus. (Jewish War. book V. chapter 5,
section 3.) “Of the gates, nine were overlaid with gold and silver,――* * * but there was one
on the outside of the temple, made of Corinthian brass, which far outshone the plated and
gilded ones.” This is the gate to which the passage is commonly supposed to refer, and
which I have mentioned as the true one in the text, without feeling at all decided on the
subject, however; for I certainly do think the testimony favors the gate Huldah, and the
primary sense of the word Ὡραια seems to be best consulted by such a construction.
The porch of Solomon.――Στοα Σολομωνος, (stoa Solomonos.) This was the name
commonly applied to the great eastern colonnade of the temple, which ran along on the top
of the vast terrace which made the gigantic rampart of Mount Moriah, rising from the depth
of six hundred feet out of the valley of the Kedron. (See note on page 94.) The Greek word,
στοα, (stoa,) commonly translated “porch,” does not necessarily imply an entrance to a
building, as is generally true of our modern porches, but was a general name for a
“colonnade,” which is a much better expression for its meaning, and would always convey a
correct notion of it; for its primary and universal idea is that of a row of columns running
along the side of a building, and leaving a broad open space between them and the wall,
often so wide as to make room for a vast assemblage of people beneath the ceiling of the
architrave. That this was the case in this stoa, appears from Josephus’ description given in
my note on page 95, section 1. The stoa might be so placed as to be perfectly inaccessible
from without, and thus lose all claim to the name of porch, with the idea of an entrance-way.
This was exactly the situation and construction of Solomon’s stoa, which answers much
better to our idea of a gallery, than of a porch. (See Donnegan, sub voc.)
It took the name of Solomon, from the fact that when the great temple of that magnificent
king was burned and torn down by the Chaldeans, this eastern terrace, as originally
constructed by him, was too vast, and too deeply based, to be easily made the subject of
such a destroying visitation, and consequently was by necessity left a lasting monument of
the strength and grandeur of the temple which had stood upon it. When the second temple
was rebuilt, this vast terrace of course became again the great eastern foundation of the
sacred pile, but received important additions to itself, being strengthened by higher and
broader walls, and new accessions of mounded earth; while over its long trampled and
profaned pavement, now beautified and renewed with splendid Mosaic, rose the mighty
range of gigantic snow-white marble columns, which gave it the name and character of a
stoa or colonnade, and filled the country for a vast distance with the glory of its pure
brightness. (See note on page 95. See also Lightfoot, Disquisit. Chor. cap. vi. § 2.)
Josephus further describes it, explaining the very name which Luke uses. “And this was a
colonnade of the outer temple, standing over the verge of a deep valley, on walls four
hundred cubits in highth, built of hewn stones perfectly white,――the length of each stone
being twenty cubits, and the highth six. It was the work of Solomon, who first built the
whole temple.” (Josephus, Antiquities, XX. viii. 7.)
The guards of the temple, &c.――This was the same set of men above described, as
made up of the Levite porters and watchmen of the temple. See note on page 111. Also
Lightfoot Horae Hebraica in Acts iv. 1.――Rosenmueller, ibid. and Kuinoel. But Hammond
has made the mistake of supposing this to be a detachment of the Roman garrison.
The next morning the high court of the Jewish nation, having the
absolute control of all religious matters, was called together to
decide upon the fate of the apostles, and probably also of the lame
man whom they had cured. This great court was the same whose
members had, by unwearied exertions, succeeded a few weeks
before, in bringing about the death of Jesus, and were therefore little
disposed to show mercy to any who were trying to perpetuate his
name, or the innovations which he had attempted against the high
authority of the ecclesiastical rulers of the nation. Of these, the
principal were Annas and Caiaphas, the high priests, with John and
Alexander, and many others, who were entitled to a place in the
council, by relationship to the high priests. Besides these, there were
the rulers and elders of the people, and the scribes, who had been
so active in the condemnation of Jesus. These all having arrayed
themselves for judgment, the apostles and their poor healed cripple
were brought in before them, and sternly questioned, by what power
and by what name they had done the thing for which they had been
summoned before the court. They stood charged with having
arrogated to themselves the high character and office of teachers,
and what was worse, reformers, of the national religion,――of that
religion which had been, of old, received straight from God by the
holy prophets, and which the wisdom of long-following ages had
secured in sanctity and purity, by entrusting it to the watchful
guardianship of the most learned and venerable of a hereditary order
of priests and scholars. And who were they that now proposed to
take into their hands the religion given by Moses and the prophets,
and to offer to the people a new dispensation? Were they deep and
critical scholars in the law, the prophets, the history of the faith, or
the stored wisdom of the ancient teachers of the law? No; they were
a set of rude, ill-taught men, who had left their honest but low
employments in their miserable province, and had come down to
Jerusalem with their Master, on the likely enterprise of overturning
the established order of things in church and state, and erecting in its
place an administration which should be managed by the Nazarene
and his company of Galileans. In this seditious attempt their Master
had been arrested and punished with death, and they whose lives
were spared by the mere clemency of their offended lords, were now
so little grateful for this mercy, and so little awed by this example of
justice, that they had been publicly haranguing the people in the
temple, and imposing on them with a show of miracles, all with the
view of raising again those disturbances which their Master had
before excited, but too successfully, by the same means, until his
death. In this light would the two apostles stand before their stern
and angry judges, as soon as they were recognized as the followers
of Jesus. And how did they maintain their ground before this awful
tribunal? Peter had, only a few weeks before, absolutely denied all
connection and acquaintance with Jesus, when questioned by the
mere menials in attendance on his Master’s trial. And on this solemn
occasion, tenfold more appalling, did that once false disciple find in
his present circumstances, consolations to raise him above his
former weakness? Peter was now changed; and he stood up boldly
before his overbearing foes, to meet their tyranny by a dauntless
assertion of his rights and of the truth of what he had preached.
Freshly indued with a courage from on high, and full of that divine
influence so lately shed abroad, he and his modest yet firm
companion, replied to the haughty inquiries of his judges, by naming
as the source of their power, and as their sanction in their work, the
venerated name of their crucified Master. “Princes of the people and
elders of Israel, if we to-day are called to account for this good deed
which we have done to this poor man, and are to say in whose name
this man has been cured; be it known to you all, and to all the people
of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, whom you
crucified, and whom God raised from the dead, this man now stands
before you, made sound and strong. This crucified Jesus is the stone
which, though rejected by you builders, has become the chief corner
stone; and in no other name is there salvation, (or healing;) for there
is no other name given under heaven, among men, by which any
can be saved,” (or healed.) When the judges saw the free-spoken
manner of Peter and John, observing that they were unlearned men,
of the lower orders, they were surprised; and noticing them more
particularly, they recognized them as the immediate personal
followers of Jesus, remembering now that they had often seen them
in his company. This recognition made them the more desirous to
put a stop to their miracles and preaching. Yet there stood the man
with them, whom they had healed, and with this palpable evidence
before their eyes, how could the members of the Sanhedrim justify
themselves to the people, for any act of positive violence against
these men? These high dignitaries were a good deal perplexed, and
sending the apostles out of the court, they deliberated with one
another, and inquired, “What can we do with these men? For there is
a general impression that they have done a great miracle, among all
who are now in Jerusalem, both citizens and strangers, and we
cannot disprove it. Still we cannot let these things go on so, nor
suffer this heresy to spread any further among the people; and we
will therefore charge them threateningly to use the name of Jesus no
more to the people.” Having come to this conclusion, they
summoned the prisoners once more into the court, and gave them a
strict command, never to teach any more nor utter a word in the
name of Jesus. But Peter and John, undismayed by the authority of
their great judges, boldly avowed their unshaken resolution to
proceed as they had begun. “We appeal to you, to say if it is right in
the sight of God to obey you rather than God. For we cannot but
speak what we have seen and heard?” The judges being able to
bring these stubborn heretics to no terms at all, after having
threatened them still further, were obliged to let them go unpunished,
not being able to make out any plea against them, that would make it
safe to injure them, while the popular voice was so loud in their favor,
on account of the miracle. For the man whom they had so suddenly
healed, being more than forty years old, and having been lame from
his birth, no one could pretend to say that such a lameness could be
cured by any sudden impression made on his imagination.
Salvation, (or healing.)――The Greek word here in the original, Σωτηρια, (Soteria,) is
entirely dubious in its meaning, conveying one or the other of these two ideas according to
the sense of the connection; and here the general meaning of the passage is such, that
either meaning is perfectly allowable, and equally appropriate to the context. This ambiguity
in the substantive is caused by the same variety of meaning in the verb which is the root,
Σαω, (Sao,) whose primary idea admits of its application either to the act of saving from ruin
and death, or of relieving any bodily evil, that is, of healing. In this latter sense it is
frequently used in the New Testament, as in Matthew ix. 21, 22. commonly translated “made
whole.” Also, Mark v. 28, 33: vi. 56: x. 52. In Luke vii. 50, and in viii. 48, the same
expression occurs, both passages being exactly alike in Greek; but the common translation
has varied the interpretation in the two places, to suit the circumstances,――in the former,
“saved thee,” and in the latter, “made thee whole.” In this passage also, Acts iv. 12, the word
is exactly the same as that used in verse 9, where the common translation gives “made
whole.” The close connection therefore between these two verses would seem to require
the same meaning in the word thus used, and hence I should feel justified in preferring this
rendering; but the general power of the verb makes it very probable that in this second use
of it here, there was a sort of intentional equivoque in the writer and speaker, giving force to
the expression, by the play on the meaning afforded by the present peculiar circumstances.
Raised a voice.――This is literal; and can mean nothing more than the common modern
expression, “unite in prayer,” with which it is perfectly synonymous. The judicious Bloomfield
(Annotations in Acts iv. 24,) observes, “We cannot rationally suppose that this prefatory
address was (as some conjecture) not pronounced extempore, but a pre-composed form of
prayer, since the words advert to circumstances not known until that very time; as, for
instance, the threatenings of the Sanhedrim, (verse 29,) of which they had been but just
then informed; and the words ἀκουσαντες ὁμοθυμαδον ῃραν φωνην will not allow us to imagine
any interval between the report of Peter and John, and the prayer.” Kuinoel’s view is
precisely the same.
Were in the highest favor with the people.――Very different from the common
translation, “great grace was upon them all.” But the Greek word, Χαρις, (Kharis,) like the
Latin gratia, (in the Vulgate,) means primarily “favor;” and the only question is, whether it
refers to the favor of God or of man. Beza, Whitby, Doddridge, &c. prefer the former, but
Kuinoel justly argues from a comparison of the parallel passages, (ii. 47, and iv. 34,) that it
refers to their increasing influence on the attention and regard of the people, which was
indeed the great object of all their preaching and miracles. Grotius, Rosenmueller,
Bloomfield and others, also support this view.
Deposited in trust.――This is a free, but just version of ετιθουν παρα τους ποδας, (etithoun
para tous podas,) Acts iv. 35, literally and faithfully rendered in the common translation by
“laid at the feet;” but this was an expression very common not only in Hebrew, but in Greek
and Latin usage, for the idea of “deposit in trust;” as is shown by Rosenmueller’s apt
quotations from Cicero, “ante pedes praetoris in foro expensum est auri pondo centum,”
Defence of Flaccus, chapter 28; and from Heliodorus, παντα τα εαυτου τιθεναι παρα τους ποδας
βασιλεως. But Kuinoel seems not to think of these, and quotes it as a mere Hebraism.
Barnabas, son of exhortation.――This is the translation of this name, which seems best
authorized. A fuller account of it will be given in the life of Barnabas.
ananias and sapphira.
Met the church and people.――This distinction may not seem very obvious in a common
reading of the Acts, but in v. 11, it is very clearly drawn. “Great fear was upon the whole
church and on all the hearers of these things.” And throughout the chapter, a nice
discrimination is made between ὁ λαος, (ho laos,) “the people,” or “the congregation,” and ἡ
εκκλησια, (he ekklesia,) “the church.” See Kuinoel in v. 13, 14.
The shadow of Peter.――This is one of a vast number of passages which show that
high and perfectly commanding pre-eminence of this apostolic chief. The people evidently
considered Peter as concentrating all the divine and miraculous power in his own person,
and had no idea at all of obtaining benefit from anything that the minor apostles could do. In
him, alone, they saw the manifestations of divine power and authority;――he spoke and
preached and healed, and judged and doomed, while the rest had nothing to do but assent
and aid. Peter, then, was the great pastor of the church, and it is every way desirable that
over-zealous Protestants would find some better reason for opposing so palpable a fact,
than simply that Papists support it.
All the words of this life.――I here follow the common translation, though Kuinoel and
most interpreters consider this as a hypallage, and transpose it into “all these words of life.”
But it does not seem necessary to take such a liberty with the expression, since the
common version conveys a clear idea. “The words of this life” evidently can mean only the
words of that life which they had before preached, in accordance with their commission; that
is, of life from the dead, as manifested in the resurrection of Jesus, which was in itself the
pledge and promise of life and bliss eternal, to all who should hear and believe these
“words.” This view is supported by Storr, and a similar one is advanced by Rosenmueller, in
preference to any hypallage.
Gamaliel.――I shall give a full account of this venerable sage, in the beginning of the life
of Paul.
In the temple and in private houses.――Acts vi. 42. In the Greek, κατ’ οἶκον, (kat’ oikon,)
the same expression as in ii. 46, alluded to in my note on pages 139, 140. Here too occurs
precisely the same connection with ἐν τῳ ἱερῳ, (en to hiero,) with the same sense of
opposition in place, there alluded to. The indefinite sense, then, rather than the distributive,
is proper here as there, showing that they preached and taught not only in their great place
of assembly, under the eastern colonnade of the temple, (v. 12,) but also in private houses,
that is, at their home, or those of their friends. The expression “from house to house,”
however, is much less objectionable here, because in this passage it can give only an
indefinite idea of place, without any particular idea of rotation; but in the other passage, in
connection with “the taking of food,” it makes an erroneous impression of their mode of life,
which the text is meant to describe.