02.04. Endnotes
Endnotes
Dean Stanley’s Letters, etc., by R. E. Prothero (John Murray, 1895), p. 443 : "What yon have done has been good and valuable ; but like other theological writings it has been transient, suited to one generation more than to another. But this work should be of a deeper kind — the last result of many theological thoughts and experiences, into which your whole soul and life might be thrown, all the better because the truths of which you speak had been realized by sufferings."
Acts 4:13. The English words "unlearned and. ignorant men " are too strong.
Luke 9:54-55 ; Mark 10:35 ff.
See below, p, 114.
This tradition is not heard of till the fourth century.
Dr. James Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (Williams & Norgate, 1903), p. 426.
It is important to recognize that admission to the Canon was a judgment on authenticity or apostolic authorship, not a judgment on spiritual value. Thus Eusebius assumes that if the Apocalypse was not by John the Apostle but by another John, it would fall out of the Canon, as a matter of course.
Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (Williams & Norgate, 1903).
p. 426.
John Murray, 1906.
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1918.
Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (Jacks, 1919): “ The Language of the N.T,” p* 592.
Dr. Percy Gardner, Ephesian Gospel, p. 63.
This hypothesis has been suggested in view of the strong evidence that John the Apostle was the author of the Apocalypse. How then, it is said, can he have written both works? In the Apocalypse the author writes at times a strangely ungrammatical Greek. “He writes Greek, as the Duke of Wellington spoke French, with a great deal of courage “ and force — but with great inaccuracy. On the other hand, the Gospel and Epistle are in quite accurate Greek. At the same time the Greek of the Gospel and Epistle is totally lacking in the Greek spirit. And if the Apocalypse had been merely revised and corrected without substantial alteration by some one better instructed in Greek grammar, it would present a style not different from that of the Gospel and Epistle.
Pseudo-epigraphical composition” says Dr. Burkitt, “among Jews and Christians bad its own rules. Not of course, that the authors tried to make the hero of old Umea prophesy or write in accordance with real historical verisimilitude: that would indeed be a literary anachronism.*’ — J. T. S. vol xiii. No, 51, p. 374. (The italics are mine.)
“If it be designed to set forth in a vivid and picturesque form the truth that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and by His commanding spiritual authority raised the dead from the grave of moral corruption and released them from the stifling grasp of Pharisaic teaching, then history returns in a new guise,” — p. 64.
Matthew 11:27; Matthew 21:36-37, Matthew 24:36 (R.V.), Matthew 26:63, and Matthew 28:18, with parallel passages in St. Mark and St. Luke. Those passages imply a superhuman personality which can hardly be thought of as coming into existence by a human birth. They suggest something which belongs of right to the being of God and has come or been sent into this world.
De baptismo, 17.
It is fair to admit that this particular composition was not only pseudonymous but also contrary to the discipline of the Church.
Clem. ap. Euseb. E. H. vi 14, {38}
From De Principiis, iv, quoted at length in the Philocalia, See Robinson’s edit. (Camb, Press, 1893), p. 27.
See fragment of Origen on the Epistle to the Galatians in Rufinus’s version (Lornmatzach), vol. vi. p. 269. On these passages and the current misunderstanding of the mind of the Alexandrians I have written an appended note: see at the end of this volume, p. 236.
On the silence of Ignatius I should wish to call attention to Mr. Bardsley’s argument in J. T. S. vol. xiv. No, 64, p. 207, and No. 56, p. 489.
See Dom Chapman’s John the Presbyter (Clarendon Press, 1911), {42}
On the ascription of this statement to Papias see Arm. Robinson, Historical Character of St John’s Gospel (Longmans), pp. 64 ff, who deals with the matter admirably.
Dr. Swete suggested before his death such a view as the above. See J. T. S. xvii. pp, 371 ff.
On the Letters of Heraclitus see my Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians p. 253, I named him here simply as an Ephesian philosopher.
“We are moving still further away from the old belief that the origins of the Fourth Gospel are to be sought in Alexandria and that every presentation of the doctrine of the Logos must have passed through the moulding hands of Philo.” Rendel Harris, Odes and Psalms of Solomon (Camb. Press, ed. 2, p. xiv).
The only book of the Old Testament which in its original form expressed a profound scepticism as to the worth of life is the Book of Ecclesiastes, which, we may say, in its main bulk stands in the Bible only to be contradicted.
Psalms 34:12-16, as cited in 1 Peter 3:10-12.
This is the alternative reading of John 1:18. The prologue to the Gospel and the prologue to the Epistle should be read together.
So printed in the margin of the Revised Version, and rightly, I think. In the text and in the old version it is printed “Word” with the capital letter, as if it meant not the message but the person, the Eternal Word.
Dr. Rendel Harris, in his Prologue to St. John’s Gospel (Camb. 1917)9 has done a great service in making it more evident than ever before how the prologue to St. John’s Gospel is moulded upon the language o| the Old Testament about the Divine Wisdom. But St. John chose the expression Word and not Wisdom as the name of the Son; and I think we can no longer doubt that he used it in the Old Testament sense of divine utterance rather than in the Greek sense of the divine reason.
St. John certainly knew St. Luke’s Gospel, and assumed the knowledge of it in those for whom he wrote; see especially how he speaks of Martha and Mary (John 11:1) as known persons. See Luke 10:38-39.
James 1:17, following Hort.
John 3:19-21. This passage appears to belong not to our Lord’s own words, but to the evangelist’s comment.
Isaiah 6:5 way more than this, that He meets our mere confession with forgiveness — waiting for nothing else — and cleanses us from all unrighteousness.
cp St. John 1:4-9; John 3:19-21, John 8:12, John 12:35-36.
See esp. Ephesians 5:8-14; 1 Peter 2:9
; James 1:17-18.Where, however, a different word is used in the Greek Bible.
See Joshua 7:19-20; Matthew 3:6; Acts 19:18.
Matthew 18:22 ff.
See John 1:29
; John 3:14, John 11:49-51.As in Matthew 5:23; Luke 6:41
Revelation 13:1-18; Revelation 16:13, Revelation 19:20, Revelation 20:10.
1 John 2:18-19, 1 John 2:21-23, 1 John 4:1-6, and 2 John 1:7.
1 John 2:22-23; 1 John 4:2-3, 1 John 4:15, 1 John 5:1, 1 John 5:6, 2 John 1:7
. It appears to be out of place to interpret the denial that “Jesus is the Christ” simply of the already old-fashioned denial by the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah or was the Son of God. With this original denial we are face to face in the Fourth Gospel. But the orthodox Jews are not in evidence here.Rather than “annulleth,” as R.V. margin translates.
See Iren. iii 3, 4, and fragm. ii.
Irea, iii 3, 4.
Irea. 1:26, 1; 3:11, 1.
It appears that Hippolyrtus gave a rather different account of Cerinthus’s teaching. But Irenseus’s account certainly coincides remarkably with the teaching which St. John appears to have in view. It should be noticed that Cerinthus was not a Docetist, and there is no real suggestion of Docetism in the doctrine which St. John is opposing.
John 1:12. There is, however, a very early reading of this passage which is found in some of the Fathers, and is accepted as original by some scholars, including Dr. Inge: see his Plotinus (Longmans), vol. ii. p. 207. According to this reading, the words after “believe on his name” would run: “ who was born not of bloods) nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.” The words would then describe the manner of our Lord’s birth, not of the mixture of human seeds (for the word translated “blood” is plural in the Greek), nor of human appetite, nor of the will of a man (a husband), but of God.
According to the text as it stands in almost all the MSS. and in our versions, it describes the supernatural regeneration of the children of God, but in terms suggestive of the New Birth on which our regeneration is based, i. e. our Lord’s birth of a virgin: see Dr. Chase, Belief and Creed (Macmillan), pp. 67 ff.; also Zahn, Einlietng, ii. p. 604 f, as cited by Latimer Jackson, describes St. John in this passage as so portraying the origin of the children of God, after the pattern picture of the only “Son of God” who is such in the fullest sense, that the reader will be at once reminded of a begetting and birth without carnal impulse or the will of a man.
It would be out of place to consider what is meant by original or racial sin, i.e. an inherited tendency to evil. Suffice it to say here that only in so far as the will accepts the tendency and makes it its own, does it become strictly sin.
Lectures on the Epistles of St. John, xii
See, however, below, pp. 168f.
cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 12:10; 1 Corinthians 14:29, “discerning of spirits”; Revelation 2:2.
See above p. 116 note.
Origen on the Epistle to Titus. We have only Rufinus’s translation. “Patripassians” were, in fact, the same as those called Sabellians by the Greeks, and Origen probably used the latter name; but the consequenoe of their teaching, which is emphasized in the name “Patripassians,” was what Origen had particularly in view.
Thomas Treheme — our recently discovered seventeenth-century Anglican mystic — in his Century of Meditations (Dobell) has a magnificent protest against the unemotional idea of God derived from Greek philosophy. See. Cent. 1:40, pp, 27 ft.
Tract i. p. 6. in the Corpus Script, Eccl. Lat. vol. xviii.
Clemeat op. Euseb. Ecd, Hist, iii, 23; see above, p. 5.
(Clarke, Edin. 1904), pp. 316-17.
Not, however, all sins against the Ten Commandments by any means, e.g. not theft. It is probable that the words “that soul shall be cut off from Israel,” which recur so often in the priestly code, refer to excommunication and not death. Cf, Ezra 10:8.— C. G.
The reader should refer to Leviticus 4:11; Numbers 15:1-41; and Hebrews 5:2; Hebrews 9:7; Hebrews 10:26, an assurance of reconciliation for the penitent.
Why he gives her this place of residence we cannot conjecture.
In detail for 1 John 2:6 cf. 1 John 2:7; for 1 John 2:6 cf. 1 John 5:3 and 1 John 2:5; and for 1 John 2:7 cf. 1 John 2:18-26 and 1 John 4:2-3.
“Shall be with us” instead of “be with you.”
In the same way, doubtless, St. John would justify belief in “the resurrection of the flesh” in our case. Not because our resurrection bodies are to be of “flesh and blood,” i.e. in the condition of our mortal bodies, or because there is to be, at the resurrection, a re-collection of the present changing physical atoms of our bodies, but because the spiritual body is to be the same body in some sense, bearing the marks of its old experiences, the real record of what we have done and suffered, though its material elements are changed. There must remain a difference, as St. Paul makes plain, between the process by which, in the case of us who die in the course of nature, the spiritual body is to be given to us in place of our mortal body which decays, and on the other hand, the process by which Christ’s body was transformed into the resurrection body, and also the process by which “ in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” the bodies of those who at the last are not to die at all are, in St. Paul’s expectation, to be “ changed.” Still, in a real sense, all we (whether we die or are “changed”) shall be, like Christ, in St. John’s sense, in the flesh.
See above, p. 6,