^{page 274 note 1} p. 273.

^{page 274 note 2} p. 276.

^{page 274 note 3} p. 287.

^{page 275 note 1} The Epistle of James, Additional Note, p. 103.

^{page 276 note 1} Christianity According to St. Paul, p. 274.

^{page 276 note 2} Romans, pp. 103–4.

^{page 276 note 3} Cf. Baur, , Paulus, p. 624Google Scholar; Dodd, , Romans, p. 152.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 1} Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 233–4 contains a full discussion of the punctuation.

^{page 279 note 2} 2 Cor. 11.31 … ó ωφ ε⋯λολητòς ε⋯ς τοὺς α⋯ω̑νας … is an example of ε⋯λολητòς in a similar position. For a discussion of the position of ε⋯λολητòς see Lagrange, Epitrc awe Romains, p. 227, Sanday and Headlam, op. cit., p. 236, and Lietzmann, Römerbrief, p. 90.

^{page 279 note 3} Other examples of doxologies which refer to antecedents are Rom. 1.25, Gal. 1.5. See also Langrange, op. cit, p. 227.

^{page 279 note 4} John 3.31, Rom. 8.5, 8.

^{page 280 note 1} Op. cit., pp. 235–6.

^{page 280 note 2} Luke 3.6, I Cor. I.29, Col. 3.22, Philem. 16, 2 Chron. 32.8, Ps. 55 (56). 5, Jer. 5, Dan. 2.n. See Sanday and Headlam, p. 235.

^{page 280 note 3} Baur, F. C., Paulus, p. 624.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 1} op. cit., p. 236.

^{page 282 note 1} Cullmann, , Earliest Christian Confessions, p. 41.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 2} This point is emphasised by Stauffer in T.W.z.NT. III, art. p. 106, n. 265

^{page 282 note 3} Thessalonians, p. 242.

^{page 284 note 1} See Parry, , Pastoral Epistles, p. 81Google Scholar. Parry also gives as a reason for rejecting this view the absence of any other reference to a double appearance. But this reason is not linguistic and should not influence the argument at this stage.

^{page 284 note 2} Epistle of James, p. 103. He also says that St. Paul and the NT would not be likely to commit what he believes to be a travesty of true theology. This argument is not relevant.

^{page 284 note 3} E.g. Deut. 10. 19, Ps. 85. 10, Isa. 26.4, Jer. 39. 19, Dan. 2.45.

^{page 284 note 4} See Grundmann in T.W.z.NT., IV, art.μéλας, p. 546, and Deissamann, , Light from the Ancient East, p. 269, n.3.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 5} Pastoralbriefe, p. 92.

^{page 284 note 6} The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles.

^{page 285 note 1} According to several authorities 2 Pet. 2.20 is a parallel to 1.11, but this reading is probably due to assimilation.

^{page 286 note 1} Hebrews, p. 87.

^{page 287 note 1} Hebrews, p. 26.

^{page 288 note 1} Origen was the first to suggest that Θɛóς was adjectival. See Comm. in Joan.,II, 3.

^{page 289 note 1} E. C. Colwell (J. B. L. Lii (1933), 12ff) formulates the rule that ‘definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article’. His views are discussed by Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, pp. 115ff.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 2} This verse expresses a paradox which runs through the Fourth Gospel. Jesus Is one with the Father and yet He is subordinate to the Father. The Word is God, and yet the Word is with God. Cf. Bultmann, , Das Ev. des Johannes, pp. 17–19.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 3} Kyrios Christos, 1st ed., p. 301.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 4} See Hoskyns, , Fourth Gospel, p. 548.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 5} See Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, 1st ed., p. 301Google Scholar, and Bultmann, , Eu.Joh. p. 538Google Scholar, also Hoskyns, ibid. The words ‘dominus et deus noster’, used of Domitian (Suet.,Domit., 13), may have heightened the significance of this passage.

^{page 290 note 1} Barrett, John, p. 477.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 2} Temple, , Readings, p. 391.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 3} This saying presents a difficulty to those commentators who claim that Θɛóς is never applied to Christ when it has an article. They defend their position by arguing that Θɛóς cannot be anarthrous when it is vocative. Hoskyns comments (p. 549): ‘It may, however, be doubted whether the Evangelist intends this nice grammatical and theological distinction.’ On the other hand, as in 1.1, the evangelist does not imply God and Christ are wholly identical. See Barrett, op. cit., p. 477.

^{page 291 note 1} Kyrios Christos, 1st ed., pp. 301–302.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 2} The Johannine Epistles, p. 140.

^{page 291 note 3} One corrector of D follows the other reading.

^{page 292 note 1} See Wescott, and Hort, , NT Vol. II, pp. 132–134.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 2} Lagrange, St. Jean, ad. loc. Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, 1st ed. p. 302.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 3} St. John, p. 141.

^{page 292 note 4} NT Vol. II, p. 74.

^{page 292 note 5} See Black, M., Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 2nd ed., p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 1} Two Dissertations, p. 15.

^{page 293 note 2} For a full account of the textual evidence see Ropes, , Beginnings of Christianity, Vol. III, pp. 197–199Google Scholar. Cf. Westcott, and Hort, , Vol. II, pp. 98–100 (Note by Hort).Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 3} Westcott and Hort, II, pp. 99–100.

^{page 293 note 4} Beginnings, Vol. III, p. 196.

^{page 294 note 1} Prolegomena, pp. 90ff.

^{page 294 note 2} E.g. Eph. i. 1, xv. 3, xviii. 2, xix. 3, Sm.i. 1, x. 1, Tr. vii. 1.

^{page 296 note 1} The prologue too, it has been argued, was couched in poetic form. But it must have been revised before inclusion in the Gospel. The parts of the prologue which describe Christ as God are theological rather than liturgical.

^{page 296 note 2} The Gospel according to St. John, p. 477.

^{page 296 note 3} Cf. Ps. 34. 23. Suet., p. 538. n. 8.

^{page 296 note 4} Cf. Dibelaius, , Pastoralbriefe, p. 92.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 1} The Pastoral Epistles, p. 95.

^{page 298 note 2} Essays, p. 273.