^{page 204 note 1} Käsemann, E., New Testament Questions of Today (Eng., S.C.M., London, 1969), p. 71.Google Scholar Similarly, Schneider, J. (under λεθρος) in Kittel, G. (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the N.T., V (Eerdmans, Grands Rapids, 1968), p. 169Google Scholar; and Craig, C. T. in The Interpreter's Bible, X (Abingdon, New York, 1951), p. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 2} cf. Barrett, C. K., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Black, London, 1968), pp. 126–7Google Scholar; Lietzmann, H., An die Korinther (Mohr, Tübingen,²⁴ 1949), pp. 29 and 173–4Google Scholar; Osty, E., Les Épîtres de S. Paul aux Corinthiens (Les Éditions du Cerf, Paris,¹ 1964), p. 34Google Scholar; Wendland, H. D., Die Briefe an die Korinther (Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Göttingen,¹² 1968) p. 43Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, I (Eng., S.C.M., London, 1952), p. 137.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 3} cf. further, Schweizer, E., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, VII (Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1964), p. 125Google Scholar; Bauer, W. (W. F. Arndt und F. W. Gingrich), A. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago and Cambridge, 1957), p. 751Google Scholar; Héring, J., The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Eng., Epworth London, 1962), p. 35Google Scholar; and Thrall, M. E., I & II Corinthians (Cambridge, 1965), p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 4} Sand, A., Der Begriff ‘Fleisch’ in den Paulinischen Hauptbriefen (Biblische Untersuchungen herausgegeben von Otto Kuss, Band 2)Google Scholar, Pustet, F., Regensburg (1967), pp. 143–5.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 1} ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ sind dann nicht zwei verschiedene ‘Teile’ am Menschen … ibid., p. 144.

^{page 205 note 2} Cambier, J., ‘La Chair et l'esprit en 1 Cor. 5.5,’ in New Testament Studies, 15 (1968–9), pp. 221–32; p. 232.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 3} Wittgenstein, L., Philosophical Investigations (Germ. and Eng, Blackwell, Oxford,³ 1967), sections 7, 23, 24, 47, 50, 53, 65–9 et passim.Google Scholar In terms of a different philosophical tradition, it might be possible to speak of the horizons which bound the common ‘world’ of communication. Cf. Gadamer, H.-G., Wahrheit und Methode; Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (Mohr, Tübingen² 1965), especially pp. 286–90.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} Any idea that specificity and precision is necessarily always a virtue is wide of the mark. Cf. Alston, W. P., Philosophy of Language (Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, N.J., 1964), pp. 84ffGoogle Scholar; and esp. L. Wittgenstein op. cit., sections 68–108.

^{page 206 note 2} The connexions between ‘flesh’ and ‘self-glorying’ are examined below with special reference to R. Bultmann and to J. A. T. Robinson.

^{page 207 note 1} cf. L. Wittgenstein, op. cit., sections 1–11, 114–15, 304 et passim; Black, M., The Labyrinth of Language (Pall Mall Press, London, 1968), pp. 9ffGoogle Scholar; Wilson, J., Language and the Pursuit of Truth (C.U.P., 1956), pp. 18ff and 56ffGoogle Scholar; Ullmann, S., Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Blackwell, Oxford, 1962), pp. 128ffGoogle Scholar and Robins, R. H., General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey (Longmans, London, 1964), pp. 25ff.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 1} L. Wittgenstein, op. cit., section 88.

^{page 208 note 2} cf. Ezek. 36.26 and the much-cited classic Isa. 31.3, where the LXX both softens and yet makes more explicit the functions of evaluation by rendering . The judgment concerns their strength or weakness, their effectiveness or ineffectiveness, against the situation. Evaluative uses in Paul occur clearly in Rom. 7.25; 8.7; 1 Cor. 3.4; 2 Cor. 1.12; 10.4, and Gal. 5.16–19; and more debatably perhaps in Rom. 7.15, 18; 8.4, 5, 8, 13; 2 Cor. 5.16; 10.2; Phil. 3.3, 4; and Col. 2.18. Cf. A. Sand, op. cit., pp. 183–217.

^{page 208 note 3} Among nineteenth-century writersEdwards, T. C., A. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hodder & Stoughton, London,² 1885), p. 127Google Scholar attributes to ‘flesh’ ‘an ethical meaning’; among more recent writers cf. Grosheide, F. W., Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Marshall, Morgan and Scott, London,² 1954), p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 1} Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 240 and 242. Cf. pp. 239–46.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 2} Robinson, J. A. T., The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology (S.C.M., London, 1952), pp. 25–6.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} It is unnecessary to allude at this point to the relatively unstable uses of ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’ found even among some logicians, for they are used here only broadly. Cf. Hospers, J., An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London² 1967), pp. 40–54.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 1} Wittgenstein, L., Zettel (Germ, and Eng., Blackwell, Oxford 1967),Google Scholar section 173. Cf. Philosophical Investigations, section 7; Waismann, F., The Principles of Linguistic Philosophy (Macmillan, London, 1965), p. 193Google Scholar; de Saussure, F., Course in General Linguistics (Eng., Owen, London, 1960), pp. 77–8Google Scholar; Harris, Z. S., Structural Linguistics (University of Chicago, 1951, Phoenix Books 1960), p. 187Google Scholar; R. H. Robins, op. cit., pp. 2 and 26–8; Lyons, J., Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (C.U.P., 1968), pp. 410–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 210 note 2} See E. Käsemann, op. cit., pp. 125ff; J. C. Hurd, op. cit., pp. 152 ff, 198, and, 284ff; Haenchen, E. in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, II (Mohr, Tübingen., 3 1958), p. 1652Google Scholar; Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Eng., S.C.M., London, 1959), p. 165Google Scholar; Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (Eng., S.C.M., London, 1966), p. 202Google Scholar; Grant, R. M., A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (Collins, London, 1963), pp. 204ffGoogle Scholar; Bultmann, R. in Kittel, (ed.) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, I, pp. 703–11Google Scholar; Cambier, J., ‘La Liberté chrétienne selon saint Paul’ in Cross, F. L. (ed.) Studia Evangelica, II, Part I (Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1964), pp. 315–53Google Scholar; Héring, J., ‘Saint Paul a-t-il enseign deux résurrection in Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuse, XII (1932), pp. 300–20Google Scholar; Dupont, J., Gnosis: La Connaissance religieuse dans les épîtres de S. Paul (Nauwelaerts, Louvain,² 1960)Google Scholar; and Wilckens, U., Weisheit und Torheit: eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu L Kor. 1 und 2 (Mohr, Tübingen, 1959), esp. pp. 10ff, 20, and 64ff.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 1} Schmithals, W., Die Gnosis in Korinth: eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen,² 1965), especially pp. 146ff and 206ff on σρξ and λενθεραGoogle Scholar. Cf. the critique in Colpe, C., Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule, I (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1961).Google Scholar Significant points in U. Wilckens' Weisheit und Torheit are critised by Scrocigs, R., ‘Paul: ΣOΦOΣ and ΠNEϒMATIKOΣ, New Testament Studies, 14 (1967–8), pp. 33–55Google Scholar; and by Funk, R. W., Language, Hermeneutic and the Word of God (Harper & Row, New York, 1966), pp. 277ff.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 2} Nock, A. D., St. Paul (Thornton Butterworth, London, 1938), p. 174.Google Scholar Cf. his further comments in Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Constantine (O.U.P., 1938), especially pp. 118ff.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 3} This argument is not necessarily weakened by R. Kempthorne's recent article ‘Incest and the Body of Christ’ in New Testament Studies, 14 (1967–8), pp. 568–74; nor, as Kempthorne seems to imagine, by J. C. Hurd, op. cit., p. 165. Moreover his article serves to show more clearly a developing sequence of thought for the inclusion at this point of 6.1–11 (ibid., p. 569).

^{page 212 note 1} 1 Cor. 4.6, 18, 19; 5.2; 8.1; 13.4; and Col. 2.18.

^{page 212 note 2} cf. Moffatt, J., Love in the New Testament (London, 1929), p. 182.Google Scholar Even if it is argued that its style and rhythm make the hymn unPauline in origin, Paul's inclusion of the hymn at this juncture speaks for itself.

^{page 212 note 3} The change of mood at 4.14 signifies not a change of subject but Paul's concern that the purpose behind his use of such biting irony should not be misunderstood.

^{page 212 note 4} cf. 1 Cor. 1.29, 31; 3.21; 4.7; and 5.6; as against Rom. 2.17, 23; 3.27; and 4.2. On the parallel between Romans and I Corinthians, see especially Conzelmann's, Hans comments on ‘The Word as the Crisis of Self-Assertion’ and ‘The Word as Folly’ in An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (Eng., S.C.M., London, 1969), pp. 236–8 and 241–7.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 1} Barth, K., The Resurrection of the Dead (Eng., Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1933). p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 2} Admittedly apart from the context ɸνσιωμέυοι έστέ could mean ‘you are still complacent’ in the sense advocated by A. Robertson and A. Plummer: ‘He does not mean that they were puffed up because of this outrage … but in spite of it’, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (I.C.C., Clark, Edinburgh, ^{2 2}1914), p. 96 (their italics). But the other occurrences of the same verb, as well as more recent research on the background of the epistle, seem to suggest otherwise.

^{page 213 note 3} Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 153.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 4} Laeuchli, S., ‘Monism and Dualism in the Pauline Anthropology’ in Biblical Research, 3 (1958), pp. 15–27.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 5} ibid., p. 24.

^{page 213 note 6} ibid., p. 27.

^{page 214 note 1} E.g. 1 Cor. 5.3, Col. 2.5. For a sustained criticism of generalisations about ‘concepts’ on the basis of word-usage cf. Barr, J., The Semantics of Biblical Language (O.U.P., 1961) passim.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 2} cf. Schweizer, E., Theological Dictionary of the N.T., VI, pp. 415ffGoogle Scholar; Hill, David, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 265–85Google Scholar; Stacey, W. D., The Pauline View of Man (Macmillan, London, 1965), pp. 174–80Google Scholar; Whiteley, D. E. H., The Theology of St. Paul (Blackwell, Oxford, 1964), pp. 31–44Google Scholar; and Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (S.P.C.K., London, 1948), pp. 17ff and 177ff.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 3} Gal. 6.18; Phil. 4.23 and Philemon 25: ‘the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit’; and Rom. 1.9; 2 Cor. 2.13; 7.13, 20; on which see especially D. Hill, op. cit., pp. 283–5.

^{page 214 note 4} E. Schweizer, loc. cit., p. 435, n. 691.

^{page 214 note 5} D. Hill, op. cit., p. 285.

^{page 214 note 6} E. Käsemann, ‘Worship and Everyday Life’, op. cit., especially pp. 191 and 194; and Bornkamm, G., Early Christian Experience (Eng., S.C.M., London, 1969), p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 7} cf., for example, Rom. 8.4–10; Gal. 3.3; 4.29; 5.17–19; 6.8; and possibly such references as Rom. 1.3, 4; as against Col. 2.5, which seems to constitute the only important exception.

^{page 215 note 1} e.g. 1 Cor. 7.34 and 2 Cor. 7.1.

^{page 215 note 2} Even in the Synoptic Gospels the ‘dualist’ contrast of Matt. 10.28 opposes only τ and .

^{page 215 note 3} cf. the fifth category under in Moulton, W. F. and Geden, A. S., A Concordance to the Greek Testament (Clark, Edinburgh,² 1899), pp. 821–3Google Scholar; the second category under , pp. 887–8; and cognates on pp. 824 and 886–7. Cf., further, A. Sand, op. cit., pp. 165–217. On semantic complementarity, see Lyons, John, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, pp. 460ffGoogle Scholar; and Structural Semantics: An Analysis of Part of the Vocabulary of Plato (Blackwell, Oxford, 1963), pp. 59ff.Google Scholar On ‘opposition by cut’ cf. Ogden, C. K., Opposition: A Linguistic and Psychological Analysis (Indiana University Press, Bloomington,² 1967), pp. 19–20, 58–60 et passim.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 4} On the decisive importance of context when words may have more than one meaning, see S. Ullmann, op. cit., pp. 167ff, and The Principles of Semantics (Blackwell, Oxford, ^{2 2}1957), pp. 60–65; and the repeated warnings in James Barr, loc cit.

^{page 215 note 5} cf. 1 Cor. 5.9–11 for the classic example of such a misunderstanding.

^{page 216 note 1} R. W. Funk, op. cit., pp. 275–305, especially p. 284. Funk, of course, owes little or nothing to the Wittgensteinian approach to language, and he perhaps weakens rather than strengthens his important insights by an undue pre-occupation with Heidegger's perspective. Cf. my arguments in ‘The Parables as Language-Event: A Critique of Fuch's Hermeneutics in the Light of Linguistic Philosophy’ forthcoming in The Scottish Journal of Theology.

^{page 216 note 2} L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations section 116. See also sections 47, 90, 96, and 115–17.

^{page 216 note 3} cf. for example, Robin Scroggs’ critique of Ulrich Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit, loc. cit.

^{page 216 note 4} See J. C. Hurd, op. cit., pp. 66–9 et passim. On 6.18(a) cf. Moule, C. D. F., An Idiom-Book of the New Testament Greek (C.U.P.,² 1959), pp. 197–7.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 1} Exler, F. X. J., The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography (Catholic University of America Dissertation, Washington D.C., 1923), pp. 15–16Google Scholar; cf. the style of the treatise, pp. 17–20.

^{page 217 note 2} Bultmann, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt and die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1910), especially pp. 64–74.Google Scholar Cf. also pp. 10–46 and 74–96. Often Paul's style follows that of oral dialogue; cf. ; and similar expressions, in Rom. 6.16; 1 Cor. 9.24; direct address introduced by such terms as , Rom. 2.1, 3; 9.20; or , I Cor. 15.36; replies and counterreplies, Rom. 3.1–9, 27–31; 1 Cor. 10.29; 15–35; Gal. 3.19; references to situations characteristic of the readers, 1 Cor. 7.18–19, 27; Rom. 14.6; and familiar catalogues of terms, Rom. 1.18ff. All these find parallels in other writers. Cf. Epictetus, Diss. I. 2.22; 4.16; 28.21; 29.2; II. 2.26; 16.27–8; III. 5.7; 22.21–2, 27–30; Seneca, de prov. 5.5; 6.7; de vit. beat. 9.1; 10.1–2; 16.112; Plutarch, de tranq. an. 467 D-F, 469 E; etc. Cf. also Rom. 4.1–3,9, 10:6.1–3, 15, 16, 21; 7.1, 7, 13;9.14–24, 30:11.1–4, 11, 13–16; 14.4, 10; 1 Cor. 1.13:3.1–5, 16; 4.7, 8, 21; 5.2, 6, 12; 6.1–9, 15–16, 19; 7.18, 21; 8.10; 9.1, 4–12; 10.16–22, 29, 30; 11.13–15, 22; 14.6–9, 16, 36; 2 Cor. 1.17; 11. 17–33; 12.17–19; 13.5; Gal. 3.1–5, 21; 4.21.

^{page 217 note 3} Hospers, J., An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London,² 1967), pp. 53–4.Google Scholar Hospers cites the examples of ‘cultured’ giving rise to ‘true culture is …'; or the unfavourable use of ‘bastard’.

^{page 218 note 1} On the connexion between Satan and society, cf. Ling, T., The Significance of Satan (S.P.C.K., London, 1961), especially pp. 81–92.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} Sources in Judaism are too numerous to cite. Cf. Moore's, G. F. comment in Judaism (3 vols., Harvard, 1927–30), vol. II, pp. 253–4Google Scholar: ‘That sufferings, borne as chastisements, are an atonement for sins is the common belief’. Cf. also Luke 16.25, and Klausner's, J. comments on suffering in The Messianic Idea in Israel (Eng., Allen & Unwin, London, 1956), pp. 441ff.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 2} cf., among other possibilities, Job 2.5, 6; Jub. 11.11, 12; 48.2, 3; 49; Test. Benj. 3.3; I QS. 4.14; C.D. 2.6; 4.13; and Rabbinic sources cited in Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Beck, Munich), I (1922), pp. 144–9Google Scholar and IV (1928), pp. 501–35. Cf. also J. Weiss, loc. cit., and Thackeray, H. St. John, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (Macmillan, London, 1900), p. 171.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 3} e.g. Luke 13.11, 16; 2 Cor. 12.7; and just possibly I Thess. 2.18.

^{page 220 note 1} See Berger, A., An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1953), pp. 352, 402, and 407Google Scholar; Greenidge, H. J., The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1901), pp. 376–80Google Scholar; Cohen, B., Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study (2 vols., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, 1966), pp. 374 and 742Google Scholar; Carcopino, J., Daily Life in Ancient Rome (Routledge, London, 1941), pp. 94ffGoogle Scholar; Davies, W. S., The Influence of Wealth in Imperial Rome (Macmillan, London, 1910), pp. 303–4Google Scholar; Barrow, R. H., Slavery in the Roman Empire (Methuen, London, 1928), pp. 151–6Google Scholar; and Sherwin-White, A. N.Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963), pp. 41–2 and 100–101. (Cf. also pp. 71–98).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 2} Sherwin-White, A. N. loc. cit., and in ‘The Trial of Christ’ in Historicity and Chronology in the N.T. (S.P.C.K. Theological Collections 6, London, 1965), pp. 106–10, especially p. 109. Cf. John 8.1–11 (the woman taken in adultery) and Acts 7.54–8 (the stoning of Stephen).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 3} C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 126.

^{page 220 note 4} See above, note 52.

^{page 221 note 1} cf. 2 Cor. 1.3–9; 4.7–14; 7–3; 12–9; a nd 13.4; and especially the discussions of these verses in Tannehill, R. C., Dying and Rising with Christ (Töpelmann, Berlin, 1967), pp. 84–100.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} See especially Schweizer, E., ‘Dying and Rising with Christ’ in New Testament Studies, XIV (1967–8), pp. 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bouttier, M., Christianity according to Paul (Eng., S.C.M., London, 1966)Google Scholar; and R. C. Tannehill, op. cit. This applies equally if Col. 1.24 is interpreted in terms of a ‘quota’ of suffering for the Messianic community; cf. Moule, C. F. D., The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 221 note 3} C. K. Barrett, loc. cit.

^{page 221 note 4} In addition to Blass-Debrunner and Moulton-Howard-Turner, cf. Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom-Book of N. T. Greek, pp. 142–3.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 5} J. C. Hurd, op. cit., p. 137. Cf. H. Conzelmann, op. cit., p. 270.

^{page 222 note 1} See the arguments of section III and IV and especially n. 35.

^{page 222 note 2} E. Käsemann, op. cit., pp. 66–81.

^{page 222 note 3} ibid., p. 73. 1 Cor. 3.17; 5.5; 14.38; and 16.22.

^{page 222 note 4} Austin, J. L., How to Do Things with Words (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1962), pp. 4ff, 88–90; 98–101; and 150–56.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 5} E. Käsemann, loc. cit., pp. 70 and 73.

^{page 222 note 6} ibid., p. 74.

^{page 222 note 7} cf. Moule, C. F. D., ‘The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments’ in Davies, W. D. and Daube, D. (eds.), The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 464ffGoogle Scholar; Weiss, J., Earliest Christianity, II (Harper, New York, 1959), especially p. 502Google Scholar; R. Bultmann, op. cit., pp. 274ff; and Jeremias, J., The Central Message of The New Testament (S.C.M., London, 1965), pp. 64ff. Cf., not least, E. Käsemann, op. cit., pp. 15, 108ff, and 168ff.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} See Schweitzer, A., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (Eng., Black, London, 1931)Google Scholar, especially chapters IV-VII. Cf. also M. Bouttier, op. cit., pp. 19ff.

^{page 223 note 2} E. Käsemann, op. cit., pp. 71–2.

^{page 223 note 3} ibid.

^{page 223 note 4} ibid.

^{page 223 note 5} See note 53.

^{page 223 note 6} Foerster, W. in Kittel, G. (ed.), Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, II, p. 80Google Scholar; cf. pp. 73–81. In addition to the sources alluded to in n. 53 above, cf. especially Zech. 3.1ff; Eth. Enoch 40.7; Jub. 1.20; 48.15, 18; I QS. 3.21ff, and 4.9–14. Even in Job, Satan makes his appearance in the first place as accuser, and inflicts physical suffering only within this framework.

^{page 224 note 1} J. Barr, op. cit., p. 218. Cf. also pp. 36ff, 70ff, and 217–19.

^{page 224 note 2} F. de Saussure, op. cit., pp. 79–100. Cf. Lyons, J., Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, pp. 45ffGoogle Scholar; Ullmann, S., The Principles of Semantics, pp. 36–9Google Scholar; and J. Barr, op. cit., pp. 36ff.

^{page 224 note 3} Matt. 4.10; John 8.44; 2 Cor. 2.11; 11.14; 2 Thess. 2.9; 1 John 3.8 and especially Rev. 12.9 and 10 (). Cf. Lee, J. Y., ‘Interpreting the Demonic Powers in Pauline Thought’ in Novum Testamentum, XII (1970), pp. 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 224 note 4} D. E. H. Whiteley, op. cit., p. 22 (my italics).

^{page 225 note 1} e.g. John 13.27ff and probably 1 Cor. 2.8.

^{page 225 note 2} See Menoud, P. H., ‘L'Écharde et l'Ange satanique’ in Studio Paulina: in Honorem J. de Zwaan (Bohn, Haarlem, 1953), pp. 163–71.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 3} cf. Schneider, J. in Kittel, G. (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, V, pp. 168–9.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} J. Héring, op. cit., p. 24; A. Robertson and A. Plummer, loc. cit.

^{page 226 note 2} C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 126. See above, especially the second part of section

^{page 226 note 3} See especially Ryle, Gilbert, The Concept of Mind (Hutchinson 1949, Peregrine Books ed., 1963), p. 24. Cf. pp. 20–4.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 4} E. Käsemann, op. cit., p. 71. Cf. also Grobel, K., ‘ as “Self”, “Person”, in the Septuagint’ in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (Töpelmann, Berlin, 1954), pp. 52–9.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 1} W. P. Alston, op. cit, pp. 84–96; M. Black, op. cit., pp. 134ff; J. Hospers, op. cit., pp. 67–76; F. Waisemann, op. cit., pp. 69ff and 176–90; L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, sections 68–71, 79, 83, 88, 168, 173–4; Ullmann, S., The Principles of Semantics pp. 92–6 and 117–25Google Scholar; and Quine, W. v. O., Word and Object (M.I.T.,² 1960), pp. 125–56.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 2} See the comments on Sellin by North, C. R., The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah (O.U.P., 1948), pp. 49–55 and 79–82Google Scholar: Sellin wrote ‘always in a tone of complete finality’ (p. 81).

^{page 227 note 3} cf. the surveys in Beasley-Murray, G. R., Jesus and the Future (Macmillan, London, 1954).Google Scholar