[1]Tarik, i. e. "way," is still the Arabic term for a sect, and the Rabbinic term for legal requirement is halacha, i. e. "walk."
[2] In using traditional names and titles such as "Luke," "John," "Matthew," "James," no assumption is made as to authenticity. The designation is employed for convenience irrespective of its critical accuracy or inaccuracy.
[3] The Fourth Gospel is thus characterized by Clement of Alexandria, meaning that it had a deep symbolic sense.
[6] Catholic is here used in its etymological sense of "general" or universal. We shall have occasion to apply the term in a more limited sense hereafter.
[7] Or perhaps thirteen. Gal. ii. 1 may reckon from the conversion (31-33). In both periods (Gal. i. 18, and ii. 1) both termini are counted.
[8] We apply the name to the writer of Luke-Acts without prejudice to the question of authorship.
[9] Acts xxii. 10-21 is not quite consistent with xxvi. 15-18; but the general sense is clear.
[10] Cornelius' case (Acts x.-xi. 18) is exceptional, and no propaganda follows. The reading "Greeks" in Acts xi. 20, though required by the sense and therefore adopted by the English translators, is not supported by the textual evidence. Luke has here corrected his source to suit his theory, just as in x. 1—xi. 18 he passes by the true significance of the story, which really deals with the question of eating with Gentiles (xi. 3, 7 f.).
[11] The assertion has recently been made in very high quarters on the basis of 1st Cor. vii. 18 that Paul also took the "apostolic" view that the Christian of Jewish birth remains under obligation to keep the law. One would think Paul had not added verse 19!
[12] On the reading "Greeks" in Acts xi. 20 see footnote 10
[13] The actual outcome is seen in the reduction of the 'burden' to the two items of abstinence from "fornication and from things offered to idols." Paul's nicer distinctions under the latter head (1st Cor. viii. 1-13, x. 14-23) as well as his distinction between the ceremonial and the moral grounds for abstinence, were disregarded.
[14] Romans enlarges the conception of the economy of Law by making it include the Gentile law of 'conscience' (Rom. i. 18—ii. 16). In Galatians this point is covered only by classing the "angels" through whom the Mosaic Law was given, with the "Elements" honoured in Gentile religion. Both are codes of "stewards and governors."
[15] Harnack very ingeniously suggests as a reason the ill repute later incurred by Laodicea (cf. Rev. iii. 15 f.); comparing the chiselling out from inscriptions of the names of unpopular kings.
[16] Some authorities of the first rank think there is evidence of literary dependence in 1st Cor. i. 18-21 on the Saying (Matt. xi. 25-27 = Lk. x. 21 f.).
[17] The orthodox Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes borrows from Luke as well as Matthew, but speaks in the name of "Matthew." This apostle was also regarded as author of the Gospel according tothe Hebrews, a heretical product of c. 120, current in Greek among the Jewish Christians of Palestine (Ebionites).
[18] It was superscribed "These are the ... words (logoi as in the Pastoral Epistles, not logia as in Papias and Polycarp) which Jesus the living Lord spoke to the disciples and Thomas."
[19] The possibility should be left open that the Greek Matthew was written in Egypt (cf. Matt. ii. 15), as some critics hold. From the point of view of the church historian, however, Egypt must really be classed as in "the regions of southern Syria." Its relations with Jerusalem were close and constant.
[20] The parallel in Mark xvi. 14-18 is very instructive, but needs the recently discovered connection between verses 14 and 15 to complete the sense: "And they excused themselves (for their unbelief) saying, This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under the dominion of Satan, who by means of the unclean spirits prevents the truth and power of God from being apprehended. On this account reveal thy righteousness (i. e. justice, in the sense of Isa. lvi, 1 b) even now. And Christ replied to them, The limit of years of Satan's power is (already) fulfilled, but other terrible things are at hand; moreover I was delivered up to death on behalf of sinners in order that they might return unto the truth and sin no more, that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory which is in heaven." Then follows the mission into all the world and endowment with the gifts.
[21] So IrenÆus (186) and (by implication) Papias. Clement of Alexandria (210) meets the difficulty by alleging that Peter was still alive, but gave no aid to the writer.
[23] Note, also, how in Acts vi. 5 the list of deacon-evangelists concludes "and Nicholas a proselyte ofAntioch."
[24] The mention of Agabus, however, in xi. 27 f. is hardly consistent with xiii. 1 and xxi. 10-14. It seems to be due to the editorial recasting of xi. 22-30.
[26] Note the addition of an "eighth" emperor in ver. 11.
[27] Not 2nd John; for it is only in 1st John ii. 18 that the elder speaks of "many antichrists," identifying each separate Doketist with the apocalyptic figure. In 2nd John vii. it is the heresy itself as a phenomenon which constitutes the antichrist.
[28] In the Acts of John the Christ spirit which had been resident in Jesus comes to John after he has fled to a cave on the Mount of Olives from the posse that arrested the Lord. The sweet voice of the invisible Christ informs him there that the blinded multitude below had tortured a mere bodily shape which they took to be Christ, "while I stood by and laughed." In the Gospel of Peter Jesus hung upon the cross "as one who feels no pain" and was "taken up" before the end.
[30] Some few passages inconsistent with this are found in the body of the Gospel. Like that of the appendix (xxi. 22) they are later modifications of a doctrine too Hellenic for the majority.
[31] The personal letters formed a separate group. Two letters to the same church (1st Cor., 2nd Cor.) were counted as one. Marcion (140) counted ten in all, and had a different order.
[32] A miscount for "fourth," unless we disregard xx. 11-18, or else (with Wellhausen) consider xx. 24-29 an insertion later than the Epilogue.
[33] The addition in ver. 10a and the plural "they" in ver. 11, are mere editorial adaptations of the story to Mark i. 16-20.
[34] We must conclude that both these data from Synoptic tradition, the denial (xiii. 36-38; xviii. 15-18, 25-27) and the restoration (ch. xxi.) are supplements to the original form of the Gospel.
[35] The Muratorianum bases its legendary account of the writing of the Fourth gospel by "John" with the endorsement of "his fellow-disciples and bishops" on John xxi. 24.
[36] The early death of James the son of Zebedee (Acts xii. 1) excludes him from consideration.
