[ENDNOTES]
[1:1] Originally published in the Fortnightly Review, January 1, 1875.
[4:1] On the Canon, p. 65.
[4:2] Ibid. p. 61, note 2.
[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this interpretation is one from Papias' Exposition."
[4:4] Reliq. Sacrae, i. p. 10 f.
[4:5] Lehre Pers. Christ, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62.
[5:1] _Theol. Jahrb. _1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1.
[5:2] Synops. Evang., Proleg. xxxi.
[5:3] Komm. Ev. des Johannes, p. 6 f.
[5:4] Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh. p. 116 f.
[5:5] Basilides, p. 110 f.
[5:6] Zeitschr. für wiss. Theol. 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219, Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4.
[6:1] Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang. 1874, p. 72.
[6:2] Th. Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 674.
[6:3] Intro. N.T. ii. p. 424 f.
[6:4] Ibid. ii. p. 372.
[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part itself.
[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition.
[9:1] Contemporary Review, December, p. 4, n. 1; Essays on S.R. p. 4, n. 4.
[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within brackets.
[10:1] S.R. ii. p. 231 f.
[10:2] Contemporary Review, December, p. 5 f.; Essays on S.R. p. 7.
[10:3] S.R. ii. 228 ff.
[11:1] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 73 f.
[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as Tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is treated as a contemporary.
[12:1] S.R. ii. p. 229 ff.
[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho logos edêlou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that Prudentius Maranus renders the words "… scripturam declarare," and Otto "… effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is [Greek: kata korrhês propêlakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all' hostis se rhapisei epi tên dexian sou siagona, strepson autô kai tên allên], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata korrhês prospêlakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tês kephalês meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other side, of the head," &c., inserting the three Greek words after "side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised. Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The passage from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into the text. It was impossible for anyone to mistake the tense and meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say, the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the assurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores."
[14:1] I altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition, as Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence of the words given above.
[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument, but also to De Wette, who has "… dass er nie Joh. dem Taüfer wie der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistês] giebt" (Einl. N.T. p. 230), and to Bleek, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (Beiträge, p. 178, and Einl. N.T. p. 150), which could not be misread.
[16:1] Contemporary Review, December, p. 15; Essays on S.R. p. 21 f.
[16:2] Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above reference, but does not quote the passage.
[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias.
[17:1] Canon, p. 255 f.
[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius.
[18:1] Luthardt, Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang. 1874, p. 85 f.
[19:1] Strom. vii. 17, § 106.
[19:2] Canon, p. 255.
[19:3] Contemporary Review, December, p. 16 [Essays, p. 22].
[20:1] Contemporary Review, December, p. 8 [ibid. p. 11].
[21:1] Contemporary Review, p. 8 [ibid. p. 11].
[21:2] A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine, i. 184 f. I do not refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view.
[22:1] Contemporary Review, p. 8 [ibid. p. 11 f.]
[23:1] Contemporary Review, p. 8 f. [ibid. p. 11].
[23:2] S.R. i. p. 441.
[24:1] Contemporary Review, p. 8 f. [ibid. p. 12 f.]
[24:2] S.R. i. p. 387 ff.
[24:3] Canon, p. 112 f.
[24:4] Contemporary Review, p. 9, note [ibid. p. 12, n. 4].
[24:5] S.R. i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly suppose" that "I had read the passage to which I refer."
[25:1] Contemporary Review, p. 9 [ibid. p. 13].
[26:1] Contemporary Review, p. 9 [ibid. p. 13].
[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that such a passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage Matt. xi. 27 seq. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the allusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar" Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.) sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers.
[27:1] Contemporary Review, p. 11 f. [ibid. p. 16].
[27:2] Ibid. p. 10 [ibid. p. 14].
[28:1] S.R. ii. p. 402.
[28:2] Ibid. ii. p. 406.
[28:3] See Acts iv. 13.
[28:4] S.R. ii. p. 410.
[28:5] Ibid. ii, p. 413.
[29:1] Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang. 1874, pp. 204-7.
[29:2] Einl. N.T. p. 625.
[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point out its existence, as, for instance, S.R. ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c., and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it had already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the composition of that work.
[30:2] S.R. ii. 421.
[30:3] Contemporary Review, 12 f. [ibid. p. 17 f.]
[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit."
[31:2] S.R. 421 f.
[32:1] Works, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; Horae et Talm. p. 938.
[32:2] Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv. p. 256, Anm. 1.
[32:3] Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh., umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f.
[32:4] Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T. i. 3, p. 84.
[32:5] Einl. N.T. ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32).
[32:6] Bibelwerk, iv. 219.
[32:7] Die Zeugnisse, p. 21.
[32:8] Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean, i. p. 475 f.
[32:9] Einl. N.T. p. 211.
[32:10] Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1856, p. 240 ff.
[32:11] Die Joh. Schriften, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; Jahrb. bibl. Wiss. viii. p. 255 f.; cf. Gesch. v. Isr. v. p. 348, Anm. 1.
[32:12] Das Ev. Joh. p. 107.
[32:13] Comm. Ev. n. Joh. p. 188 f.
[33:1] Comm. Ev. des Joh. i. p. 577 f.
[33:2] Jahrb. bibl. Wiss. viii. p. 255 f.
[33:3] Die Joh. Schr. i. p. 181, Anm. 1.
[33:4] Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel, 1872, p. 92.
[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf. Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with El Askar, &c." Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel, p. 93, note 1.
[34:1] Life of Christ, i. p. 206, note 1.
[34:2] La Géographie du Tulmud, p. 170.
[34:3] Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, iii. p. 1395 f.
[36:1] Bampton Lect. 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4.
[36:2] S.R. i. p. 61 ff.
[37:1] Contemporary Review, p. 19 [ibid. p. 26 f.]
[37:2] Three Essays on Religion, p. 216 f.
[38:1] Three Essays on Religion, p. 234.
[38:2] Ibid. p. 219.
[39:1] S.R. ii. p. 477.
[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition.
[45:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (Ibid. p. 32 ff.)
[45:2] S.R. i. p. 212.
[46:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 172 [ibid. p. 36].
[46:2] Ibid. p. 183 [ibid. p. 51].
[48:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 173 [ibid. p. 38].
[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (S.R. i. p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear.
[50:1] Cf. H.E. iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c.
[50:2] Ibid. ii. 15, vi. 14.
[50:3] Ibid. v. 8.
[50:4] Ibid. vi. 25.
[51:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 181 [ibid. p. 48].
[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5.
[51:3] Ibid. p. 181.
[51:4] H.E. iii, 24.
[52:1] H.E. ii. 23.
[52:2] Ibid. iii. 11.
[52:3] Ibid. 16.
[52:4] Ibid. 19, 20.
[52:5] Ibid. 32.
[52:6] Ibid. iv. 8.
[52:7] Ibid. 11.
[52:8] Ibid. iv. 22.
[53:1] H.E. ii. 15.
[53:2] Ibid. vii. 25.
[54:1] H.E. iii. 18.
[54:2] Ibid. 19, 20.
[54:3] Ibid. 20.
[54:4] Ibid. 20.
[54:5] Ibid. 23.
[54:6] Ibid. 24.
[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (S.R. i. p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements.
[55:2] H.E. iii. 39.
[56:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 183 [ibid. p. 51].
[57:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [ibid. p. 59 ff.]
[58:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 339 [ibid. p. 62].
[59:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 340 [ibid. p. 63].
[59:2] S.R. i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of reference.
[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. 63, n. 2). Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing.
[60:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 341 [ibid. p. 64].
[61:1] Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens, p. 7, Anm. 1.
[61:2] Zeitschr. wiss. Theol. 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his Apostolic Fathers (part ii. vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made.
[61:3] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 841 [ibid. p. 65].
[62:1] S.R. i. p. 259 f.
[62:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342 [ibid. p, 65 f.]
[62:3] S.R. i. p. 259.
[63:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr. Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works, where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority of these letters [ibid. p. 66].
[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (Inst. Chr. Rel. i. 13, § 39).
[64:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342.
[64:3] Op. Theolog. 1652, 11, p. 1085.
[64:4] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 342 [ibid. p. 66]. Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's Vindiciae Ignat. p. 28 (ed. Churton).
[65:1] Exam. Concilii Tridentim, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89).
[65:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 343 [ibid. p. 67].
[67:1] Critici Sacri, lib. ii cap. 1; Op. Theolog. 1652, ii. p. 1086.
[67:2] Vind. Ignat. 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, Patr. Apost. i. p. xxxviii.
[67:3] Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch. v. 8 § 1, edit. Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii.
[68:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 343 f. [ibid. p. 67 f.]
[70:1] Die Kirche im ap. Zeit. p. 322.
[70:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 344 f. [ibid. p. 69.]
[72:1] K.G. 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1.
[73:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 345 [ibid. p. 69].
[75:1] Einl. N.T. pp. 144 f., 233.
[78:1] Contemporary Review, January 1875, p. 183 [ibid. p. 51].
[78:2] Ibid., February 1875, p. 346 [ibid. p. 71].
[79:1] Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1851, p. 389 ff.
[79:2] Hippolytus and his Age, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff.
[79:3] Gesch. d. V. Isr. vii. p. 321, Anm. 1.
[80:1] Patr. Apost. Proleg. 1863, p. xxx.
[80:2] Patr. Apost. ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in the Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.)
[80:3] Hippolytus, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff.
[81:1] S.R. i. p. 264.
[81:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 347 [ibid. p. 72].
[82:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 348 [ibid. p. 74].
[82:2] S.R. i. p. 265.
[83:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 347 [ibid. p. 72 f.] Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles come together, and are followed by the confessedly spurious Epistles in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, p. 111."
[83:2] Note to Horne's Int. to the Holy Scriptures, 12th ed. 1869, iv. p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.
[83:3] The Ancient Syrian Version, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f.
[84:1] Corpus Ignat. p. 338.
[84:2] Ibid. p. ii.
[84:3] Dressel, Patr. Ap. p. lvi.
[84:4] Cureton, Corp. Ign. p. iii.
[84:5] Dressel, Patr. Ap. p. lvii f.
[84:6] Cureton, Corp. Ignat. p. vii f.
[84:7] Ibid. p. xi; Dressel, Patr. Ap. p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii; Jacobson, Patr. Ap. i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart., Amstel. 1646.
[84:8] Dressel, Patr. Ap. p. lxi.
[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to Hist. of the Canon, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix.
[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to Hist. of Canon, 4th ed. p. xix f.
[87:2] S.R. i. p. 268.
[88:1] On the Canon, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx.
[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second note, but accidentally left out of note 3.
[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call attention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note.
[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an extended form. The work I quote is entitled Kirchengeschichte der ersten sechs Jahrhunderte, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth century.
[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference, but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to 'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different object of the two notes.
[93:1] On the Canon, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f.
[97:1] P. 213.
[98:1] On the Canon, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which reference was necessary.
[99:1] On the Canon, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv.
[100:1] Ruinart, Acta Mart. p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, Mart. Rom. 1631, p. 152.
[100:2] Cf. Lardner, Credibility, &c., Works, iii. p. 3.
[101:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 349 [ibid. p. 75].
[101:2] Ibid. p. 350 [ibid. p. 76].
[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, Peregrinus Proteus, 1879.
[102:2] De Morte Peregr. 11.
[102:3] Ibid. 14.
[102:4] Gesch. chr. Kirche, i. p. 410 f.
[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish. Textes d. Ignat. Briefe, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, Ignatius v. Ant., 1873, p. 517 ff.
[103:2] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 350 f. [ibid. p. 77].
[104:1] S.R. i. p. 268, note 4.
[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of Trajan."—Hist. of Christianity, 1867, ii. p. 103.
[106:1] K.G. 1842, i. p. 171.
[106:2] Ibid. i. p. 172, Anm.
[108:1] Hist. of Christianity, ii. p. 101 f.
[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 352 [ibid. p. 79].
[109:2] Ibid. p. 353 f. [ibid. p. 80].
[109:3] Ibid. p. 352 [ibid. p. 79 f.].
[110:1] Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 353 f. [ibid. p. 81].
[110:2] Ignatius v. Ant. p. 66, Anm. 3.
[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards translated to Antioch.
[112:1] Ruinart, Acta Mart. pp. 59, 69.
[112:2] Ignatius v. Ant. p, 68.
[112:3] Ruinart, Acta Mart. p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December. (Mart. Rom. pp. 87, 766 ff.)
[112:4] Ignatius v. Ant. p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2.
[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently" the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is nothing else to establish it.
[114:1] St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note. Cf. Contemporary Review, February 1875, p. 358 f. (Ibid. p. 88)
[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition.
[117:1] i. p. 443 ff.
[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work">[
[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's Essays, p. 163.
[119:1] Essays, p. 167 f.
[120:1] Essays, p. 170.
[121:1] Ibid. p. 169.
[122:1] Essays, p. 170.
[122:2] Ibid. p. 170.
[122:3] Ibid. p. 170.
[123:1] Ibid. p. 152.
[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f.
[124:2] Ibid. p. 171.
[124:3] Ibid. p. 172 f.
[124:4] i. p. 463 f.
[125:1] Ibid. p. 173.
[125:2] i. 236 ff.
[125:3] Note.
[125:4] Note.
[126:1] Clem. Rom. § 53, § 45; ibid. 173 f.
[130:1] I. p. 210 f.
[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases.
[133:1] S.R. i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here.
[134:1] S.R. i. p. 363 f.
[135:1] S.R. ii. p. 221, n. 7.
[135:2] Ibid. p. 220.
[135:3] Ibid. ii. p. 169 f.
[136:1] S.R. ii. p. 226.
[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito, Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from Supernatural Religion the following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore, is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the Contemporary Review, and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (S.R. ii. p. 181). If Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable to those who have none.
[137:1] S.R. ii. p. 182 ff.
[137:2] Ibid. p. 239.
[137:3] Ibid. p. 248.
[140:1] S.R. ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff.
[140:2] Ibid. 255.
[141:1] S.R. ii. p. 200.
[142:1] S.R. ii. p. 200 f.
[143:1] S.R. iii. p. 257
[143:2] Ibid. p. 25 f.
[144:1] Ibid., p. 259.
[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff.
[146:1] Euseb. H.E. iv. 29. (Ibid. p. 227 f.)
[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a note.
[146:3] Ibid. p. 278.
[147:1] Unters. N.T. Kanons, 1881, p. 15 f.
[147:2] On the Canon, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3.
[147:3] The Diatessaron of Tatian, 1888, p. xiv.
[147:4] Ibid. p. 279.
[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. Bibl. Orient. ii. p. 159 sq.
[148:2] Ibid. p. 280 f.
[149:1] The Diatessaron of Tatian, p. xxx.
[149:2] Euseb. Op. iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by Dr. Lightfoot (l.c. p. 281, n. 1).
[150:1] Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron, 1881, p. 70 f.
[150:2] Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr. iii. p. 26.
[150:3] Moesinger, Evang. Concor. Expositio, 1876, p. x f.
[150:4] Ibid. p. xi.
[152:1] Zahn, l.c. p. 38.
[153:1] Ibid. p. 286.
[153:2] Ibid. p. 288. The italics are mine.
[153:3] Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian, p. xxiv.
[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136.
[156:1] Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff.
[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different religions is estimated as follows:
Parsees 150,000
Sikhs 1,200,000
Jews 7,000,000, being about ½ per cent.
of the whole.
Greek Catholics 75,000,000 " 6 " "
Roman Catholics 152,000,000 " 12 " "
Other Christians 100,000,000 " 8 " "
Hindus 160,000,000 " 13 " "
Muhammedans 155,000,000 " 12½ " "
Buddhists 500,000,000 " 40 " "
Not included in the above 100,000,000 " 8 " "
—————-
1,250,350,000
We have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an excellent little work recently published by the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge—Buddhism, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6.