[28:1] S.R. II. p. 490.
[29:1] S.R. I. p. xiv.
[30:1] II. p. 492.
[30:2] II. p. 492.
[30:3] II. p. 492.
[32:1] I. p. 212. The references throughout this article are given to the fourth edition. But, with the single exception which I shall have occasion to notice at the close, I have not observed any alterations from the second, with which I have compared it in all the passages here quoted.
[32:2] Euseb. H.E. iv. 26, 27.
[34:1] S.R. I. p. 432.
[34:2] I. p. 433 sq. I must leave it to others to reconcile the statement respecting the Apocalypse in the text with another which I find elsewhere in this work (i. p. 483): 'Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop of the fifth century, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the Fathers, considered the Apocalypse inspired. No reference is made to this by Eusebius; but although, from his Millenarian tendencies, it is very probable that Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar veneration as a prophetic book, this evidence is too vague and isolated to be of much value.' The difficulty is increased when we compare these two passages with a third (II. p. 335): 'Andrew of Cæsarea, in the preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility' [Greek: to axiopiston] of that book, or in other words, its Apostolic origin…. Apologists admit the genuineness of this statement, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the acquaintance of Papias with the Apocalypse…. Now he must therefore have recognised the book as the work of the Apostle John.' The italics, I ought to say, are my own, in all the three passages quoted.
[34:3] ['regarding the composition of the first two Gospels' ed. 6 (I. p. 433). The error is acknowledged in the preface to that edition (p. xxi).]