0' or the `saints
0' or the `brethren
0' or the `believers,
0' and the like. The biting gibes of the Antiochene populace which stung to the quick successive emperors - Hadrian, M. Aurelius, Severus, Julian - would be little disposed to spare the helpless adherents of this new `superstition.
0' Objection indeed has been taken to the Antiochene origin of the name on the ground that the termination is Roman, like Pompeianus, Caesarianus, and the like. But this termination, if it was Latin, was certainly Asiatic likewise, as appears from such words as 'Asianoj, baktria/oj, Sardianoj, Trallianoj, 'Areianoj, Menandrta/oj, Sabellianoj. The next occurrence of the word in a Christian document is on the occasion of St. Paul's apearance before Festus (a.d. 60). It is not however put in the mouth of a believer, but occurs in the scornful jest of Agrippa, `With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian
0' (Acts xxvi. 28). The third and last example occurs a few years later. In the first Epistle of St. Peter, presumably about a.d. 66 or 67, the Apostle writes `Let not any of you suffer as a murderer or a thief ...but if (he suffers) as a Christian, let him not be ashamed but glorify God
0' (iv. 15). Here again the term is not the Apostle's own, but represents the charge brought against the believers by their heathen accusers. In the New Testament there is no indication that the name was yet adopted by the disciples of Christ as their own. Thus Christian documents again confirm the statement of Tacitus that as early as the Neronian persecution this name prevailed, and the same origin also is indirectly suggested by those notices, which he directly states - not `qui sese appellabant Christianos
0' but `quos vulgus appellabat Christianos.
0' It was a gibe of the common people against `the brethren.
0'" Bp. Lightfoot Ap. Fathers, II. 1. 417.
502 Isaiah lxv. 15, 16, lxx.
503 Acts ii. 38. "Believe" substituted for "repent."
504 i.e. of Caesarea. The Cappadocian Caesarea originally called Mazaca is still Kasaria.
505 Heb. iv. 14. On the opinion of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews cf. note on page 37. The Alexandrian view is shewn to have affected the Eastern Church. For the reading "Jesus Christ" instead of Jesus the Son of God on which Theodoret's argument depends there is no manuscript authority.
506 Heb. ix, 24.
507 Heb. vi, 19, Heb. vi, 20.
508 Titus ii, 13. Cf. note on page 319 on the passage Ephes. v, 5. Here, however, the position of the article is in favour of the interpretation "Jesus Christ, the great God and our Saviour" which was generally adopted by the Greek orthodox Fathers in their controversy with the Arians and by the majority of ancient and modern commentators. But see Afford ad loc. for such arguments as may be adduced in favour of taking swthr as anarthrous like Qeoj.
509 I Thess. 1. 9, I Thess 1. 10.
510 I Thess. iii. 12, I Thess iii. 13.
511 II Thess. ii. 1.
512 II Thess. ii. 8.
513 Romans xiv. 10. Romans xiv. 16.
514 Matt. xxiv. 23 and Matt. xxiv. 27.
515 John i. 18. The "no man" of A. V. does not admit of Theodoret's argument.
516 Ex. xxxiii 20, lxx. oudeij oyetai.
517 II. Cor. v. 16.
518 I. Cor. v. 17.
519 II. Cor. v. 4.
520 I. Cor. xv. 53.
521 Phil iii. 20, Phil iii. 21.
522 Eph. i. 9, Eph i. 10.
523 Rom. xvi. 25, Rom xvi. 26, Rom xvi. 27.
524 Eph. iii. 20, Eph iii. 21.
525 Eph. iii. 14. A. V.
526 Eph. v. 20.
527 Phil. iv. 19.
528 Heb. xiii. 20, Heb. xiii. 21.
529 II. Tim. iv. 1.
530 I. Tim. vi. 13. I Tim. vi. 14. Tim. vi. 15. I Tim vi. 16.