Τ---το.
τῶν ἑπτά, ἐμείναμεν παρ αὐτῷ. παρθένοι τέσσαρες προφητεύουσαι. ἡμέρας πλείους, κατῆλθέ τις ἀπὸ τῆς
might be truly said that every Apostle was an Evangelist, but that not every Evangelist was an Apostle. At the same time their work may well have been more restricted locally than that of the Apostles, cf. Theodoret on Ephes, iv. 11, and also Eusebius, Η.Ε., ii., 3, iii. 37, itinerant work of an Evangelist, ‘‘ Evangelist,” B.D.2. The title is not found in the Apostolic Fathers or in the Didaché, and the latter omission Harnack would ex- plain on the ground that the ‘ Apostles” in the Didaché were just Evangelists; but it would seem, if we admit the refer- ence to 2 Tim. iv. 5, that the title was already in general use, and that it was not limited to Apostles. the Evangelists those who transmitted orally the facts of our Lord’s life and teaching, before the existence of written Gospels; but however tempting this view may be, we can scarcely define the Evangelists’ work so precisely, and still less thus distinguish it from that of the Apostles; but see, however, as favouring Meyer’s view, ‘‘ Evangelist,” Hastings’ B.D. Ewald’s remarks on Philip as an Evangelist are still of interest, Die drei ersten Evangelien, i., 48 ff.; on the mistake which confused this Philip with Philip the Apostle, see Salmon, Introd., 313.— εἰς K.: on two occasions St. Paul had already visited Czsarea, ix. 30, xviii. 22, and he would probably have met Philip previously ; but we have no knowledge of any previous meeting between St. Luke and Philip. We can conceive something of the importance of such a meeting when we remember the advantage which the latter’s knowledge of the events in the early history of the Church would pos- sess for the future historian. Philip’s presence in Cesarea at once connects itself with the notice in viii. 40, and thus indicates a unity of authorship in the whole book.—évros ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά: the notice shows us how the early part of the book is taken for granted by the writer of the latter part (so Lightfoot and Salmon). This is surely more intelligible and satisfactory than to refer the words to the ‘‘ author to Theophilus,” or to regard it with Clemen as a later addition per- haps by his R., who already betrayed, xiv. 8, a knowledge of the sources of the first part of the book, or perhaps by R,J., who then connected Historia Petri