l-O
! m
to
a bequest from tfye late
rofessm-
<5 f
A CRITICAL
INTRODUCTION TO THE
NEW TESTAMENT
BY
ARTHUR S. PEAKE
M.A., D.D.
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL EXEGESIS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
LONDON: DUCKWORTH & CO.
3 HENRIETTA ST., COVENT GARDEN
1909
ID
EMMANUEL
rights reserved
TO MY PUPILS
PAST AND PRESENT
I DEDICATE THIS VOLUME
IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF
NEVER-FAILING KINDNESS
AND GENEROUS CONSIDERATION
PREFACE
A FEW words are necessary to explain the scope and
excuse the limitations of the present volume. In
view of the restricted space at his disposal and the
variety and complexity of the problems, the author
decided to concentrate attention exclusively on the
critical questions. Hence there is no account of the
subject-matter of the books or outline of their con
tents, no biographies of the writers or histories of the
communities addressed. No notice has been taken of
historical problems except so far as their consideration
was involved in the critical discussion. Textual criti
cism and the history of the canon had obviously to
be excluded. But for this rigorous restriction the
volume would have largely lost such value as it may
possess. Even as it is, the author is well aware how
inadequate the treatment must often seem. He be
lieves, however, that there is room for a book of this
size and scope, and he has tried to use the space
allotted to him to the best advantage. He trusts it
may serve the purpose of many who have no leisure
to study a lengthier volume, and that others may find
it a useful preparation for the larger works of Jiilicher,
Zahn, or Moffatt.
Til
viii INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
At several points questions have not been raised,
or have been dismissed with a bare reference, simply
because no room could be found for an adequate dis
cussion. This was especially the case in the chapter
on the Synoptic Gospels. It is true that a topic of
such supreme importance as a comparison of Mark
with Q in the matter of historical value, which has
been forced into such prominence by Wellhausen,
would in any case have been excluded by the plan of
the book. But such questions as that of the strati
fication of Mark in the form given to it by Loisy and
Bacon among others, or of the treatment of Mark by
Matthew and Luke, and the principles on which their
use of it proceeded, or of the reconstruction of Q, it
was the author s wish to have examined at some
length. This would, however, have been done at the
expense of curtailing the more elementary parts of
the discussion, which he was unwilling to do in the
interests of the majority of his readers. A similar
excuse must be offered for the neglect of the ultra-
radical school of critics, whether as represented by
scholars like Steck, Loman, and Van Manen, or in the
modified form defended by Voelter. On the general
principles which underlie the criticism of this group,
the author may refer to what he said in his Inaugural
Lecture at the University of Manchester. The recent
work of Dr. R. Scott on the Pauline Epistles had also
to be regretfully passed by. Other shortcomings may
receive a partial explanation in the fact that not a little
PREFACE ix
of the volume had to be dictated in such intervals as
the author s state of health permitted.
The book is written from a scientific standpoint.
By this it is not intended that it is written with a bias
against tradition, but that it is written with a desire
to be loyal to the facts. The author is conscious of no
wish to be in the critical fashion or out of it. That
the great questions of faith cannot ultimately be
ignored hardly needs to be said, and he has not shrunk
from discussing them in their proper place. But it is
desirable that, so far as may be, the critical problems
should be detached from them. We may look forward
to the time when scholars will cease to label a criticism
they dislike as apologetic or unbelieving, and shall
also cease to deserve the affixing of such labels.
The author has finally to thank the Editor of the
London Quarterly Review for his cordial permission
to use an article on the Fourth Gospel contributed
by him to that periodical.
September 8, 1909.
CONTENTS
PAOE
vii
PREFACE,
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY,
CHAPTER II
THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS,
CHAPTER III
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, . 17
CHAPTER IV
THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS, .
CHAPTER V
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, . 39
CHAPTER VI
THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT, . . .45
CHAPTER VII
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, . . , 60
CHAPTER VIII
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 72
xii INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
CHAPTER IX
PAGE
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, . . . . .84
CHAPTER X
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER, . . 90
CHAPTER XI
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER AND THE EPISTLE OF JUDE, 96
CHAPTER XII
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, . 101
CHAPTER XIII
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, . . . 125
CHAPTER XIV
THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS, . . . 13g
CHAPTER XV
THE REVELATION OF JOHN, .... 152
CHAPTER XVI
THE EPISTLES OF JOHN, . 170
CHAPTER XVII
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, . 177
BIBLIOGRAPHY, . . . 229
INDEX, . . 237
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTOEY
FOR the sake of convenience it is customary to divide the
field of New Testament scholarship into various depart
ments in which the critical, historical, exegetical and
theological problems presented by the literature are
investigated. The division, however, must not blind us to
the unity of the field and the close interrelation of its
several parts. The conclusion we reach in one section
inevitably reacts on our study of another. It might seem
as if a passage bore the same interpretation whatever its
date and whoever its author. But this is by no means the
case, since the same expressions may mean different things
on different lips or when addressed to varying conditions.
The ultimate aim of the New Testament student is to
understand the religious and theological development which
is reflected in the documents. But to do this he must re
construct the movement of external events and within this
environment trace the career of the Founder and the
growth of the primitive Church. He must, in other words,
pursue the study of New Testament history. Then he
must minutely examine the documents in detail ; that is, he
must devote himself to the exegesis of the New Testament.
Moreover, he cannot master the various types of doctrine
within the literature without confronting the problems of
A
2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
authorship, nor can he trace the chronological development
of thought without settling the relative date of his docu
ments. These problems of date and authorship are the
special concern of New Testament Introduction. And just
as New Testament Theology depends for its results to no
little extent on the sister sciences, so it might be shown that
each of these is dependent upon the rest. Nevertheless,
while we cannot forget this fact of interdependence and the
necessity that all should move forward together, it is essen
tial that we should isolate each for special study, and in this
volume we are concerned with the problems of New Testa
ment criticism. This science is divided into general and
special introduction. The former of these embraces
Textual criticism and the history of the Canon, the
latter examines each book in turn with a view to the
determination of its authorship, its structure, its date, its
local destination and kindred problems. In the present
volume the limits of space compel us to restrict ourselves
to special introduction.
In its modern form this science was pre-eminently the
creation of F. C. Baur and the Tubingen school. 1 Not of
1 Baur published what proved to be the manifesto of the new critical
school in l&Sl. This was an article on the Christ-party in the Church of
Corinth. Hilgenfeld called it the ancestral stronghold of our whole criti
cism, a designation which drew from Meyer the tart reply that like many
another ancestral stronghold it was in ruins. The article was followed by
a book on the Pastoral Epistles in 1835 and by an Essay on the Epistle to the
Romans in 1836. It was not till 1845 that his great work on Paul appeared.
Of his other works we may mention simply that on the Gospels, and his
Church History of the First Three Centuries containing the final statement of
his critical reconstruction of the history. His most eminent followers were
Zeller and Schwegler (whose Post- Apostolic Age calls for special mention),
and at a somewhat later time Hilgenfeld, who in some respects retreated
from the master s position. Hilgenfeld was a voluminous writer : his views
on New Testament criticism mayT)e seen most conveniently in his New
Testament Introduction published in 1875, though he wrote much on later
developments in the interval of thirty years between its publication and his
death. Hxilsten was more faithful to the rigour of Baur s criticism, bnt his
most conspicuous service was rendered in the interpretation of the Pauline
theology. Pfleiderer also was much more successful in his treatment of
ideas than of critical problems, and he showed a singularly open mind to the
last, moving from his earlier positions alike in the philosophy of religion, in
criticism, and in the interpretation of the New Testament.
i.] INTRODUCTORY 3
course that several of the topics discussed in it had not
already been treated with skill and learning by earlier
scholars, but they had dealt with them rather as isolated
questions, whereas Baur and the brilliant band of scholars
he gathered about him dealt with them as a connected
whole, and also brought the literature into most intimate
relation to the whole development of the primitive Church.
In philosophy Baur was a Hegelian, and he reconstructed
the history of primitive Christianity in accordance with the
formula that thought moves through thesis and antithesis
to synthesis. In other words a position is laid down which
calls forth a contradiction. These are gradually drawn
together and at last merged in a higher unity. Applying
this formula to the history of primitive Christianity, Baur
conceived the whole development to exhibit the interplay
of two forces, Jewish Christianity on the one side and
Paulinism on the other, which ultimately, by the drawing
together of the opposing parties, were reconciled in the
Catholic Church of the second century, while the repre
sentatives of the original tendencies, the Ebionites on the
one hand and Marcion on the other, stood outside the
compromise and were consequently branded as heretics.
Naturally, however much this construction may have been
suggested by philosophical principles, it was not defended
simply as an intuition. Facts and divination were sup
posed to point in the same way, though divination guided
the search for facts. The Epistles to the Galatians and to
the Corinthians in particular were believed to exhibit a
sharp antagonism between the original apostles and Paul,
and this was found also in the Apocalypse in which the
apostle John was presumed to make a violent attack upon
the apostle to the Gentiles. The Clementine Homilies and
Recognitions were thought to prove the bitter hostility of
the primitive apostles to Paul, who was believed to be in
tended by Simon Magus, the opponent of Simon Peter.
The neglect of Paul during the greater part of the second
4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
century was imagined to point in the same direction and
be a survival of the Jewish Christian antagonism to him.
The New Testament documents had to be dated by the
consideration of the place they filled in the movement from
antagonism to unity. Earlier books showed the hostility
of the parties at its greatest, and the more conciliatory the
tendency they displayed the later it was necessary to place
them. Naturally this involved a very radical criticism of
the New Testament. Only five books were left by Baur to
the authors whose names they bear, namely : Galatians,
Corinthians and Romans i.-xiv. to Paul, and the Apocalypse
to the apostle John. Even within the school this revolu
tionary attitude provoked dissent, and in addition to Baur s
four Hilgenfeld recognised the genuineness of Rom.xv.,xvi.,
1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon. The most
serious blow was struck at the school by the publication in
1857 of the second edition of Ritschl s Entsteliung der
Altkatholischen Kirche ; and although it cannot be said that
New Testament criticism has returned to traditional views
there has been a retreat all along the line from the positions
defended by Baur. It will be instructive to linger a little
on the causes which led to the collapse of the Tubingen
theory. It was certainly a praiseworthy thing to recognise
that the origin of the Catholic Church was a problem which
had to be explained. It was also commendable to treat the
New Testament literature in close connexion with the
development of the Church and to overcome the isolation
which had characterised earlier criticism. Moreover, there
was a conflict in the early Church, and it was well to force
the fact into prominence. But the Tubingen reconstruc
tion was too much dominated by theory to which the facts
had to bend. While reasons were assigned for the positions
adopted, these were often of a flimsy character such as would
have influenced no one unless he had a theory to support.
It was also a radical vice of method that literary was too
much controlled by historical criticism.
i.] INTRODUCTORY 5
Apart from these general considerations, the theory has
broken down in detail and that at vital points. It is
not the fact that the most neutral documents were the
latest. Baur was forced to regard Mark as the latest
of the Synoptists, since it was the most colourless in
regard to the conflict which rent the early Church. One
of the surest and most generally accepted results of Synoptic
criticism is that Mark is the earliest Gospel. Similarly the
Gospel of Luke was regarded as a Catholicised version of the
Gospel of Marcion, but it is now universally recognised
that the latter was a mutilated edition of the former. The
Acts of the Apostles was supposed to be a history of the
Apostolic Age written from the Catholic standpoint, in
which the original bitter antagonism was suppressed and a
picture of almost unbroken harmony was substituted. It
is now generally agreed that the elaborate and ingenious
attempts to show that the writer instituted a far-reaching
parallelism between Peter and Paul in order to assimilate
them to each other, has broken down, and whatever the
tendency of the work may have been, it was not that which
Baur discovered in it. Among those who reject the apos
tolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel there is a very large
agreement that it should be dated roughly speaking half
a century earlier than the time to which Baur assigned it.
Further, it is clear from an impartial study of the
Pauline Epistles which Baur recognised as genuine that they
will not bear the weight which he put upon them. They
testify to a much closer agreement between Paul and the
pillar apostles (Gal. ii. 9) than Baur admitted. The
importance attached to the Clementine literature is now
seen to have been wholly exaggerated and Simon Magus is
usually regarded as a historical character, not as a mere
literary double of Paul, though it can hardly be doubted
that Paul is attacked in the guise of Simon. The character
of the post-apostolic period in which Baur placed so many
New Testament writings is, so far as we know it, thoroughly
6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
commonplace and destitute of originality, and it would be
surprising if the creative age of the Church produced so little
literature, while the period in which the initial impulse had
been largely exhausted should be so rich in pseudonymous
writings of the first rank. The fuller understanding of
Judaism has shown that it was far more complex than was
allowed for by Baur, and that the factors which went to
create both the New Testament literature and the Catholic
Church of the second century were much more numerous.
The neglect of Paul in the second century was due to no
antagonism to the apostle but simply to inability on the part
of Gentile Christians, who came to the Gospel with such
very different presuppositions and modes of thought, to
understand him. The controversy with the Jewish
Christians had long ceased to have any living interest for
the Church, and the declension from the evangelical position
of Paul to the moralism of the Apostolic Fathers was not the
triumph of Jewish legalism but only one example of the rule
that a great spiritual movement quickly sinks in the second
generation to the conventional level as the original enthusi
asm dies down. The Tubingen school also gave greater
prominence to Paul than to Jesus, as was not unnatural in
view of the fact that Jesus was less easily fitted into the
Tubingen formula and the Gospels were regarded rather as
landmarks in the controversy than as historical sources.
But no theory can be permanent which fails to see in
Jesus the most powerful factor in the creation and develop
ment of the early Church.
For a time it seemed as if the new theory would secure
ultimate victory. Several of the foremost New Testament
scholars, however, never accepted it, and in its main lines
it has been long ago abandoned. At the same time Baur s
work was epoch-making in that he largely set the problems
for New Testament science, and although his own solution
had a far narrower range than he imagined, it possessed an
element of truth, and it is not easy to overestimate the
i.] INTRODUCTORY 7
service of those who are the first to state the problems
which have to be investigated. Later developments have
shown a much closer approximation to traditional views of
authorship, though the extent of this return to tradition is
often exaggerated. It is most marked in the case of the
Pauline Epistles. With the wider knowledge of the
conditions it has become clear that Baur s criteria of date
and authorship were altogether too narrow and the possi
bilities of the first century much larger than he believed.
Within the limits of our space it is not desirable to pursue
the history further, since the detailed discussion of the
literature will bring the later developments before us. It
may be well, however, to mention here some of the criteria
for the solution of the critical problems presented by the
literature. We have to recognise first that the historical
books of the New Testament did not owe their origin simply
tqji^ scientific interest such as animates a modern historian.
It is probable that the purely historical interest of New
Testament writers is underrated by some scholars to-day,
but it is clear that it was no mere concern to reproduce the
past which impelled them to write. The present and the
future were for them the matters of most urgent concern.
We thus gain no little insight into the conditions with which
the authors were confronted even from the history of the
life of Christ or of the primitive Church. Points which they
selected for mention were often those which had the most
immediate bearing on contemporary conditions. Some
think that we have to do here not simply with selection but
also with creation ; for example, sayings were put in the
mouth of Jesus which were really the outcome of the
Church s later necessities. We may refuse to give anything
like the scope to this principle which it at times receives and
yet recognise that this motive determined the choice of many
incidents and sayings. Thus the address of Jesus to the
twelve or to the seventy as to the methods of their mission
supplied useful directions for the Church s later propa-
8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
ganda. The., necessity of making good the case for the
Gospel both against Jews and pagans has exercised con
siderable influence on the selection of material. The
relations of Christianity with the Roman Empire are re
flected not only in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles,
and the Apocalypse, but even in the Gospels. This
apologetic motive is of great value in determining date, but
certain cautions have to be borne in mind in applying it.
Our information as to external conditions is still far too
uncertain to supply us with a reliable series of objective
tests. Thus very varied opinions are still held as to the
period when Christianity was definitely recognised by the
State as an illicit religion. In apocalyptic writings we
have also to beware of seeking for historical allusions where
the author is simply employing very ancient eschatological
material.
In view of the strained expectation with which the
primitive Christians looked forward to the Second Coming
we cannot anticipate that a concern for narrating the
Gospel history would arise till a comparatively late period.
The need for preserving reminiscences of the ministry of
Jesus would not be felt till a considerable time had elapsed,
though in the Gentile mission the demand may well have
arisen earlier than we should anticipate, since there would
be very few who could give first-hand oral information.
It is very difficult to believe that a collection of Christ s
sayings was compiled during His lifetime, in view of the fact
that His disciples did not anticipate His speedy and tragic
removal. While the bridegroom was still with them they
lived in joyous freedom from anxiety as to the future, and
for many years after His departure from earth they looked
on their life as a purely provisional and interim condition
which might at any moment be brought to a splendid close.
The Epistles were naturally an earlier form of literature
than the Gospels, since they were elicited by the need of
dealing with immediate necessities.
i.] INTRODUCTORY 9
The best order to be pursued in the treatment of the
subject is not quite easy to determine. It is probably best
to begin with the Pauline Epistles, since it is desirable as far
as possible to start with the earliest literature which is also
contemporary with the events with which it deals. Simi
larly it is best to keep the Johannine literature together
and reserve it for the close. The remaining Epistles natu
rally follow the Pauline ; the Synoptists and Acts precede
the Johannine writings.
10 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
CHAPTER II
THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS
THERE is now a general consensus of critical opinion in
favour of the genuineness of 1 Thessalonians. The external
evidence is good. Irenaeus is the first to name it, and it is
quoted without question as Paul s from that tune onwards.
It is found in the Syriac and Old Latin versions and is
included among the Pauline Epistles in the Muratorian
Canon. It was also placed by Marcion in his Canon of
Christian writings which included a mutilated Gospel of
Luke and ten Pauline Epistles (the Pastoral Epistles being
excluded). The internal evidence is decisive. No one
writing in Paul s name after his death would have made
him anticipate that the Second Coming would take place
while he was still alive, since he would know that this
anticipation of survival till the Parousia had been belied
by the event. The difficulty created with reference to the
destiny of those members of the Church who had died before
the Second Coming points to a very early stage in the his
tory of the Thessalonian Church. The question must have
been obsolete long before Paul s death. Added to this we
can detect no adequate motive why the Epistle should
have been written in Paul s name. It serves no special
purpose for which we can naturally think of a writer as
invoking his authority. The organisation is in a rudi
mentary stage ; we meet with no technical titles for the
officials. The Epistle must have been written in Paul s
lifetime, and it may therefore be taken for granted that it
was written by Paul himself.
ii.] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 11
There are no arguments of weight on the other side,
unless we insist that the four practically unquestioned
Epistles must be taken as a standard to which everything
must conform. But there was no Judaising agitation in
Thessalonica, so that the relation of the Gospel to the Law
called for no discussion. Indeed it would have been
strange had such an agitation touched the Church so early.
It is not quite easy to harmonise the references in the
Epistle with the story related in the Acts, but they are not
contradictory, and even if they were this would be no
argument against the Epistle s genuineness. Several have
thought that ii. 16 implies that the destruction of Jerusalem
had already taken place. If this were correct it would be
simpler to consider this verse as an interpolation wholly or
in part. It is not clear, however, that there is a reference
to the destruction of Jerusalem even as anticipated, for
Paul saw a Divine judgment in the hardening of the Jews
against Christianity ; and if there were, such an anticipation
would not be surprising in one who was acquainted with
Christ s prediction and had such experience of the Jews
obstinate antagonism to the Gospel. There is accordingly
no need to detect a later hand in ii. 16, still less on this
slender basis to place the whole Epistle after A.D. 70.
The date and place of writing can be fixed within very
narrow limits. It is clear from a comparison of the Epistle
with the Acts that it was written shortly after the apostle
had left Thessalonica. He had reached Athens (iii. 1), had
sent Timothy back to Thessalonica from that city (iii. 2),
and had been rejoined by him (iii. 6), and this, as we learn
from Acts xviii. 5, was not at Athens but at Corinth. We
must assume, however, that an interval of several months
had elapsed between the apostle s departure from Thessa
lonica and the despatch of this letter. We must allow time
for Paul s journey to Athens and the subsequent arrival of
Silas and Timothy, for Paul s work in Athens and later in
Corinth, which had resulted in the establishment of Churches
12 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
in Achaia. The rhetorical statement that the news of the
Thessalonians acceptance of the Gospel had gone into
every place and the report of it had reached Paul must have
some specific reference, and may point to news Paul had
received from the Churches in Galatia, which may have
been occasioned by a letter sent to them by Timothy.
The deaths which had occurred in the numerically small
congregation also point in the same direction. We can
scarcely allow less than six months for the interval ; perhaps
it should be more.
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was of course
rejected by the Tubingen school, but unlike the First Epistle
it is still rejected by many scholars. The most obvious
ground of objection is that presented by the eschatological
section (ii. 1-12). It would be out of the question to rescue
the authenticity of the Epistle by sacrificing this section
as a later interpolation. The Epistle was written for the
sake of that paragraph; remove it and we cannot understand
what object could be served by the composition of the rest.
If ii. 1-12 is not the work of Paul the authenticity of the
whole must be surrendered. The author seems to contra
dict the view as to the Second Coming expressed in the
First Epistle. In 1 Thessalonians Paul appears to anticipate
that the Second Coming is imminent and will be sudden,
and expects that some at least of his readers and himself will
survive till it takes place. In the Second Epistle he tells
them that they must not be led to think that it is at hand,
especially mentioning that such an opinion might be
derived from a letter professing to come from himself.
A development of apostasy is first to take place, and the man
of lawlessness is to be revealed and then slain on the
appearance of Christ. The mention in ii. 2 of a letter which
might be circulated in Paul s name combined with the at
testation of authenticity at the close (iii. 17) has not
unnaturally raised the suspicion that the author wished to
ir.] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 13
substitute his own composition for 1 Thessalonians with
its uncongenial eschatology. This is supported by the
extraordinary similarity between the two Epistles. More
over, the circulation of a forged letter during Paul s lifetime
and while he was within easy reach is highly improbable.
A further contradiction with 1 Thessalonians is found in the
anticipation of suddenness in the earlier Epistle as con
trasted with the account given in the Second Epistle of
the events which were to lead up to it.
It is possible, however, to put the relations between the
two Epistles in a reasonable light without recourse to the
hypothesis of non-authenticity. While Paul in the First
Epistle anticipates that the Second Coming will take place
in his own lifetime, he does not intend to convey the opinion
that it will take place immediately. Some of the Thessa
lonians, however, probably through misunderstanding of
his language, imagined that the Second Advent was immin
ent. To correct the restlessness and disorder which ensued,
Paul wrote the Second Epistle to interpret the language
of the First, warning them against forgeries arid explaining
that the Parousia cannot be imminent inasmuch as a
certain development which still lies in the future is to
take place before it. Similarly he anticipates in 1 Cor. xv.
the return of Christ in his lifetime, but in Romans xi. 25,
26 he says that the Gospel will fulfil its function among the
Gentiles and all Israel will be saved before it takes place.
And while in the eschatological discourse in the Gospels
Christ emphasises the suddenness of the Second Coming, He
nevertheless points out several signs of the end. It is one
of our commonest experiences that a long-anticipated event
happens suddenly at the last. Besides, it is easy to
exaggerate here. It is upon the unwatchful that the Day
of the Lord steals as a thief in the night, not on the sons of
the light who are wakeful and sober (1 Thess. v. 2-6). And
while it is quite improbable that a forged letter had been
circulated at Thessalonica, one can easily see how Paul,
14 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [OH.
conscious that his earlier letter gave no real Justification for
the disorder in the Church, was driven to suspect that the
Thessalonians had been misled by a letter which had been
circulated falsely in his name. In fact the exhortation to
constant watchfulness in the First Epistle might well have
been interpreted as a call to forsake the homelier duties of
everyday life.
Apart from its supposed inconsistency with 1 Thessa
lonians, the section itself has naturally created difficulties.
The ideas have no parallel in the Pauline Epistles, and to
many they seem to bear the stamp of a later time. Thus
Hilgenfeld explained the mystery of lawlessness as Gnosti
cism, but there is no trace of Gnosticism in this Epistle.
Kern put forward the ingenious view that the Epistle was
composed between 68 and 70, when Nero was supposed
to be in hiding, restrained from entering on his career as
Antichrist by the circumstances of the time and especially
by Vespasian, who was at the time besieging Jerusalem.
The apostasy he took to be the outbreak of wickedness on
the part of the Jews during the siege. But this is open to
the serious objection that a spurious Epistle should be
accepted as genuine within so brief a period after Paul s
death. If to escape this difficulty it be placed in the first
decade of the second century, as by some scholars, then the
still more formidable objection arises that the writer refers
to the man of lawlessness as seated in the temple without
betraying any knowledge that the temple had been long
ago destroyed, to say nothing of the difficulty of suggesting
a plausible reason for the composition of the Epistle at that
date. As a matter of fact there is no difficulty in account-
ing for the anticipations expressed by Paul. Quite possibly,
as Bousset and others have argued, the writer is borrowing
from a very ancient Antichrist legend which would amply
account for the presence of those features in the description
which seem to some writers to demand a post- Pauline date.
But even if this were not the case, the conditions from the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes onwards would be quite
n.] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 15
adequate. The description can be readily understood from
the conditions of Paul s own age. It is probably a mistake
to look for the mystery of lawlessness or its personal in
carnation as springing out of Judaism, the antagonism to
the Gospel displayed by the Jews being quite inadequate
to account for the language Paul uses in this section. From
monotheists and legalists so fanatical he would expect no
such blasphemous outburst of antitheism and lawlessness.
It is to heathenism rather than to those who have a zeal
for God though not according to knowledge, that we must
look. There is nothing that so closely corresponds to Paul s
description as the deification of the Roman Emperors, which
ha^d gone to insane lengths with Caligula. Paul s language
especially reminds us of Caligula s orders to have his statue
placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The mystery of law
lessness was already at work in Paul s time, held in check for
a time by Claudius the reigning Emperor, but destined on
his removal to receive its final consummation in a monster
of impiety who would be slain by Christ at the Second
Coming. It was not unnatural that concurrently with this
there should be a great apostasy within the Christian
Church itself, such as is also predicted in the Gospels. It
is therefore quite unnecessary to descend below the reign of
Claudius for the date. Nor is there anything surprising in
its isolation in the Pauline Epistles. It is only by accident
that we hear of it at all. Paul merely repeats what he had
already told his readers, and does so simply to disabuse
them of anticipations which had a disastrous moral result.
Since the subject was one that touched the future of the
Roman Empire, he would shrink from committing his
views to writing which might get into the wrong hands.
He does so here only of necessity and in veiled words.
In the judgment of some scholars a still more serious
difficulty is created by the striking likeness of the Second
Epistle to the First. Hausrath in fact argued that the
only genuine part of the letter was the eschatological
passage. It is certainly strange that after the interval
16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
which separated the two Epistles Paul should repeat
himself to such a degree as he does in 2 Thessalonians.
To some extent we may account for this by the similarity
of the conditions, and especially by the probability that
Paul, in writing to correct a false opinion on a subject he
had already dealt with, would call to mind the conditions
in which his former letter had been written and what he had
said hi it. These considerations may perhaps not entirely
remove the difficulty. But the theory of spuriousness is
beset with difficulties greater still, for criticism has not
simply to raise objections to the traditional authorship but
to suggest a reason for the composition of a spurious letter.
Two such suggestions have been made. One is that it was
the author s intention to replace the First Epistle, whose
eschatology had been falsified, by the Second. The other
is that the Epistle was not designed to replace but to explain
the former in harmony with the writer s eschatological
views. Against the latter theory we must urge that a much
shorter letter would have been all that was necessary.
The former theory is not exposed to this weakness and
really accounts for the repetition of so much in the First
Epistle, but it is not easy to believe that a project of this
kind should be contemplated. How could a writer seri
ously hope, at the date to which the Epistle is assigned, to
foist a hitherto unheard-of composition upon the Church,
especially the Church at Thessalonica ? And this difficulty
shrinks into insignificance by the side of that attached to the
expectation that he would get the Church to put the First
Epistle hi the wastepaper basket and adopt the spurious
Epistle in its place. We should also have expected a later
writer to draw to some extent on other Pauline Epistles and
introduce some of the more distinctively Pauline expressions
and ideas in order to stamp it more directly as Paul s. It
seems, therefore, to be still the simplest view that the
Epistle is genuine. A brief period only separated it from
the First Epistle, and it also was written from Corinth.
in.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
CHAPTER III
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
IT is clear from the Epistle itself that the Churches addressed
were founded at the same time and had the same history
(iv. 13-15), so that we cannot identify them with a combina
tion of Churches founded on different occasions. The term
Galatia is used both in a wider and in a narrower sense.
The latter was the original sense, according to which the
term indicated a district where there had been a settlement
of Gauls who had invaded the country in the third century
B.C. It is in this region that, according to the majority of
scholars, the Churches addressed in this Epistle are to be
sought. For convenience of reference this view is now
commonly designated the North Galatian theory. But the
term, as is now universally admitted, was also used in the
wider sense of the Roman province of Galatia, which in
cluded not only Galatia proper, but also parts of Phrygia,
Lycaonia, and Pisidia. In this province Pisidian Antioch,
Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra were all included, so that it has
been held by scholars of the first rank, such as Renan,
Weizsacker, Hausrath, Pfleiderer and Zahn, that the
Epistles were addressed to these Churches, which had been
founded by Paul on his so-called First Missionary Journey.
This South Galatian theory has been energetically advo
cated by Ramsay with conspicuous ability, learning and
resourcefulness, and is now accepted by a large number of
scholars, though still rejected by Schurer, Chase, Wendt,
Schmiedel, Jiilicher, Steinmann and others. If it can be
substantiated we know something of the origin of these
B
18 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
Churches, and against this background the Epistle stands
out much more clearly. Since no Churches were founded in
North Galatia on this journey we must, for the reason
already given, refuse to seek the Churches both in North
Galatia and South Galatia.
While the term Galatia embraced in its official sense the
whole province, it does not follow that it might not also be
used in the more restricted sense. The official usage is
more probable for Paul, since his imperialist point of view
led him in other instances to prefer the official Roman
titles. Galatia bears this sense in 1 Peter i. 1. This makes
room for the South Galatian theory as a possibility, though
it does not decide in its favour. The proof of it is mainly
rested on the contention that Paul founded no Churches in
North Galatia. If he did, it was on the Second Missionary
Journey. Luke tells us that on this journey Paul and his
companions passed through the Phrygian and Galatian
country (T^V 3>pvyia.v KO.I FttAciTiKr/v xui/acu ), and it is in
this clause that we must find concealed the establish
ment of Christianity in North Galatia. It is so well con
cealed that no one would guess from it that Paul had
preached the Gospel there in consequence of illness and had
met with an enthusiastic reception from those who became
his converts. The silence of Acts is not conclusive, for Luke s
interest is concentrated on the advance towards Europe,
but it raises a prejudice at the outset against the North
Galatian theory, all the more that Luke gives such full
details of the mission elsewhere, Cyprus, South Galatia,
Macedonia, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, though it is slightly
discounted by his silence as to Paul s work in Syria and
Cilicia (Gal. i. 21).
The description of the journey in Acts xvi. 6-10 is also
quite unfavourable to the view that Paul preached in
North Galatia. The writer s main drift is plain : he wishes
to show how the plans of Paul were twice overruled by the
Spirit, that he might be forced to press on into Europe, not
in.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 19
turning aside on the one hand to Asia or on the other to
Bithynia. A detour into North Galatia does not fit this
general scheme. It is true that when he was forbidden to
preach in Asia he might have struck across North Galatia,
intending to reach the eastern side of Bithynia. But this
is exposed to great difficulties. The expression to go into
Bithynia meant to go to the western part of that province,
but on the North Galatian theory as usually formulated
a journey through North Galatia would lead to the eastern
part. It is unlikely that Paul would think of going to
Eastern Bithynia, for only one city in it would have been
likely to attract his attention, and even if he had, he would
not have been likely to go by land since the route was very
difficult. Moreover, we cannot account on this view for
the reference to Mysia. This route to Eastern Bithynia
would not bring them anywhere near Mysia, and the author
would have very carelessly omitted to say how they came
into the neighbourhood of Mysia.
Again we learn that an illness of Paul was the occasion
of his founding the Galatian Churches. The probability,
however, that he should have preached in North Galatia
in consequence of illness must be regarded as remote.
For either he was taken ill when passing through it to
another district, or he went there to regain his health.
Against the former it must be said that the road through
North Galatia led nowhere where he was likely to go,
against the latter that the climate was singularly unfitted
for an invalid. It is also unlikely that time can be allowed
on the Second Journey for the evangelisation of the places
in North Galatia, where Paul is usually supposed to have
planted Churches, especially when he was enfeebled and
hampered by illness.
The avoidance by Luke of the term Galatia in xvi. 6 is
also difficult to understand on the North Galatian theory,
since this would have been the natural as it is elsewhere the
invariable term. Luke, however, says Galatic territory,
20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
which suggests territory connected in some way with Gal-
atia in the strict sense, but not to be identified with it.
The whole expression the Phrygian and Galatian terri
tory Lightfoot believes to designate not two lands but one,
the Phrygo-Galatic territory as we should say. He
explains that North Galatia is so called because it had been
Phrygian, but on the conquest by the Gauls had become
Galatic. This bit of antiquarianism, however, would be
very surprising in itself, and it is exposed to the objection
that North Galatia probably did not retain the name
Phrygia so late as this period. Ramsay agrees that only
one land is intended, and that it is called Galatic because
it was a district connected with or included in Galatia, but
one which Luke did not choose to call Galatia, while
Phrygian fixes it down to the part of Galatia which
included Iconium and Antioch. It must be confessed,
however, that this is difficult to harmonise with the true
text of Acts xvi. 6, which is most naturally interpreted to
mean that they went through the district in question
because they had been prohibited from preaching in Asia,
and this part of their Journey seems to begin after the
South Galatian Churches have been left. Ramsay takes
the prohibition to be subsequent to their passage through
the district, which is not the more natural sense. Perhaps
we should adopt the view that the term is a general one
denoting the districts bordering on Galatia and Phrygia.
It is also possible, and on the North Galatian theory im
perative, to take Phrygia as a noun, in which case the route
lies first through Phrygia and then enters Galatia. But
this is not the probable meaning of the Greek; we should
have expected the article to have been repeated. In
xviii. 23, on the other hand, where the order of names is
reversed, we should probably take Phrygia as a noun
translating the Galatic territory and Phrygia. The fact
that on this journey Paul strengthened all the disciples,
suggests that the Galatic territory included the Churches in
in.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 21
South Galatia. Probably the expressions in xvi. 6 and
xviii. 23 are not to be treated as equivalent. It may be
added that J. Weiss thinks the reference to Galatic territory
in xvi. 6 to be so difficult for both views that he is tempted
to regard it as a gloss introduced from xviii. 23, or preferably
as due to an editorial mistake possibly resting on a confu
sion of Ancyra in Phrygia with the much better-known
Ancyra in Galatia.
Under pressure of the difficulties urged against the older
form of the North Galatian theory, several of its defenders
have recently modified it, and placed the Churches to which
the Epistle is addressed in the north-western part of
Galatia, bordering on Phrygia. This is a great improve
ment on the old theory inasmuch as it brings the district
in which Paul is supposed to have founded these Churches
much nearer to Mysia and West Bithynia and the time
required would be much shorter. There is a geographical
argument against this, however, though it tells much more
strongly against the older North Galatian theory. Accord
ing to Acts xviii. 23 these Churches were taken by Paul
on his road to Ephesus, and on either form of the North
Galatian view he would have been obliged to go out of his
way to visit them.
Against the South Galatian theory it is often urged as
conclusive that Paul could not have addressed his readers
by the term Galatians. This it is said bore the ethnical
significance of men who were Gau^ by descent and there
fore could have been addressed only to descendants of the
Gauls who had settled in North Galatia. It is, however,
easy to see how Paul might use the term in addressing
inhabitants of South Galatia. His preference for imperial
rather than native nomenclature led him naturally to
choose the imperial title, which was the more honourable
and also that most calculated to stimulate his readers to be
worthy of all which the name implied. But he was also
driven to it by the fact that no other form of address was
22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
suitable. The heterogeneous elements of which the South
Galatian Churches were composed would have required an
extremely cumbrous mode of address if the local designations
were to be used, and what would have been even more fatal
was the sinister meaning attached to the terms. To have
called them Phrygians would have been an insult. The name
had a suggestion of slavery and was a term of abuse. It is
also urged that if we identify the visit to Jerusalem described
in Galatians ii. 1-10 with that recorded in Acts xv., Paul s
language in Galatians i. 21 is strange on the South Galatian
theory. He says there, Then I came into the regions of
Syria and Cilicia, and it is argued that he could not very
well have omitted to mention that he had evangelised the
South Galatians themselves in that interval had he been
writing to the South Galatians. It is difficult to feel the
cogency of this argument. Paul is not giving an exhaustive
account of his labours in the interval between his visits to
Jerusalem, else Cyprus could not have been omitted, but
simply saying what he proceeded to do after the former visit.
Of course the difficulty falls away if the visit in Gal. ii. is
identified with an earlier visit than that recorded in Acts xv.
A further objection is that Paul could not have referred to
the Churches founded by himself and Barnabas as if they
had been founded by himself alone. This is a real difficulty.
But if, as is usually supposed, the letter was written after
the rupture between Paul and Barnabas and the division of
their sphere of labour and Paul had taken over the South
Galatian Churches, it is easy to see how he might feel the
exclusive responsibility for them. On the other hand, we
cannot attach such importance as some do to the support
given to the South Galatian theory by the reference to
Barnabas, who is also mentioned in 1 Cor. ix. 6, though
there is no reason to suppose that he had visited Corinth.
At the same time Paul s mode of reference inGalatians ii.13,
even Barnabas was carried away, gains more force if the
readers were personally acquainted with him.
in.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 23
The arguments which tell against the North Galatian
theory are so many arguments in favour of the South
Galatian, and in addition the following considerations may
be urged. The narrative of Paul s Second Missionary
Journey runs on quite smoothly and is free from the
geographical and chronological difficulties that beset the
other theory and have already been pointed out. Paul
follows a route which brings him through Asia over against
Mysia, near to Bithynia, in such a way that he can go
through or along the border of Mysia to Troas. And the
journey can be done in the time allowed for it by the
exigencies of chronology. The account of Paul s preaching
there in consequence of illness is explained by a conjecture
of Ramsay, that he caught a malarial fever in the enervat
ing climate of Pamphylia, which is most dangerous to
strangers, and on that account struck up into the high
lands of the interior, which would be most likely to restore
him to health. He accounts for Mark s refusal to accom
pany him as due to the fact that this going into the interior
was contrary to their original programme. This latter
suggestion is improbable, for it would argue a peculiar
baseness on the part of Mark to desert the apostle at this
juncture, and the phrase used in Acts xv. 38 that Mark
went not with them to the work suggests that the party
had left Parnphylia to prosecute a missionary campaign in
the interior. Moreover, a plausible case can be made out
for other forms of illness than malarial fever. The refer
ence to the case of Titus and the charge mentioned in the
Epistle to the Galatians that Paul had preached circum
cision are important. Timothy had been circumcised by
him in this very district, and he was a member of one of
these Churches. Such a case would give a handle to his
enemies, and it would appeal especially to those who had
known the circumstances of it. Lastly, there is the argu
ment derived from the reference to the collection in the
Pauline Churches for the saints at Jerusalem. This is
24 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
referred to in the Epistle to the Galatians (ii. 10), and in
1 Cor. xvi. 1 we learn that Paul had instructed the Galatians
to participate. From the indications in the Epistles we
gather that the Churches in Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia
contributed, and from Acts xx. 4 we find that represen
tatives of Asia also went up with Paul when he took the
offering, according to the principle laid down in 1 Cor. xvi.
3, 4. In other words the Pauline Churches generally seem
to have contributed. If, however, the Churches of Galatia
were churches in North Galatia, then the churches founded
on the First Missionary Journey in South Galatia would
have taken no part. This in itself is very improbable, but
the improbability is much heightened by the fact that,
according to Acts xx. 4, representatives from Derbe and
Lystra, i.e. from South Galatian Churches, did accompany
Paul, whereas no reference is made to representatives of
North Galatian Churches.
The Epistle has been assigned to the most various dates ;
some have made it the earliest and some one of the latest
of Paul s extant letters, and within these limits almost
every position has been claimed for it. The divergence
reflects the scarcity and ambiguity of the data for a
decision ; and unless we are tempted by ingenious but
unsubstantial combinations we must acquiesce in a rather
large measure of uncertainty. The Epistle was written
after the visit to Jerusalem recorded in the second chapter,
and at the time it was written Paul seems to have visited
the Churches twice (iv. 13). As to the former of these
points, great uncertainty hangs over the identification of
the visit. This belongs to History rather than to Criticism,
but it has a bearing on the date of the Epistle and must
therefore be briefly discussed. In the Epistle Paul mentions
the visits he made to Jerusalem, in order that he might
prove his independence of the early apostles. After his
return from Arabia and his departure from Damascus he
went to Jerusalem to see Peter and stayed with him
in.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 25
fifteen days. This would be the visit recorded in Acts
ix. 26-30, though it is difficult to harmonise the two
accounts. The second visit mentioned in Galatians is
that on which he went up by revelation to discuss with the
chief apostles the relation of the Gentile converts to the
Law. Modern critics almost unanimously identify this
visit with that in Acts xv. But Acts mentions another
visit of Paul and Barnabas (xi. 30) on which they brought
relief to the Christians at Jerusalem who were suffering
from the famine. It is mentioned in the briefest way, and
little importance seems to be attached to it by the writer.
The usual identification is thus exposed to a serious
difficulty. Paul is showing that he had no such contact
with the older apostles as to justify the opinion that he
owed anything to them. We should expect then that he
would scrupulously enumerate every visit to Jerusalem. If,
however, the view is right that the second visit mentioned
by Paul (Gal. ii.) corresponds to the third mentioned in
Acts (Acts xv.), then we have three possibilities. Either
Paul has omitted the famine visit as irrelevant to his
purpose, or we must regard that visit as one on which he
did not come in contact with the apostles, or there is some
mistake in the narrative in Acts. The second alternative
is not probable. It is true that the narrative does not say
that Paul came to Jerusalem on the famine visit or saw
any of the apostles. The relief was sent to the brethren in
Judaea and it was sent to the elders. Still, the head
quarters of the Churches in Judaea would be Jerusalem, and
that is where Paul and Barnabas would naturally go. Nor
is it clear that Peter was in prison or in hiding at the time,
for the persecution by Herod may not have been at this
time. Even apart from this, Paul could hardly afford to
neglect the visit ; he would have explained that though he
was in Judaea he saw none of the apostles. The third
alternative is adopted by some who think that the visit is
misplaced, or that Acts xi. 30 and Acts xv. really refer to
26 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
the same visit, that is, the visit recorded in Gal. ii. A
comparison of the account in Gal. ii. with that in Acts xv.
reveals some differences which are more or less capable of
reconciliation, but which must have their weight in de
termining the question. We need attach no importance to
the fact that Acts represents him as sent by the Church of
Antioch, while Paul says he went up by revelation. These
statements are not in conflict. Further, Paul relates a
private discussion, Luke a public debate. But the former
suggests (ii. 2) a tacit contrast between the private confer
ence in which he won the leaders over, and a meeting of the
whole Church. The most serious discrepancy exists be
tween Paul s statement that the older apostles added
nothing to him except that they should remember the
poor, and the statement of Luke that certain restrictions
were imposed on the Gentiles. It is also strange that Paul
does not mention these decrees if the Epistle went to
Churches in South Galatia, since we are told in Acts xvi. 4
that he communicated them to these Churches.
There is no conflict between the account in Acts xi. 30
and that in Gal. ii. But this may be due to the fact that
there is no contact between them. The account in Acts is
very brief, and if a mere private discussion had been in
question naturally Luke would not have mentioned it.
But we can see from Gal. ii. that this was by no means all
that occurred. The false brethren displayed much
activity, and attempts were made to force Titus to be
circumcised. It is also hard to see why Paul should not
have mentioned that a mam object of his journey was to
bring relief to the poor, especially as he would thus have
made it clear that his care for the poor was not first
prompted by the apostles at Jerusalem. It is questionable
if the famine visit, assuming it to be distinct from that in
Acts xv., can be placed so late as fourteen years (Gal. ii. 1)
after Paul s conversion. The latter objection tells against
the view put forward by J. V. Bartlet and others that the
in.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 27
visit recorded in Gal. ii. was earlier even than the famine
visit. This view is also exposed to the difficulty that it
postulates a journey to Jerusalem otherwise unknown to us,
though this is not insuperable. It escapes some of the
difficulties of the previous identification, and Paul s
omission of the famine visit is then quite intelligible, for
he did not need to continue the story of his relations with
the apostles after they had recognised his Gospel and
apostleship. It is not essential perhaps for our purpose to
make a definite decision between these possibilities. We
may leave the ground clear for a date before the Apostolic
Conference of Acts xv. if on other grounds such a date
should seem desirable.
A date so early seems at first sight to be definitely
excluded by the fact that Paul appears to have visited the
Galatian Churches twice. On the North Galatian theory
his second visit to Galatia occurred on the Third Missionary
Journey, on the South Galatian theory on the Second, in
both cases after the Apostolic Conference of Acts xv.
It is possible, however, to evade this conclusion if we
identify the second visit with that made by Paul on his
return journey through the South Galatian cities on the
occasion of his first mission to them. And if this be held
unsatisfactory it is possible to fall back on the view that
we must not interpret iv. 13 as necessarily implying two
visits.
It is held, however, by many that we are shut up to a
date subsequent to the Second Missionary Journey by the
stage of theological development reached in the Epistle.
Its affinities with the Epistle to the Romans written
towards the close of the Third Journey are striking, and it
is commonly thought to belong chronologically to the group
of which the other members are Romans and 1 and 2
Corinthians. In the Epistle to the Thessalonians, it is
said, we have a much more elementary stage of Paulinism
than in the great controversial group, and Galatians must
28 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
therefore be later than those Epistles. The present
writer can only repeat with the utmost emphasis his
conviction that the inference rests on a radical error. It
would argue an incredible inability on Paul s part to grasp
the logical implications of his own experience, of his work
among the Gentiles, of the battle for freedom he had
fought at Jerusalem and Antioch, to suppose that he had
but lately emerged into a clear realisation of the relations
between the Gospel and the Law. His incisive refuta
tion of Peter at Antioch contradicts such a fallacy, and
Paul s amazement at the sudden defection of the Galatians
would have but little warrant if he had preached nothing
but an immature Paulinism among them. Even before his
conversion we may well believe that he had seen what the
proclamation of a crucified Messiah implied for the religion
of the Law. And in his conversion his whole Gospel was
implicitly given. The idea that Paul must expound his
theology in every letter he wrote, even to Churches he had
himself founded and trained, under penalty of being
judged not yet to have grasped it, needs only to be stated
for its unreasonableness to be patent. If Romans and
Galatians have such points of similarity, that arises from the
kinship of the subject. But this kinship is not due to the
fact that Paul had only just thought out his principles
to meet the crisis in Galatia, and then Avith these upper
most in his mind expounded them hi the Epistle to the
Romans. They were his fundamental principles, and
therefore naturally the main theme of a letter to the
Church in the imperial city which had not learnt the
Gospel from his lips. But just because they constituted
his Gospel, when the blow was struck at its vitals, he
reiterated it to those who had already been taught it, no
doubt with fresh felicity of illustration and expression,
with appropriate ingenuity of appeal, but with no variation
from principles long clear to him as the sunlight. When
he dealt with the same theme, on which his mind had long
HI.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 29
been made up, he inevitably treated it on the familiar
lines, though an interval of many years might lie between
the various expositions of it.
If we accept the North Galatian theory we should pro
bably date the Epistle on the Third Missionary Journey.
If Paul was settled in any place at the time it is most
natural to think of the Epistle as written from Ephesus,
though too much stress must not be laid in this connexion
on so quickly of i. 6. In that case we should place it
before 1 Corinthians and infer from the reference in 1 Cor.
xvi. 1 that Paul s letter had won back the Churches to
their loyalty. It is, however, possible that it was written
after 2 Corinthians in Corinth. It is equally possible
that it was written while Paul was travelling, and this is
favoured by the absence of definite reference to the place
of writing, while the mention of all the brethren who are
with him (i. 2) may mean those who have accompanied
him on this tour. If, however, we adopt, as w r e probably ?
should, the South Galatian theory, it is more likely that ?
the Epistle was written before the Third Missionary
Journey. But this leaves us, as we have already seen,
with a wide range of possibilities. We should, however,
probably set aside on several grounds the view that it
is to be dated before the Second Missionary Journey. {
The Epistle apparently implies two visits, and this is more f
naturally interpreted of the visits on the First and Second
journey than of the visit and return visit on the First
Journey. Further, the balance of argument seems to be in
favour of the identification of Paul s visit to Jerusalem
described in Galatians ii. with that described in Acts xv.
It is, however, difficult to acquiesce in McGiffert s view
that the letter was written by Paul at Antioch on his
return from Jerusalem, since he went from Antioch to
Galatia, whereas the suggestion in the Epistle is that he
writes to them because he cannot come. What, however,
seems decisive is the complete ignoring of Barnabas Joint
30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
responsibility for the Church. This appears to point
conclusively to a date after their quarrel and the division
of their sphere of missionary labour. Accordingly we must
date the Epistle after Paul s second visit when he had
separated from Barnabas and had given a handle to his
unscrupulous enemies by the circumcision of Timothy.
It may of course be urged against this that if Paul had
seen the Churches after the conference at Jerusalem
described in the second chapter, he would have told them
when he was with them. But a similar difficulty attaches
to the autobiography in the first chapter. Moreover, it
is hardly probable that Paul would recount the secret
history of his conference with the leaders at Jerusalem ;
he does so in the letter only under pressure of extreme
provocation. It may then have been written during the
Second Missionary Journey or in the interval between this
and the next journey. Ramsay s view that it was written
at Antioch in this interval is exposed to a similar objection
as McGiffert s that it was written during the previous
stay at Antioch. To identify all the brethren who are
with me as the whole Church at Antioch would imply an
undue egotism on Paul s part ; the phrase rather suggests
his companions in travel. Ramsay s view is open to the
further objection that he identifies the visit in Galatians ii.
with the famine visit. It is surely probable that if the
letter was written after the deliberations recorded in Acts
xv., Paul would have made some reference to them in this
Epistle.
iv.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 31
CHAPTER IV
THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS
1 CORINTHIANS, which had been preceded by an earlier
letter (v. 9) now entirely or largely lost to us, was written
by Paul from Ephesus, apparently in the spring of the
year (A.D. 55) in which his work at Ephesus came to an
end. The Epistle was written partly in reply to a letter
from the Church at Corinth dealing with practical problems
on which the Church desired guidance, partly on the basis
of information as to abuses in the Church which had
reached the apostle through other channels. The genuine
ness of the Epistle has been almost universally admitted ;
it was regarded as axiomatic by the Tubingen school and
is accepted by all but the hyper-critics who deny the
authenticity of all the Pauline Epistles. It is definitely
attested by Clement of Rome before the close of the first
century A.D. It was almost certainly employed by
Ignatius and Polycarp, not improbably by Hernias. It
is needless to discuss the suggestions that the Epistle
contains portions of more than one letter. As an example
it may be mentioned that a discrepancy has been dis
covered between the attitude adopted by Paul in x. 1-22,
and that adopted by him in viii., x. 23-33. These sections
are supposed to belong to different letters, both earlier
than the bulk of 1 Corinthians. It is true that there is a
difference. But it points to no development in Paul s
views ; it rests on the fact that in viii. he discusses the
question of meats offered to idols from the standpoint of
32 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
the intellectuals at Corinth. He reaches the conclusion
that even if we grant that from such a nonentity as the
idol no moral defilement can come, we must not suffer
those who are not emancipated from the thraldom of
their old associations, because they cannot really be
damaged by the intrinsic mischief of the food, to be
spiritually ruined by violation of their conscience in
deference to our precept and example. In x. 1-22, however,
he states the question in his own way. Behind the
lifeless idol block there was the living demon, and those
who participated in the Idol sacrifices were in peril from
the demoniacal virus with which they were infected.
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is not so well
attested by external evidence as 1 Corinthians. It is very
strange that Clement of Rome seems to have been entirely
unacquainted with it, and to have made no reference to
it in the letter he wrote for the Church of Rome to the
Church of Corinth. Since his silence is not accounted for
by any unsuitability of content to his purpose, the probable
inference is that he did not know of it. The Epistle seems
to have come into general circulation less rapidly than
1 Corinthians. It was probably used by Polycarp shortly
afterwards and was taken by Marcion into his canon.
It is frequently quoted as Paul s by Irenaeus and later
writers and is included in the Muratorian Canon.
If, however, there had been no external attestation at all
in antiquity and the Epistle had been discovered in our own
day, its genuineness would be amply proved by its internal
characteristics. It is its own adequate attestation. The
complexity of relations between Paul and the Corinthian
Church, the note of reality which rings in every sentence,
the mighty personality which the letter reveals, are far
beyond the reach of the most skilful imitator. Besides,
we could not understand why so much labour should be
expended to create an intricate historical situation which
iv.] THE EPISTLES TO THE COEINTHIANS 33
could serve no purpose a later writer would have
had in view and be completely without interest for
second century readers. Nowhere is the hypothesis of
pseudonymity so grotesque as in the case of this Epistle,
nowhere is it so manifest a sign of complete critical in
competence.
But while the genuineness of the letter is beyond all
reasonable question, the critical problems it presents are
of the most complicated and difficult character. Partly
they are historical, concerned with the relations between
Paul and the Corinthian Church in the interval between the
two Epistles, partly they are critical. With the former
we have to do only so far as they affect our decision on the
latter. The circumstances which led to the writing of
2 Corinthians are indicated by Paul himself at the opening
of the letter and again in the seventh chapter. He had
sent a very severe letter to the Corinthian Church, written
with many tears out of much affliction and anguish of
heart. After he had despatched it he suffered an agony
of apprehension lest the severity of his tone might produce
a complete rupture between himself and the Corinthian
Church. His anxiety to meet Titus and learn the effect
of his letter was such that he could not avail himself of
the opportunity afforded him of preaching the Gospel
in Troas, but crossed into Macedonia where he met Titus
and learnt to his relief that the Corinthian Church had
now returned to its loyalty, at least so far as the majority
was concerned. An offender round whom the controversy
had gathered and whose punishment Paul had demanded,
had been punished by the majority. Paul regards the
punishment that had been inflicted as sufficient and now
requests the Church to forgive him.
It is natural that earlier scholars should have assumed
that the letter which Paul regretted to have sent was
1 Corinthians, though difficulties were felt in reconstruct
ing on this hypothesis the history in the interval. When
C
34 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
Paul sent the First Epistle he anticipated that his letter
would be followed by a visit from Timothy (iv. 17, xvi. 10).
When he writes the Second Epistle, however, he makes no
reference to Timothy s visit, although Timothy was with
him when he wrote, but says how intensely anxious he
was for the return of Titus. The discussion of this difficulty
and the numerous solutions which have been proposed
only concern us slightly here. For a good while now the
opinion has been very widely held that the letter which
caused Paul such anxiety cannot have been 1 Corinthians.
It is perfectly true that there were severe passages in the
letter, but its total impression, even if we suppose that these
.passages stood out in exaggerated prominence in Paul s
recollection, simply does not answer to Paul s description.
It is not comparable in the sharpness of its tone to the
i closing portion of 2 Corinthians itself, which for con
centrated and passionate invective has no parallel in the
Pauline Epistles. In the next place the reference to the
offender does not suit the incestuous person whose punish-
ment Paul had solemnly decreed in the First Epistle.
The father of the latter was presumably dead, but the
injured person of 2 Corinthians was still alive. Moreover,
if we identify the offender in the two Epistles, the grossness
of the offence seems to be passed over altogether too
lightly in the Second. Accordingly it is now held by a
large number of scholars that we must reject the identi-
! fication of the severe letter with 1 Corinthians and regard
it as a later letter. Whether we are to suppose that Paul
paid a visit to the Corinthian Church in the interval and
; was_deeply insulted by a ringleader of the opposition, or
, whether the severe letter was elicited by an unfavourable
report from Timothy, or whether the history should be
reconstructed in some other way is a question that lies
outside our discussion. The first view, it may simply be
said, seems to the present writer the most probable. It
is in any case likely that the offender of 2 Corinthians had
iv.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 35
grossly insulted Paul either in person or in the person of
his representative.
But if we have to surrender the identification of the
severe letter with 1 Corinthians the question arises whether
it has been completely lost. This view is adopted by many
modern critics including Holsten, Holtzmann, Jiilicher,
Sanday, Bousset, and Lietzmann. It was suggested by
Hausrath, however, and the suggestion has been very widely
adopted, that we are to find a large part of this letter in
the last four chapters of 2 Corinthians. A hypothesis of
this kind no doubt has strong prima facie evidence against
it. These chapters have come down to us as part of the
Epistle to which they are attached, and there is no external
evidence nor yet any indication in the history of the text
that they ever had any independent existence. Moreover,
it is said that these chapters do not answer to the de
scription of the letter which Paul himself gives. We have
no reference in these chapters to Paul s demand that the
offender should be punished, though this must have been
contained in the severe letter. It is also urged that
2 Corinthians xii. 16-18 is decisive against the hypothesis.
In that passage we have a reference to a visit of Titus and
work in the Church at Corinth accomplished previously
to the sending of the letter. Since Titus seems to have
been sent either with that letter or shortly before or after,
we cannot suppose that the severe letter could contain the
reference in xii. 16-18, and therefore must infer that these
chapters cannot be identified with the severe letter. It is
not easily conceivable, however, that Titus should have
been burdened with the duty of attending to the collection
at the very time when the Church was in open mutiny.
We must therefore suppose that this is a different visit.
The objection that there is no demand for the punishment
of the offender in 2 Cor. x.-xiii. is relevant only if we suppose
that no part of the severe letter has been lost. It is very
probable that if the two letters were accidentally united
36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
the end of one and the beginning of the other must have
been lost, otherwise it would have been obvious that they
were distinct. The difference in tone between the first
nine chapters and the concluding chapters, which makes
it psychologically inconceivable to many that they should
belong to the same letter, is accounted for either by the
view that here Paul addresses only the rebellious minority
but this is contradicted by various passages in these
chapters and Paul must have made the transition plain
or by the view that meanwhile unfavourable news had
come from Corinth, which is negatived not simply by the
misjudgment of the situation on the part of Titus which
this would involve, but by the absolute failure of any
indication of such news, or lastly by the supposition that
Paul himself ceased to dictate and began to write and was
carried away by the strength of his feelings, a supposition
which presumably does not arise from any experience of
dictated correspondence.
The present writer sees no escape from the con-
elusion that the closing chapters of 2 Corinthians
formed part of the severe letter. It is significant
that two lines of evidence should converge upon it.
On the one side we have the description of a letter in
the early chapters of 2 Corinthians which it seems impossible
to identify with our First Epistle ; and then as corroborat
ing this we have the surprising character of the last four
\ chapters of 2 Corinthians as part of the same letter which
we find in the first nine chapters. It is difficult to believe
) that the two sections of the Epistles hold together. If
2 Corinthians is a unity, we have the following state of
things : Paul sends a very stern letter to Corinth, and is
filled with regret for the writing of it, and apprehension as
to its reception. In the joyful reaction caused by the
igood news of Titus, he writes a letter overflowing with
affection at the beginning, and concluding with a sharpness
of invective to be paralleled nowhere else in his Epistles.
iv.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 37
If we identify these chapters with the letter which caused
him such pain to write and such anxiety when written,
we escape from the serious difficulty of supposing that
Paul concluded the letter, begun in the strain of for
give and forget, with so vehement a defence against his
antagonists. Was Paul the man, after the Church had
returned to its loyalty, and he had thanked God devoutly
for it, to open the old wound and pour forth on the heads
of his enemies vials of unrestrained indignation ? If,
when the Church was in arms against him, he doubted
whether he had made a mistake in sending one letter,
would he be likely, after the reconciliation, to send another
of the same character ? Indeed one may well ask what
must the letter have been which filled him with such
tormenting anxiety if, after the fright he had given himself,
he could calmly send the last portion of 2 Corinthians in
the serene confidence that this would seal anew the com
pact of peace between them? It is in itself conceivable if
the composition of the letter was spread over several days,
or even if an anxious sleepless night intervened between
the two parts of the letter, that Paul s sense of relief
may have been replaced by indignation as he brooded on
the unhappy past. Not only, however, is this highly
improbable, but it would be rather difficult to understand
why he should have allowed the first part of the letter
to stand and not substituted something more consonant
with his altered mood. We need not join with Paul s
Corinthian critics in conceiving him to be so flighty and
mercurial as that.
It is not improbable that we have another fragment from
Paul s correspondence with Corinth included in the Second
Epistle. It was long ago observed that vi. 14-vii. 1
interrupted the progress of thought and that vii. 2 con
nected admirably with vi. 13. Since Paul refers in
1 Cor. v. 9 to an earlier letter which he had written to
Corinth, and the subject matter of this intrusive paragraph
38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
in 2 Corinthians suits very well what we may infer the
lost letter to have been, it is not an unnatural hypothesis
that it originally formed part of it. We can hardly
suppose that any one would have deliberately inserted it
at this point, so that if this theory is correct we must
assume that it owes its present position to some accident,
such as has occasioned the combination of 2 Cor. x.-xiii.
with 2 Cor. i.-ix. If however, as many scholars think,
the passage may be accounted for in its present position,
we must reconcile ourselves to the view that the letter
which preceded 1 Corinthians has been lost. In any case
there is no valid ground for the supposition that 2 Cor.
vi. 14 - vii. 1 is spurious, though it is quite possible that the
closing words are not preserved for us in precisely the
form in which they left the hands of Paul. That some
things in the section cannot be matched elsewhere in the
Pauline Epistles is of course true, but of how many other
passages might not the same thing be said ?
v.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 39
CHAPTER V
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
THIS Epistle is attested not simply by patristic, but by
New Testament evidence. It was certainly used by the
author of 1 Peter and probably by the authors of James
and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Clement of Rome,
Ignatius and Polycarp draw freely upon it ; it was included
in the Canon of Marcion. Later evidence which is
abundant need not be quoted. Its genuineness is assured
by internal evidence, and by its intimate connexion with
the other Pauline literature. It was written apparently
at Corinth, a few months after 2 Cor. i.-ix., and its tone
testifies to the apostle s success in winning back the
allegiance of that community. One of the most important
of the seriously debated questions relates to the com
position of the Roman Church. The more usual view is
that the Church was in the main a Gentile Church with
Jewish elements. The other view held by Baur and many
more is that it was in the main Jewish Christian with
Gentile elements. In favour of the latter view it is said
that Paul refers to Abraham as our forefather, and in the
present chapter speaks of his readers as men that know
the law, and as having been made dead to the law through
the body of Christ. He also says we have been dis
charged from the law, having died to that wherein we were
holden. It is also thought that only in this way is it
possible to find a valid reason for the inclusion of the
chapters on Election, since the Gentiles would not feel so
40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
keenly as Jewish Christians the difficulty caused by the
Jewish rejection of the Gospel. But these arguments
are none of them strong and are amply met by the admission
that there was a Jewish Christian element in the Church,
and the probability that some of the Gentile Christians
had been proselytes before they became Christians.
Further, parallels for some of the passages supposed to
prove Jewish origin may be quoted from Epistles which
were certainly not written to Jews. Thus in 1 Cor. x. 1
Paul speaks of the Israelites in the wilderness as our
fathers. And the reference to the Roman Christians as
men who knew the law finds a parallel in the Epistle to
the Galatians where Paul presupposes a knowledge of the
law in the Galatian Christians who were Gentiles. The
same Epistle also furnishes a parallel to the statement that
his readers have died to the Law : cf . Gal. iv. 1-9 (esp. w. 5
and 7), Col. ii. 14. And the problem discussed in Rom.
ix.-xi. was not handled because it was one of special interest
to Jewish Christians. It was forced on the attention of all
who tried to construct a philosophy of history on Paul s
lines.
The positive proof of the predominantly Gentile
composition of the Church is very strong. There is first
the intrinsic improbability that Paul with his delicacy
about his apostleship as exclusively to Gentiles should have
sent an elaborate theological discussion to a Church mainly
composed of Jewish Christians at least without an explicit
defence of his action. Further, it is difficult to explain
away the definite language which seems to point to
Gentiles as his readers. He includes the recipients of the
letter among the Gentiles (i. 5, 6), wishes to have fruit in
them as in the rest of the Gentiles (i. 13), and gives as a
reason for his readiness to preach the Gospel at Rome
that he is a debtor to Greeks and barbarians. The life
of his readers before conversion had been one of lawlessness.
In xi. 13, 14 he calls his readers Gentiles and contrasts
v.j THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 41
the Jews with them. In xi. 25, addressing them by the
general term brethren, he proceeds in a way applicable
only to Gentiles. In xv. 15 also, if this is part of the
Epistle, he gives explicitly as his reason for writing that
he is an apostle of the Gentiles. We can hardly be wrong,
then, in the conclusion that the Church, while including
Jewish Christians, was in the main a Gentile Church.
That Paul should write a letter announcing his intended
visit is quite natural. Numerous attempts have been
made to explain why, in view of his intended visit, he
addressed to the Church this elaborate treatment of great
theological themes, this exposition of his Gospel. A
discussion of these is unfortunately precluded by the
necessary limits of this book.
The integrity of the Epistle has been much debated.
Leaving aside other questions as to its composition which
need not be discussed, the problem of the concluding
chapters has called forth several solutions. The con
sideration of the phenomena belongs partly to textual
criticism, but they must be briefly mentioned, (a) The
benediction is no doubt rightly placed in xvi. 20b, but
some manuscripts place it between v. 23 and v. 25, while
some place it at the end of v. 27. (b) In some manuscripts
the doxology w, 25-27 is placed at the end of chapter xiv.
(c) Marcion s copy of the Epistle apparently lacked chapters
xv. and xvi. Baur on grounds mainly of internal criticism
considered that these chapters were a spurious addition.
This view no longer finds acceptance and need not be
discussed. Renan made the ingenious suggestion that
the main part of the Epistle was sent to several Churches,
but with different endings in each case, i.-xi. with xv. to the
Romans, i.-xiv. with xvi. 1-20 to the Ephesians, i.-xiv. with
xvi. 21-24 to the Thessalonians, and i.-xiv. with xvi. 25-27
to an unknown Church. The Epistle came to its present
form through a combination of these separate endings.
Lightfoot thought that the Epistle was originally written
42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
to the Romans as we have it, but ended at xvi. 23, w.
21-23, however, being a postscript added by Paul s com
panions. Later Paul prepared the Epistle for wider
circulation by striking out the mention of Rom. i. 7 and
xv. and xvi., but added the doxology xvi. 25-27 at the
end of xiv. Later the doxology was transferred to the
close of the Epistle. It may be urged in favour of this
view that the MS. G omits in Rome both in i. 7 and in
i. 15. It is difficult to think that the omission can be
accidental in both cases, and this favours the view, not of
course as has been suggested that the Epistle was not sent
to Rome at all, but that copies had been prepared from
which the local designation had been eliminated. Renan s
theory accounts for the textual facts but is unnecessarily
complicated. Moreover, it is difficult to understand why
chapters xii. and xiii. should be regarded as not sent to
Rome, for which the latter in particular was exceptionally
well suited. Moreover, xv. cannot be separated from xiv.
Lightfoot s theory is less arbitrary, but it is difficult to
accept the view that any edition of the Epistle which
contained chapter xiv. did not also contain xv. 1-13, which
continues the discussion of the same subject. At the same
time the textual facts favour the view that abbreviated
copies of the Epistle were in circulation.
In holding that xvi. 1-20 went to Ephesus Renan was
only taking a view which, since it was first expressed by
Schulz in 1829, has met with very wide acceptance,
especially in recent times. How much of chapter xvi.
belongs to the letter to Ephesus is disputed, whether it
included xvi. 1, 2 or began with xvi. 3, whether it stopped
with v. 16 or v. 21. It is considered very improbable that
Paul should have known so many persons in a Church
which he had not visited, whereas in a Church in which
he had for a long time laboured these greetings would
be quite natural. The reference to Prisca and Aquila
points to Ephesus. It is true that they had been con-
v.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 43
nected with a Church in Rome at an earlier date, but they
were in Ephesus a little while before this Epistle was
written (Acts xviii. 18, 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19) and later (2
Tim. iv. 19). It is improbable that they should have been
in Rome again in the interval. The list itself is thought
in some respects to suit Asia better than Rome, especially
the reference to Epaenetus. Further, the warning in 17-20
is surprising in a letter written to a Church which was not
personally known to Paul and in which he had no authority.
It is difficult to evade these arguments, and yet there are
weighty considerations on the other side. It is probable
enough that many of Paul s friends would be in Rome,
the capital of the Empire to which all roads led, especially
as the early Christians belonged to the social stratum in
which a wandering life would be very common. In the
next place it may fairly be argued that this long list of
names is less surprising in a letter to the Roman Church
than in a letter to such a Church as Ephesus. Paul s
method elsewhere is very instructive. There are no
salutations of individuals in either of the letters to Corinth,
in that to the Galatians, the Philippians ortheThessalonians.
Where a salutation is given it is of a collective character.
Prisca and Aquila and the house of Onesiphorus are saluted
in 2 Timothy, Philemon himself in the letter addressed
to him. In Colossians, however, we have a considerable
number of salutations, though in this case they are sent
simply by individuals to the collective community. It is
therefore very significant that in the letters addressed by
Paul to Churches where he had laboured no individual
salutations are included, whereas a whole series of individ
uals either sends or receives greetings in the two Epistles
sent to Churches where Paul had not laboured. If then
we are to judge by Paul s habit, the number of names
saluted points to Rome more strongly than to Ephesus.
Paul naturally made the most of every personal link with
the Church he was about to visit, and on which for its high
44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
importance he desired to bring all his influence to bear.
The combination of names, so far as the inscriptional
evidence goes, favours Rome rather than anywhere else.
In particular, the reference to those of the household of
Aristobulus and the household of Narcissus points very
strongly to Rome, both Narcissus and Aristobulus being
friends of the Emperor Claudius. In spite of the very
large acceptance which the hypothesis that the greetings
were sent to Ephesus has received, it is still rejected by
several of the most eminent scholars, including Harnack,
Zahn, Sanday and Headlam, Denney, Ramsay and
Lietzmann. If the textual difficulties connected with the
last two chapters were relieved by the theory it would be
an additional argument in its favour, but that is not the
case. The only argument which causes the present
writer to hesitate is the difficulty of supposing Prisca
and Aquila to have been in Rome when the letter was
sent. But this is outweighed by the difficulty of accounting
for the presence of this letter or fragment of a letter
addressed to Ephesus in an Epistle to the Romans. The
burden of proof lies on those who would dislodge it from
its present position, and the attempt to do so can hardly
be said to have succeeded.
vi.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 45
CHAPTER VI
THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT
THIS group of Epistles includes those to the Ephesians,
Colossians and Philemon, and that to the Philippians.
The first question to be considered is the place of Philip
pians in the group. It is usually considered to be the
latest, though Bleek in Germany, and Lightfoot followed
by several scholars in England, have regarded it as the
earliest. The main argument is the doctrinal similarity
of Philippians and Romans, while it is said the other
Epistles of this group present no such marked resemblance
to Romans. From this it is inferred that Philippians
stands next to Romans in point of time. The argument
has been turned by others against the genuineness of
Colossians and Ephesians. Thus Pfleiderer, arguing on
the hypothesis that if all are genuine Philippians is the
latest, urges that the absence from Philippians of the
features specially characteristic of Colossians and Ephes
ians simply proves that the latter cannot be authentic.
This objection is conclusively met if the order advocated
by Lightfoot is the true one. But neither Lightfoot s
nor Pfleiderer s conclusion is necessary. Within the
Pauline literature itself analogies can be found to support
the common view. It is probable that Galatians is earlier
than Corinthians and Romans, though here again, on the
ground of doctrinal and phraseological similarity, Lightfoot
placed Galatians between Corinthians and Romans. If
in spite of this similarity, the Epistles to the Corinthians
46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
are interpolated between Galatians and Romans, there
is no reason why Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon
should not be placed between Romans and Philippians.
So, too, we have the best of reasons for believing that
Paul s theological system was formed before any of our
Epistles were written, yet those to the Thessalonians do
not exhibit the peculiarly Pauline stamp. We cannot
therefore defend the priority of Philippians on this ground.
It is also argued that if Philippians had been written
later than Colossians, we should have expected to find
traces of the polemic against the Colossian heresy and
of that side of truth by which Paul had met it. But
this does not follow. Ephesians, written at the same time,
and presenting many points of contact with Colossians,
does not refer to the heresy, or expound the cosmic
significance of the Person of Christ. Nor would Paul
feel it necessary in a letter to the Philippians to deal
with a heresy which had not touched their Church. In
fact the letter as originally planned, would probably have
been without the polemic against the Judaizers in chapter
iii. This is Lightfoot s opinion, and if correct we should
have had an Epistle written after the worst of the struggle
with the Judaizers was over, but with little or no reference
to it. Again it is urged that we must put Colossians and
Ephesians as late as possible, because the Church seems to
be in a more advanced state. The false doctrine in
Colossians and the emphasis on the Church in Ephesians
bring these Epistles close to the Pastorals, with their
references to heresies and developed ecclesiastical
organisation. But against this we must set the fact that
matters do not move at the same rate everywhere, and
in the time of Ignatius and Polycarp they seem to have
advanced more rapidly in Ephesus and that district than
in Philippi. Besides a year at most can lie between the
letters, an utterly negligible interval in this connexion.
Further, Philippians was intended mainly as a letter of
vi.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 47
thanks for the kindness of the Church, and warning
against dissension and ambition. In such an Epistle
indications of the stage of development will not be present
to anything like the same extent. Against the parallels
between Romans and Philippians we may set striking
parallels between Romans and Colossians. In favour j
of the later date of Philippians it may be said that Paul s
anticipations of a speedy decision on his case are rather
more definite in Philippians and less optimistic. The
Philippians had had time to have heard of the illness of
Epaphroditus, and to have sent to Paul the expression
of their anxiety. Not much stress, however, can be laid
on this, as no very long time was needed for the journey
between Rome and Philippi. The order generally adopted
seems to be most probable, and Philippians should be
dated last of this group.
The Epistles to Philemon, the Colossians and
the Ephesians
It is not necessary to discuss the authenticity of the
Epistle to PJiilemOTi, for although this has been disputed
it is now amply recognised on all hands. It was included
in the Canon of Marc ion and the Muratorian Canon, and
the absence of reference to it by many early Christian
writers is fully accounted for by its untheological character.
The_internal evidence is decisive. No one could have
imitated Paul in so inimitable a way, nor could any plau
sible reason be assigned for its composition in Paul s
name. It can hardly be doubted that its genuineness
would not have been disputed had it not been for its
connexion with the Epistle to the Colossians. Instead, ,
however, of using the spuriousness of Colossians to dis- ,
credit Philemon, we should regard the unquestionable .
genuineness of Philemon as a guarantee for the authenticity /
of Colossians. The two letters were written at the same
48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
time and sent by the same messenger. Usually it is
thought that the letters were sent from Rome. Since Paul
was a prisoner at the time, the only reasonable alternatives
are Rome or Caesarea. It is practically certain that
Philippians was written at Rome. This is suggested by
the reference to the praetorian guard and the Christians in
Caesar s household, and also by the fact that Paul antici
pates that his case will soon be settled. This he could
not have done at Caesarea since he appealed to Caesar and
therefore knew that he must be sent to Rome. Now if
we could make Philippians the earliest of the imprisonment
Epistles, this would carry with it the inference that Philemon
and Colossians must have been written at Rome rather
than Caesarea. Since, however, we have accepted the
reverse order, we cannot use the place of Philippians to
determine that of the other Epistles. Nevertheless they
were probably written from Rome. We cannot infer
from the difference between these Epistles and Philippians
that they must be more widely separated in time than the
hypothesis of Roman origin for all of them will permit.
Nor does the argument that Paul speaks in Philippians
of going to Macedonia on his release, but in Philemon of
visiting Colossae, prove that the letters cannot have been
written from the same place. Paul s plans altered with
the circumstances, as his correspondence with Corinth
illustrates, and why should he not have visited one Church
on his way to the other ? Caesarea was a most unlikely
place for a runaway slave from Colossae to visit. It is
far more probable that Onesimus should have tried to
lose himself in Rome, which though farther away, was
more easily reached. Moreover, Philemon could as little
as Philippians have been written in the later part of
Paul s captivity at Caesarea, since the expectation of
release expressed in both is incompatible with his appeal
to Caesar. But neither does it suit the early part of his
captivity there, for that he should delay his long-projected
vi.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 49
visit to Rome in order to visit the Churches on the Lycus
is highly improbable, especially in view of the foreboding
expressed in Acts xx. 25. And how are we to understand
Paul s silence about Philip, who had shortly before
entertained him, and his failure to enumerate him among
the few Jewish Christians who were his fellow-workers ?
We may then confidently suppose that none of the Epistles
of this group was sent from Caesarea.
Although the authenticity of Colossiaris 1 has been
doubted not simply by the Tubingen school but by several
other critics, it is now accepted by the majority even of
radical critics, though still rejected by some, for example
Schmiedel. It was included in the Canon of Marcion,
and it is mentioned by name in the Muratorian Canon and
by Irenaeus. It is not improbable that it was employed
by Justin Martyr and Theophilus, possibly also by some
of the Apostolic Fathers. It is no deficiency in external
evidence but the internal characteristics of the Epistle
which have caused its genuineness to be assailed. The
absence of the more conspicuous phrases of Paulinism
and the retirement into the background of the chief
Pauline ideas has been alleged as an objection, though it
is clear that when the controversy which gave them
prominence had passed away, they would be likely to lose
such prominence, nor is it reasonable to insist that Paul
must have written all his letters on the same model as
those of the second group. It has also been objected that
the conception of the Person of Christ is not Pauline,
for while Paul viewed Christ as the Redeemer, Colossians
places Him in a transcendental relation to the universe,
of which He is represented not simply as the Creator
but the goal. But this doctrine is to be found in 1 Cor.
viii. 6, xv. 24-28 in an undeveloped though essentially
identical form, nor can the high doctrine of the Person
1 For a fuller discussion of the critical problems of Colossians the writer
may refer to his commentary in the Expositor s Greek Testament, vol. iii.
D
50 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
of Christ constitute an objection for any who accept the
Epistle to the Philippians. The emphasis placed on the
cosmical significance of the Person of Christ is accounted
for by the fact that this was the best defence against the
false doctrine which Paul was attacking. Nor can there
be any valid objection drawn from the mention of the
hierarchies of angels, since if such were recognised by the
false teachers it would have been unwise for Paul to have
omitted to speak of them. Moreover, there are references
in the undoubted Epistles, which harmonise well with
what is said of angels in Colossians.
It is, however, the very fact that this heresy is
attacked which has been urged with greatest force
against the Pauline authorship. It is asserted that this
heresy belongs to the post-apostolic period. But it
may be said in reply that the type of heresy is rudi
mentary, such as may well have originated at Colossae
by a fusion of Christianity with some one or more of
the prevalent speculative systems. And no weight can
be attached to the mere argument that this heresy
existed in the post- apostolic period. Even if this could
be proved, more would be required to invalidate the
authenticity of the Epistle. It would have to be shown
that the heresy really originated later than the time of
Paul. But we have no evidence for this, and there are
strong probabilities, quite apart from this Epistle, that
the contrary is really the case. It is not second-century
Gnosticism which is attacked, probably it is not Gnosticism
at all. The differences of style between this Epistle and
those of the preceding group have also been urged against
its genuineness. There are such differences. The style
of Colossians is slow and laboured, without the swift and
rushing movement of the earlier polemical Epistles,
differing from them also in its form of argument and its
choice of logical particles. Synonyms are accumulated
and clauses built up by curious combinations of words.
vi.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 51
There is a fondness for long compound words, many of
which occur nowhere else in Paul, many but seldom. A
large proportion is to be found in the second chapter,
where the peculiarity of the subject matter largely accounts
for the peculiarity of the diction. Here again it is legiti
mate to fall back on the difference in the circumstances
both of Paul and his readers, and the difference in Paul s
own state of mind. The four great Epistles are scarcely
normal, they are written rapidly while the controversy is
at its height, and Paul feels that he is fighting for the very
existence of the Gospel. This letter is written in the calm
of enforced retirement, and if it is controversial, the kind
of controversy required is different.
The points of contact with the Epistle to the Ephesians
have also been regarded as suspicious. But this would
not, in the ordinary course of things, condemn both
Epistles as spurious, but only the one which displayed
the secondary form, since the fact that the original was
imitated in a letter put forward as Paul s would go to
prove that this original was really his. But the relation
between the two Epistles is more peculiar. It is not the
case that one exhibits throughout the more primitive
form. Sometimes Colossians seems to do so, sometimes
Ephesians. Holtzmann was led to this result through a
very detailed and elaborate investigation. To account
for this he put forward the following theory. A letter was
written by Paul to the Colossians, and this letter is
embedded in our Epistle. On the basis of this letter a
later writer composed our Epistle to the Ephesians. He
was unwilling that Paul s original letter should lose the
benefit of this, so he interpolated into it passages from
the Epistle to the Ephesians and also passages directed
against Gnosticism, and thus produced our Epistle to the
Colossians.
By this hypothesis Holtzmann accounted for the pheno
menon referred to that now one and now the other Epistle
52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
presented the original form. The complexity of the
hypothesis tells fatally against it. It is almost incredible
that any writer should set to work on this method.
Assuming that he had a much shorter Colossians before
him, we could understand his attempt to construct a new
Epistle on the basis of it, though it would not be easy to
explain why he did not draw also on the other Pauline
Epistles. But that he should return to give the original
epistle the benefit of his own contributions to Ephesians
is hardly to be credited. What practical purpose could
be served by this expansion ? He had already secured
by the composition of Ephesians the publication of these
thoughts. And what a hazardous enterprise to substitute
the new Colossians for the epistle which was well known
to the Church at Colossae ! And why not have said all he
wanted to say in one letter, our Ephesians expanded by
attacks on the false teachers ? Moreover, there is no
trace in the textual history of the process through which
Holtzmann imagines that the literature has gone. His
theory was very carefully examined by Von Soden, who
showed that many of the passages condemned by Holtzmann
as interpolations were not at all inconsistent with a Pauline
authorship. He also showed that Holtzmann s recon
struction of the original Epistle was open to serious objec
tions. He himself rejected the following only : i. 15-20,
ii. 10, 15, 18b. But at a later time he accepted the
genuineness of the Epistle almost as it stands, though he
has recently returned to his rejection of i. 15-20. The
genuineness of Colossians has important consequences for
Ephesians, since if Holtzmann is right in asserting that
several parallel passages do not depend on Colossians,
we are shut up to the view that both Epistles came from
the same hand, and that the hand of Paul. In such a
case we can hardly speak of secondary or derived passages,
as we should if two authors were concerned. But in any
case we may feel some confidence that the authenticity of
vi.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 53
Colossians will come to be accepted in the near future by
general consent.
The authenticity of the Epistle to the Ephesiajas has been
much more widely denied than that of the sister Epistle,
and is still rejected by many eminent critics. The external
evidence is good. It was probably used by Ignatius and
Polycarp and the author of the Shepherd of Hernias,
though this of course would be consistent with a date
at the beginning of the second century. It was included
by Marcion in his collection, and is mentioned in the
Muratorian Canon. It is quoted as Paul s by Irenaeus
and later writers. Moreover, it is likely that it was em
ployed by the author of 1 Peter, which is probably the
genuine work of that writer. In that case our Epistle
must be genuine. If 1 Peter belongs to the reign of
Domitian or Trajan, or if the literary relation between the
two Epistles should be reversed, we cannot argue so con
fidently from their connexion to the genuineness of the
Epistle.
If genuine, it can hardly be doubted that the Epistle
was nqt^ sent to Ephesus, at any rate exclusively. It
would be incredible th~at in a letter to a Church where he
had laboured so long and to which he was bound by such
ties of affection, Paul should abstain from personal greeting
or reminiscences of his work in Ephesus and should give
no sign of intimate personal relations with his readers.
It would be still more strange that he should speak as in
iii. 2-4 as if their knowledge of his ministry was only by
hearsay, and his own knowledge of their faith was of a
similar character (i. 15). In fact if we had to believe that
the letter if Pauline must have been sent to Ephesus, this
would strongly reinforce the already serious arguments
against its authenticity. This, however, is not the case.
It is true that the title to the Ephesians was given to
the Epistle quite early, and that tradition regarded it as
addressed to that Church. But Marcion spoke of it as
54 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
the Epistle to the Laodiceans, which may of course have
been a critical deduction from the reference in Col. iv. 16
to the Epistle from Laodicea, but may point to acquaintance
with a copy of the Epistle bearing that title. If the words
in Ephesus in i. 1 are original, we should be obliged to
accept the traditional theoiy of the destination. They
are omitted, however, by our two best manuscripts N and B,
and struck out by the corrector of 67, who has preserved
many old readings. They were not read by Origen, and
Basil says that all the old copies did not contain them.
Tertullian charges Marcion with falsifying the title ; it is
therefore clear that he did not himself read in Ephesus
in the text or he would have appealed to this. On the other
hand, it may be urged that it is in all other MSS. and
Versions and supported by the majority of the Fathers.
The omission of the words also creates a serious difficulty.
On the usual theory that the letter was addressed to several
Churches which harmonises well with its general character
and the double title, it is frequently assumed that a blank
was left in the copies to be filled with the name of the
Church to which any copy was delivered. It is in that
case remarkable that the oldest authorities mention no
place at all. We should have expected various readings
but not complete omission. It is nevertheless not easy
to believe that the original text was identical with the
usual text save for the omission of in Ephesus. The
best translation of such a text would be to the saints who
are also believing (or faithful) in Christ Jesus. But this
implies that there might be saints who were not believers.
P. Ewald suggests that there may be an error in the
text, due to wearing of the papyrus at the corner. He
reads TOIS dyan-^Tots for TO?S dyt ois rots, to those who
are beloved and believing. The hypothesis of a circular
letter best accounts for its general character, for the
absence of personal salutations and the discussion of local
problems. If so. it may be identical with the letter from
vi.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPBISONMENT 55
Laodicea (Col. iv. 16), though this is uncertain. It is on -
the whole probable that Ephesus was included among
the Churches to which it was addressed. This would best ,
account for the fact that it passed into circulation as an
Epistle to the Ephesians.
But while the hypothesis of a circular letter escapes
some of the objections to the authenticity, several still
remain. The most serious is that based on the_ style.
The sentences are long, cumbrous and involved to a degree
unparalleled elsewhere in Paul. The collocation of words
and clauses creates innumerable ambiguities, which
involve the exegesis of the Epistle in constant uncertainty.
The ideas are also thought to be in some instances un-
Pauline. Redemption is assigned to Christ rather than
to God ; reconciliation is explained as uniting Jew and
Gentile, not God and man. The Second Coming is no
longer expected in the near future ; on the contrary, Paul
speaks of the ages which are to come. The conception
of the Church has advanced in a Catholic direction.
Montanist tendencies were at one time discovered in it,
and though these can no longer be taken seriously, several
consider that there are references to Gnosticism.
Difficulty is occasioned by the association of the other
apostles with Paul in the revelation of the calling of the
Gentiles and particularly in the objective reference to
the holy apostles and prophets (iii. 5 and 6). Finally,
the relations with Colossians have much more frequently
been urged against the genuineness of this than of the
companion Epistle from the time when De Wette stig
matised it as a diffuse expansion of Colossians which had
lost its unity through the omission of the polemic against
the false teachers.
The weightiest objection is the un-Pauline character of ;
the style. It is true that the force of this argument is
broken for all who accept the genuineness of Colossians by T
the similar phenomena which constitute a link between -
56 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
this and the other letters. We must also allow for the
influence of enforced inactivity, but though these con
siderations mitigate the difficulty, they cannot be said
entirely to remove it. There is no necessary antagonism
between the ascription of redemption to Christ and its
ascription to God. Similar statements in other connexions
may be quoted from the undoubted Epistles. Thus in
Rom. xi. 36 all things are through God, in 1 Cor. viii. 6
all are through Christ. Reconciliation between Jew and
Gentile does not exclude reconciliation to God, which in
fact is expressed in ii. 16. The ages to come may very
well be considered as following the Parousia rather than
as preceding it. We have no ground for the assumption
that the conception of the Catholic Church must have
been later than Paul, indeed it is quite in a line both with
his thought and action. His attempt to keep the Churches
together expressed in the collection for the saints at
Jerusalem, his feeling that local idiosyncrasies must be
curbed by the general practice of the Church (1 Cor. xiv.
33, 36), his imperialist instincts which had controlled his
missionary activity and which were nowhere so likely
to find expression as in Rome, all urged him in this
direction. Nor was the idea wholly a new one. Gal. i. 13,
1 Cor. x. 32, xii. 28 speak of the Church apparently in the
universal and not in the local sense. Paul was strongly
impressed with the importance of unity, and would check
a spirit of exclusiveness whether it came from Gentile or
from Jew.
, As to traces of Gnosticism it may be said, that if
they are not present in the Epistle to the Colossians, we
need not look for them here, but if they are to be found
in this Epistle, this no more proves its spuriousness than
it does that of Colossians. It is certainly remarkable that
Paul should associate the other apostles with himself as
recipients of the revelation that the Gentiles were fellow-
heirs with the Jews. Yet he certainly associated them
vi.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 57
with himself in the general Gospel that he preached
(1 Cor. xv. 11). He had won them to his side in his
conflict for the Gentiles ; the case of Cornelius might seem
to warrant the strict accuracy of the statement. It is no
doubt difficult to believe that Paul could have spoken of
the_holy_ apostles, which sounds like the reverential
designation of a later writer, especially as he included
himself among them. We must remember, however,
that the term does not carry with it the associations of
our English word, it is not a claim to saintliness so much
as a recognition of dedication. We might of course
regard the adjective as a later addition, though we should
have expected it to have been inserted in other places as
well. The relationship to Colossians, as already pointed
out, when considered in the light of Holtzmann s investiga
tion, tells rather in favour of than against the authenticity
of the Epistle. The explicit and repeated claims to
Pauline authorship must be seriously respected, and
cannot be set aside except for grave reasons. It is true
that a measure of doubt hangs over the Epistle, yet there
is much to be said on the other side. It is more probable
that so great an Epistle expressing in many respects
Paul s mind so well should be attributed to him rather
than to another. The case for its spuriousness has not
been made out, and till that is done it is safer to accept
its genuineness.
The Epistle to the Philippia/ns
This Epistle is so generally recognised as authentic,
even by radical critics, that little need be said about it.
It was, of course, rejected by Baur and the earlier members
of the Tubingen school with the exception of Hilgenfeld,
who has been followed by most recent critics, apart from
Holsten and one or two others. Baur objected to it on
various grounds, all of which were frivolous. The mention
58 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
of bishops and deacons pointed to a post-Pauline stage of
ecclesiastical organisation, there was no originality in the
letter, it showed traces of something like Gnosticism,
and the doctine of justification was not that of Paul.
Clement is identified with the Roman Clement, the disciple
of Peter, and thus the Epistle shows the union of the
Pauline and Petrine parties which were supposed to be
typified by the two women whom Paul exhorts to be of
the same mind in the Lord. That the Epistle, however,
did not suit the conciliatory function thus ascribed to it
by Baur, is shown clearly enough by the strong attack
on the Judaizers in ch. iii. Nor could the numerous
personal notices be readily accommodated to the idea of
a tendency writing.
Holsten thinks the Epistle was written soon after
Paul s death. His argument against the genuineness
rests largely on the divergence between its doctrine
and that of Paul, which he thinks he has discovered.
But there is no discrepancy between the claim to have been
blameless in (outward) fulfilment of the Law s command
(iii. 6) and the confession of failure to attain inward
conformity to the Law which we find in Rom. vii. Nor
does Paul acquiesce in preaching (i. 15-18) which had in
Galatians drawn down his solemn anathema. It is no
doubt true that the Christology is more developed than
in the four great Epistles, yet it is not in conflict with them,
and does not go beyond what they imply. It may be
gravely doubted whether Paul would have recognised the
doctrine of Christ as the heavenly man, which is con
stantly imputed to him, but if he had, he might still have
spoken of the Incarnation as in ii. 5-8. Nor is there any
disagreement between the doctrine of justification as
exhibited here and as shown in the four great Epistles.
As for the style, that again has little weight, unless the
Epistles of the second group are made a standard to which
all Epistles of the apostle in order to be counted genuine
vi.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 59
must conform. And with what hope of success could
the writer attempt to palm off a spurious letter on the
Philippian Church, soon after Paul s death ? The external
evidence is good. It was apparently used by Ignatius
and is referred to by Polycarp. It was in Marcion s
Canon, and is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon. It
is quoted in the letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne,
and from Irenaeus onwards it is regularly quoted as Paul s.
Few things in modern criticism are better assured than
the authenticity of this Epistle, and it may be accepted
without any misgiving.
60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
CHAPTER VII
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES
UNDER this title are included the two Epistles to Timothy
and the Epistle to Titus. These Epistles are rejected
by critics more universally than any other of the Pauline
Epistles, and many would regard their spuriousness as
placed beyond question. This decision is not reached
on the external evidence, which is perhaps as early in
attestation as can be reasonably expected. They are
included in the Muratorian Canon, and quoted by Irenaeus
and later writers as Paul s. Their existence in some
form early in the second century is attested by quotations
in Polycarp. On the other hand, Marcion did not admit
them to his Canon. This has been attributed to dislike
of their contents, and it can hardly be denied that he could
not have accepted the condemnation of asceticism and
docetism which they contain or the estimate placed on
the Jewish Scriptures. But similar contradictions of
Marcion s doctrine are to be found in Epistles which
he accepted, and it is not easy to see why he should have
hesitated in this case any more than in others to assume
that the original writing had been falsified by interpola
tions and include them in an expurgated form in his
Canon. We are therefore not at liberty to brush aside
his dissent as based on dogmatic rather than historical
grounds ; one to whom Paul s lightest genuine word was
so precious must, if he knew the letters, even though
letters to individuals not to Churches, have weighed their
viz.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 61
genuineness and found it wanting, not wholly one may
believe on subjective grounds. But the internal evidence
is regarded as decisive. And this has been felt so strongly
that they have been condemned as spurious, not simply
by the Tubingen school and practically all advanced
critics, but by critics who may be commonly reckoned on
the conservative side. Schleiermacher and even Neander
rejected 1 Timothy. Meyer, Beyschlag and Sabatier
rejected all three. Even those scholars who accept their
authenticity as Godet, Hort, Sanday, admit that the
objections are real.
The first objection which may be taken is that the
Epistles cannot be assigned to. any period of the apostle s
life_ otherwise known to us. It is now generally agreed,
though a few scholars still maintain the contrary, that
the attempts to place them in the period covered by
the Acts of the Apostles have not succeeded, and that
if they are genuine, they must be dated after Paul had
been released from the imprisonment recorded in Acts.
This resolves itself into the question whether Paul was
released. If he was not released the Epistles as they
stand cannot be genuine ; if he was they need not be.
A famous passage in Clement of Rome (chap, v.) has been
interpreted as favouring the view that Paul visited Spain.
This would involve his release from imprisonment, as he
certainly had not been to Spain before it. But it is
questionable if Clement s language means this. For
while the phrase having come to the bound of the West
strongly suggests Spain rather than Rome when taken by
itself, this is neutralised by the words which follow, and
having witnessed before the rulers, he departed thus
from the world, which evidently refer to the Roman
imprisonment, and therefore fix the bound of the West
as Rome rather than Spain. Further, Clement seems to
date Paul s death before the Neronian persecution, for
he says that a great multitude was gathered to Peter
62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [cu.
and Paul, referring to the martyrs who suffered under
Nero.
It has also been urged that if Paul was not released the
Book of Acts ends very strangely. But to this it may
be replied that if he was released, it ends more strangely
still. A leading feature in the Acts is the way in which
the author constantly brings out the favour shown by the
Roman governors and officials towards Christianity.
If he had been able to end his work with the statement
that Paul s trial before the Roman Emperor had issued
in his triumphant acquittal, the apology for Christianity
to the Roman Empire would have received a splendid
climax. Nor is this met by the argument that in any case
Paul was finally condemned by the Emperor. For the
answer to this was that in Nero s better days he had been
acquitted, and condemned only in the later period of
misgovernment. The fact that this climax is not found
is in itself almost decisive against the hypothesis of release.
This is confirmed by the prediction of Paul in his address
to the elders at Miletus, that they should see his face no
more. For, while Paul may have uttered a foreboding
which was falsified by the events, and was in fact later
contradicted by him in his expectation of release from
imprisonment, we have to remember that Luke not only
includes it in his account of the speech, but pointedly
calls attention to it, with no hint that they did see him
again after all. Nor is it probable that we can account
for Luke s stopping where he does on the hypothesis that
he intended to add a third book to his history, giving a
narrative of Paul s trial and release and subsequent career.
He can hardly have broken off in the middle of the story
of the imprisonment. On the other hand, assuming that
Paul was not released, the author has closed the story in
the most skilful manner, emphasising that for two full
years Paul was in his own hired lodging, receiving all
who came to him, preaching the Kingdom of God and
vii.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 63
teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ
with all freedom without any hindrance. This conclusion
leaves the reader with the impression that while a prisoner
in Rome, under the eye of the Imperial government itself,
Paul was allowed the utmost possible liberty in preaching
the Gospel, and had to submit to no interference from the
authorities. A plea for toleration could scarcely be more
happily conceived. It has been argued that according
to Roman Law at the time Paul must have been released.
But Paul was probably not put to death as a Christian,
but as a disturber of the peace. However innocent he
might be, the fact that his presence had caused numerous
disturbances in various parts of the Empire, would at any
time have been held sufficient reason for his execution.
Perhaps we might adduce the Pastoral Epistles them
selves as evidence for his release. If they are genuine Paul
must have been released, if spurious the author or authors
by placing them outside the period covered by the Acts
testified to a belief that Paul s life did not end with the
imprisonment then recorded. But stress cannot be laid
on this, for writers of spurious literature did not as a rule
trouble themselves too minutely about considerations of
this kind.
Difficulties are also alleged as to the personal and other
details mentioned in the Epistles. That Timothy is still
spoken of as young is not unnatural in the mouth of Paul,
considering the relations which had subsisted between them.
What is strange, however, is that Paul after leaving
Timothy and Titus should have felt it necessary to write
these elaborate instructions to them, which might just as
well have been given while he was with them. It may
be said that the letters would be valuable for purposes of
reference, and that Paul knowing the failings of Timothy
would feel that a letter such as 1 Timothy would be useful
to him in enforcing discipline, since he could, if necessary,
show it to any who might be disposed to question his
64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
action. This may pass as an explanation, though it
can hardly be called satisfactory, and this objection
must be left to weigh against the genuineness. It also
seems strange that in a letter to Timothy, his chosen helper,
who had been with him so long, Paul should need to
assure him in such strong language as is used, that he was
a preacher and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles
(1 Tim. ii. 7 ; cf . 2 Tim. i. 11). It is urged on the other
hand that Paul was writing to the Churches indirectly,
and that this might be meant for them. This possibly
.mitigates the difficulty, it certainly does not remove it,
and it also must stand as a real objection. We need
attach no importance to the mention of kings in the
plural (1 Tim. ii. 2) as if the author must have had the
system of joint emperorship in view. The precept to
pray for them is quite general, therefore there is no need
to relegate the Epistle to a date later than 137.
Nor is it necessary to accept Baur s assertion that in
the phrase antitheses of knowledge falsely so called
(1 vi. 20) the term antitheses is taken from the title of
Marcion s treatise, and knowledge falsely so called from
Hegesippus. It is probable that the latter phrase was not
used by Hegesippus at all, but is simply due to Eusebius
himself (cf. Eus., H.E. iii. 32 with iv. 22). Even if it were,
this proves nothing, for it is mere assumption to say that
a Jewish Christian like Hegesippus would not have quoted
a work attributed to Paul. If, as several scholars still
think, the former phrase really refers to Marcion s
Antitheses, the lateness of the Epistle would not be proved.
The Pastoral Epistles as a whole seem to have been known
to Polycarp, they must therefore have been composed
early in the second century at the latest. The reference
to Marcion s work would therefore have to be treated as
a later interpolation, along with several other passages,
which in Harnack s judgment, as in that of some other
scholars, reflect the condition of things in the middle of
vii.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 65
the second century. But the reference to Marcion is by
no means certain. More suspicious is the apparent
quotation of a saying of Jesus as Scripture (1 Tim. v. 18).
But this may be explained by the fact that a quotation
from Deuteronomy immediately follows the reference to
Scripture, so that this reference may not be intended to
cover the saying of Jesus. The objection that the injunc
tion to make no new converts bishops implies that a
considerable interval had elapsed since the foundation of
the Churches referred to, while true in itself is not serious,
for these Churches had been founded long enough to warrant
this.
One of the most serious difficulties is that caused by the
stage of ecclesiastical organisation which seems to have been
reached. It is not clear that in the case of Paul a belief
in the speedy Second Coming of Christ would be incompat
ible with attention to details of organisation. There are, in
fact, indications to the contrary in his undisputed letters.
Paul united in himself the fervent anticipations of the
early Christians generally with a cool practical common
sense which made him act as if the Second Coming might
be for a long time delayed. As to the actual details of
organisation, it is important to observe that presbyters
and bishops are not distinguished from each other, as in
the congregational episcopacy so fervently championed
by Ignatius. We have only two orders and not, as in the
second century, three. The position of Timothy and
Titus does not correspond to that of the bishop of a later
time. They are rather Paul s representatives, legates
entrusted with temporary missions. What does strike us
as strange is that so much stress is laid on the organisation
and on the ecclesiastical appointment, so little on the gifts
which members of the Church could exercise independently
of official position. This is explained partly by the
hypothesis that the spiritual gifts were dying out, partly
by the fact that Paul wished to prepare the Church to
E
66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
meet the loss caused by his own death and that of the other
leaders. It is questionable, however, whether these
explanations are satisfactory. It is not certain that the
gifts were dying out, nor is it easy to understand why Paul
should not have felt it necessary to give these instructions
at a somewhat earlier period when his life was imperilled,
yet we do not find them in earlier Epistles. The strength
of the argument against the genuineness lies here, as in
some other cases, not in the details, where the edge of
criticism may be turned, but in the general improbability
that Paul should have had such a situation to deal with as
is presupposed, and have dealt with it in this way. It is
not quite like him to be so preoccupied with the details
of organisation. On the other hand it is not at all im
possible. Granted that the gifts were dying out, his
practical instinct would lead him to provide an organisation
to take their place.
Another difficulty is raised by the references to the
false teachers. It is generally assumed by those who deny
the authenticity that the heresy attacked was some form
of second century Gnosticism. This requires the proof
of two propositions, that the false teaching is Gnostic
in its character and that, if so, it could not have been in
existence so early as the lifetime of Paul. It must be
remembered that similar allegations have been made with
reference to the Colossian heresy, but probably erroneously.
In determining the character of the heresy we must dis
tinguish between the descriptions given of false teaching
already present and of that which is predicted, only the
former being strictly relevant to the question of date,
though the germs of future developments will no doubt
be present (1 Tim. iv. 1-3, 2 Tim. iii. 1-5). Further, when
individuals are singled out it cannot be assumed that they
represent the general direction which the false teaching
took (2 Tim. ii. 17 sq.). And we must not identify non-
Christian teachers with heretical Christians (Titus i. 15, 16).
vii.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 67
The heresy was clearly Judaic in type, but not Pharisaic.
It reminds us rather of that attacked in the Epistle to the
Colossians. This of course does not exclude the possibility
that Jewish were associated with heathen or Gnostic
elements. Hort has examined the nature of the heresy in
his Judaistic Christianity, and reached the conclusion that
there is a total want of evidence for anything pointing
to even rudimentary Gnosticism or Essenism. The
genealogies he explains not as the strings of emanations,
such as we find in Gnostic writers, but as the legendary
histories of the patriarchs, especially such as we find in
the Book of Jubilees. The term was used in this sense.
The phrase antitheses of knowledge falsely so called
he says cannot refer to Marcion s work Antitheses. Know
ledge he explains as the technical term for the body of
law based on the decisions of the rabbis, and the
antitheses as the endless contrasts of decisions founded
on endless distinctions which played so large a part in
the casuistry of the scribes as interpreters of the Law.
If he is right in this there is no need on the ground of the
heresy attacked to bring the Epistles below the date of
Paul. At the same time there is the difficulty that Paul
should have felt it necessary to warn trusted disciples and
representatives such as Timothy and Titus against embrac
ing these opinions.
Another series of objections is drawn from the theo
logical character of the Epistles which is said to be at
variance with the theology of Paul, or to have lost its
distinctive features, to be moralistic in tone rather than
evangelical. Perhaps the most significant and character
istic peculiarity is the use of the word faith. In these
Epistles the term is almost used in the sense of orthodoxy,
or even of the actual contents of the wholesome doctrine,
whereas with Paul faith has a very different sense. It
is true that in Rom. xii. 6 the objective sense of the word
faith is supposed to be present, but even if so it is
68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
questionable whether a single instance matches at all the
very definite sense the term has in the Pastorals. It is a
watchword of the author, and we have no parallel for this
in the earlier Epistles. And this insistence on the im
portance of sound doctrine is also far more prominent
than in any other Epistle of Paul. More significance
attaches to these general characteristics than to specific
differences that have been pointed out. These are in
conclusive, and it is needless to linger upon them.
Still weightier is the objection derived from the style
and language of these Epistles. No doubt undue stress
has been laid on the number of words peculiar to this
group. Those that are really significant are not exception
ally numerous. As hi Colossians the false teaching
attacked determines to some extent the character of the
phraseology, and it is quite conceivable that Paul s
vocabulary may have been enriched in the interval. It
is not here, however, that the real difficulty lies. The
old energy of thought and expression has gone, and the
greater smootliness and continuity in the grammar is a
poor compensation for the lack of grip and of continuity
in the thought. We may appeal to the change in cir
cumstances, to the exhausting character of his labours
and the weariness of old age, and to the fact that senility
often overtakes men of such strenuous thought and action
at a rapid rate. Yet it is questionable if the interval which
separates the latest of the imprisonment Epistles from
1 Timothy would not be incredibly short to account for such
striking change. In that Epistle and in a less degree in
Titus it is difficult to hear the true Pauline ring. This
does not well admit of detailed proof, it is a matter of
impression, but to those who are impressed by it, it is
of all arguments among the most cogent. There is a
peculiar phraseology which belongs only to these Epistles
and is found more or less in all of them but not in the
other writings of Paul, and it is not clear that it is
vii.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 69
accounted for by changed circumstances or the increas
ing infirmity of the apostle.
The arguments against the genuineness may be sum
marised as follows, neglecting those which seem to be without
force. It is strange that Paul should have written letters
of this kind to such companions and disciples as Timothy
and Titus, and that he should have felt it necessary to
assert to them his apostleship and warn them to keep
clear of heretical teaching. If the letters fall outside the
period covered by the Acts they are probably not genuine,
since Paul s imprisonment, there recorded, seems to have
ended not in release, but in death. As to organisation
we find much stress on ecclesiastical appointment, little
on the spiritual gifts, and it is not quite like Paul to be
occupied so much with details of this kind. The general
emphasis on the importance of sound doctrine and the use
of faith as almost equivalent to orthodoxy are strange in
Paul. So too the tone of the letters is moralistic rather
than evangelical, though the latter element is not absent.
And finally the style is quite unique and unlike that of
the other Epistles, and the ring of the letters does not
remind us of Paul.
In t favour of the genuineness, apart from the good
external evidence, the following arguments may be urged.
It is very improbable that any one writing in Paul s name
with a distinct purpose in view should have inserted some
of the trivial details or injunctions which are quite natural
in a letter of Paul, but by no means natural in a letter that
is not genuine. Such is the reference to the cloke left
at Troas with the books and the parchments. There are
also numerous personal references which give a strong
impression of authenticity, and are unlikely to have been
written by any one else. These details and personal
references, however, occur almost entirely in two passages
in the Second Epistle to Timothy, i. 15-18 and iv. 9-21.
Pfleiderer and Hausrath think that these sections are
70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
genuine Pauline fragments, though it is not quite clear
to what circumstances the latter should be assigned. It
is, of course, difficult to understand how these fragments
were detached from their original connexion, and this
tells against the theory. And it might be argued that the
admission of these fragments as genuine guarantees the
genuineness of the Epistle in which they are found, and
that it is arbitrary to detach these sections which tell so
strongly in favour of its genuineness. It may be granted
that these sections are not so closely united with the
Epistle as to be inseparable from it. The case then
resolves itself to this : Are the arguments against the
genuineness of this Epistle as a whole so strong that it
must be rejected ? If so there is nothing arbitrary in
trying to rescue any passages that may be Pauline. On
the other hand if the arguments against the genuineness
are not so strong, the fact that these sections are incor
porated will tell strongly in favour of the genuineness of
the Epistle.
Several recent scholars who cannot accept the genuine
ness of the Epistles as they stand recognise a much larger
Pauline element in them than these two sections. It is
usual to find the largest genuine matter in 2 Timothy
and the least in 1 Timothy, and this accords well with the
general impression made by the reading of the Epistles.
Thus Harnack thinks that very considerable sections of
2 Timothy and perhaps a bare third of Titus might be
regarded as genuine in substance, though, apart from
the historical sections, few Pauline verses have remained
quite unaltered. In 1 Timothy not a single verse can be
indicated which clearly bears the stamp of Pauline origin,
still it is not improbable that even it contains some Pauline
material. Harnack argues in favour of a release and a
second imprisonment, but as he adopts the earlier chrono
logy he places the release in 59 and the death in 64. Apart
from late additions he dates the Pastoral Epistles 90-110.
vii.] THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 71
McGiffert thinks that in 2 Timothy the whole of the first
chapter except possibly v. 6b and certainly w. 12-14,
perhaps most of ii. 1, 8-13 and the whole of chapter iv.
except w. 3, 4, may probably be Paul s. Titus contains,
he thinks, the following Pauline elements, iii. 1-7, 12, 13,
and possibly parts of the first chapter. There are perhaps
slight scattered elements of Paul s writings in 1 Timothy.
He denies a release from the imprisonment mentioned in
the Acts, and has therefore to place these genuine Pauline
elements before that imprisonment came to an end.
Bartlet, who agrees with McGiffert that Paul was not
released, holds that the letters are, on the whole, genuine
throughout. He gets over some of the difficulties caused
by the denial of a second imprisonment by admitting
with McGiffert that 2 Timothy combines portions of two
letters written at different times and under different
circumstances.
Many scholars insist that the Epistles must be taken as
they stand and are either entirely genuine or entirely
spurious. Hort admits that the objections are real, but
says that to the best of his belief the Epistles are genuine,
and that not in part since the theory of extensive interpola
tion does not work out well in detail. Hort s judgment
on such a matter deserves the most respectful deference
even from those who are compelled to adopt a different
conclusion. The two points on which the present writer
feels clearest are that the Epistles cannot have come from
Paul s hand in their present form, yet that they contain
not a little Pauline material. The impossibility of elabo
rating a wholly satisfactory theory and separating the
genuine nucleus from later accretions, can hardly override
these primary results. It would be unreasonable to demand
that critical analysis should achieve its work before the
composite character of the documents can be admitted.
72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
CHAPTER VIII
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1
THE Epistle to the Hebrews contains no indication either
of the author s name or of the community to which it was
addressed. Its existence is attested by quotations in
Clement of Rome which are woven into the author s argu
ments without any suggestion that the words are borrowed.
This use assures us that it belongs to the first century.
We may first discuss the question of its destination. The
title to the Hebrews might in itself suggest that it was
an encyclical letter addressed to Jewish Christians. But
assuming the integrity of the Epistle this view is impos
sible, for the letter was clearly written to a definite
community to which the author himself belonged. Where
this community was situated is, however, a matter only
of uncertain inference. The Epistle has naturally been
regarded as addressed to Jerusalem. Here the temptation
to abandon the Gospel for the Law would be most keenly
felt, especially with the pressure of persecution, the
fascinations of the cultus, the sense that their country and
their race needed them in its sore distress. No objection
to this can be rightly based either on vi. 10 or xii. 4. In
view of the fact that many Christians in Jerusalem must
have heard Christ, the language of ii. 3, which implies
that the community had been converted to Christianity
by those who had heard Him, certainly does not favour
1 The conclusions adopted in this chapter rest on considerations much
more fully stated in the writer s commentary in the Century Bible.
viii.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 73
Jerusalem. It is not likely that Timothy would have had
any influence at Jerusalem nor yet the writer himself,
inasmuch as he not only writes in Greek rather than in
Aramaic, but is limited in his use of the Old Testament
to the Septuagint. We should certainly have expected
that^ the religious conditions in Jerusalem would have
been much more definitely reflected in the Epistle. It
is probable that the author wishes his readers to break
decisively with Judaism as a religious system, hence his
description of that religion is almost entirely Biblical
and not concerned with the temple ritual. Had he been
writing to Christians in Jerusalem who were under the
spell of the worship there, some explicit reference to this
worship would almost certainly have been included.
It is not unnatural, in view of the Alexandrian character
of the theology, that the Epistle should have been thought
to have been sent to^ Alexandria, but the writer may have
learnt his theology elsewhere than in that city, and his
origin says nothing as to the Church with which he was
connected when the Epistle was written. The argument
that the description of the sanctuary suits the Egyptian
temple at Leontopolis better than the temple at Jerusalem
is irrelevant even if true, since the author s discussion is
based exclusively on the tabernacle. What seems fatal to
the Alexandrian destination is that hi the catechetical school
at Alexandria the tradition affirmed Pauline authorship.
Much the most probable suggestion is that it was sent to
Rome. The only geographical indication in the Epistle
is in the words they of Italy salute you, and the most
obvious though not the only possible interpretation is
that a group of Italian Christians who are absent from
Italy send greetings to their fellow-countrymen in Italy.
If in Italy, it is most natural to seek the community in
Rome. This is confirmed by the fact that it is in Rome
that our first evidence of the existence of the Epistle is to
be found, namely in Clement of Rome.
74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
It was probably not sent, however, to the whole Church
of Rome. The composition of this Church was predomin
antly Gentile, and in spite of the high authority which the
view that the readers were Gentiles can claim, the present
writer is convinced that the_readers were of Jewish nation
ality. The allusion to the circumstances of the readers
suggests a small and homogeneous group in a large city.
We may best think of a house-community, such as we find
mentioned in Rom. xvi., or perhaps a Jewish Christian
synagogue (cf. x. 25, not forsaking your own assembly ).
It is easier to understand why the name of the author
should have quickly faded into oblivion if it went to a
small and rapidly disappearing group in the Roman
Church.
That the readers were Jewish Christians has been held
practically without exception till a comparatively recent
period. It is now considered by many scholars that they
were Gentiles or that the author writes without any
reference to their nationality. There are of course some
passages in the Epistle to which this view seems to do a
fuller justice. Especially the enumeration of elementary
doctrines in vi. 1, 2 would, it is said, suit those who came
to Christianity from Paganism, but not those who passed
into it through Judaism. They would lie behind the
Jews conversion to Christianity, but would need to be
dealt with in the instruction of Gentile converts. More
over, the faults against which the writer warns his readers
are, it is urged, characteristic of a Gentile rather than a
Jewish Christian community. The former argument has
real weight, yet it is by no means conclusive. If it is said
that these were doctrines which a Jew on becoming a
Christian would not need to learn, it may be argued, on
the other hand, that it was precisely the doctrines w r hich
were in a sense common to Judaism and Christianity which
needed to be interpreted from the Christian point of view.
The second argument depends for its force on a too
vui.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 75
optimistic view of converts from Judaism. Their moral
level was unquestionably higher than that of pagan
Christians, yet exhortations of the kind contained in the
Epistle were certainly not superfluous when addressed to
Jewish Christians.
For the positive proof that the readers were Jewish
Christians we may cheerfully abandon some of the incon
clusive arguments which have been adduced and lay
stress on the Epistle as a whole. The author s method
of handling his argument seems to be conclusive on this
point. He writes no academic dissertation, but a word
of exhortation to save his readers from threatened
apostasy. And this was apostasy, not as is often said to
paganism or complete irreligion, but to Judaism. If we
concentrate our attention on details and phrases such as
to fall away from the living God, the other view gains a
certain plausibility. But it is the Epistle as a whole which
decisively negatives this view. For in a letter designed
to secure his readers from a lapse or relapse into paganism
we should have expected much that we do not find in the
Epistle, and we find much in it that we should not have
expected. We should have anticipated an attack on
paganism, instead of which we have an elaborate many-
sided demonstration that Judaism is inferior to Christianity.
It is futile to say that the author s arguments carry no
conviction to modern readers. One is at a loss to know
what conviction they could have carried to any readers
exposed to temptations from heathenism. It is quite a
mistake to assume that it is only in a misinterpretation
of xiii. 9-16 that we find a warrant for the traditional
view. The whole tenor of the writer s argument is
designed to prove that what the readers think they have
in ^Judaism they have in a perfect form in Christianity.
What in the present writer s judgment definitely proves
the Jewish Christian character of the readers and that their
temptation was to relapse into Judaism is the use made
7G INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
of the Old Testament. It is quite beside the mark to say
that the Old Testament was regarded as authoritative by
Gentile as well as by Jewish Christians. It is more to the
point to observe that the grounds of acceptance were very
different. The Jew whether Christian or not accepted the
Old Testament as the sacred book of his nation, his belief
might be confirmed by Christianity but it was essentially
independent of it. With the Gentile Christian the case
was altogether different. The Old Testament meant
nothing to him apart from his Christianity. It was as
an integral portion of his new religion that he recognised
its authority. Of what use then was it to supply a
Gentile in danger of apostasy from Christianity with
arguments drawn from a book in which he believed simply
because he was a Christian ? The author s argument has
force only if his readers accepted the Old Testament
independently of their acceptance of the Gospel, and this
suits Jewish Christians but not Gentiles. It may be
added that, even setting aside the inconclusive details,
there are many phrases in the Epistle which point much
more naturally to Jewish Christian than to Gentile readers,
but where the main argument is so conclusive it is less
necessary to lay stress on minor points.
We may now consider the question of its authorship.
In view of the fact that it was employed so early in the
Roman Church, the attitude adopted to it by later Western
writers is very curious. Its use by Hennas and Justin
Martyr is uncertain. It has left no trace on the other
Apostolic Fathers or apologists. The Gnostics ignored it.
Marcion s failure to include it in his Canon may be due
to ignorance of it or dislike of its contents. It shows
that even if he knew it he did not consider it to be Paul s.
Its absence from the Muratorian Canon probably implies
that the writer attributed to it no canonical authority,
though if we had his list in its original form it is possible
that we might find it included. One of the most striking
vin.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 77
facts is that Irenaeus does not employ it in his chief work,
in which the Pauline Epistles are so extensively used.
He is said to have quoted the Epistle, and Hippolytus
certainly did so, though we are told that he did not accept
the Pauline authorship. Caius, another Roman Christian,
also refused to attribute it to Paul. This attitude
characterised the Western Church till the time of Augustine
and Jerome.
It was claimed for Barnabas in North Africa by
Tertullian, on what grounds we do not know. He
betrays no knowledge that any one had ever thought of
Paul as its author. Cyprian and Novatian derived from
it no arguments hi favour of their own special views,
though the Epistle might have been plausibly quoted to
support them.
It is in Alexandria that we find the earliest evidence
for the Pauline authorship. At first the main difficulty
seems to have been that the Epistle made no claim to
be Pauline and that the style rather resembled Luke s.
Origen dealt much more thoroughly with the question.
He was himself struck by the divergence in style and
apparently by the different complexion of the thought
from that of Paul. In spite of this feeling, which seems to
shine through his expression, he acquiesces in the tradition
that the thoughts are Paul s but holds that the Epistle
was actually composed by one who wrote down his
teaching from memory with his own annotations, possibly
as tradition suggests by Clement of Rome or Luke.
Naturally the restrictions laid by Origen on the full re
cognition of the Pauline authorship came to be disregarded
in the Eastern Church, where it was recognised as Paul s
by the fourth century. In the Western Church it was
generally rejected. Augustine and Jerome were alike
hesitant about it but yielded to Eastern opinion and
accepted the Pauline authorship, and this secured its
acceptance in the Western Church.
78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
Of the names associated with the Epistle in antiquity
we may at once set aside Luke and Clement of Rome,
the former on the ground of his Gentile origin, the
latter in virtue of his marked inferiority in grasp and
insight. The external evidence for Paul and Barnabas
cannot be regarded as strong. The Alexandrian evi
dence for Paul is late, and more than cancelled by the
attitude in the rest of the Church. Had there been
any ground for recognising Pauline authorship the Epistle
could not have had the fate which overtook it in the
Western Church. It was known in the Church of Rome
before the close of the first century, but Clement s use of
it without indication of author s name or even of the
fact that he is quoting is not easy to reconcile with Paul s
authorship and suggests that there was some reason for
this reticence. Nor would the attitude of Tertullian be
easy to explain, for he is obviously unaware that any
claim can be made for Paul and half apologises for appeal
ing to a work which could not rank with apostolic writings.
His own view that it was the work of Barnabas is more
difficult to estimate. The matter-of-fact way in which he
assumes it indicates that he was conscious of having a
body of opinion behind him, and it may have been derived
from the Montanists of Asia Minor. On the external
evidence the case is stronger for Barnabas than for Paul,
but it is weak for both.
Turning now to the internal evidence, the one fixed
point is that the Epistle was not written by Paul. This
is conclusively proved by every line of evidence. The
absence of his name at the beginning has no parallel in
his Epistles. The style, as even the Alexandrians saw, is
inconsistent with his authorship, the personality revealed
in the writing is of an order altogether different from that
of Paul, the formulae of quotation from the Old Testa
ment are quite different, and so is the text of the Septua-
gint employed. The Epistle is planned on quite other
viii.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBKEWS 79
lines, the exhortations being inserted in the course of the
argument, not massed together at the close. The theology
is constructed from a standpoint which differs radically
from Paul s, a divergence which does not touch individual
points of doctrine alone but goes through the entire systems.
And in view of Paul s emphatic assertion that he had
learnt his Gospel from no human teacher, we must con
clude that he cannot have penned the confession of second
hand instruction received from the immediate hearers of
Jesus.
If the view were correct that the Epistle was sent to
Jerusalem, we could think of no member of the Pauline j
circle more acceptable to the Christians there than
Barnabas. If, however, the Epistle went to Rome the
authorship of Barnabas can hardly be considered probable !
in view of the lack of evidence connecting him with Rome.
The internal evidence is not inconsistent with his authorship,
and too much stress ought not to be laid on the alleged
ritual inaccuracies as disproving authorship by a Levite.
At the same time in a Christian who had been for a long
time associated with Jerusalem we should have expected
some reference to the temple. Moreover, it is not quite
easy to understand why his name should have become
disconnected from the Epistle. Silas answers some of
the requirements inasmuch as he was a member of the
Pauline circle and a friend of Timothy. The points of
contact between the Epistle and 1 Peter would also receive
some explanation if Silas, by whom we are told Peter
wrote his Epistle, were also the author of our letter.
Luther s suggestion of Apollos has met with marked
favour among modern scholars. He was an Alexandrian,
eloquent, mighty in the Scriptures, powerful in confutation
of Jewish arguments and establishment of the Messianic
dignity of Jesus. In all these respects he perfectly fits
the conditions required by the character of the letter.
Still there are objections to his authorship. If Clement
80 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
knew who the author was, and it is hardly likely that he
could have been ignorant, his silence in his letter to the
Church at Corinth is rather strange on the assumption that
it was written by Apollos. It is quite possible that Apollos
was at some time connected with Rome, but we have no
evidence to this effect ; whether he had received instruction
in Christianity from those who had heard the Lord is very
dubious.
Of the other members of the Pauline circle who are
known to us much the most probable suggestion is that
Priscilla and Aquila were responsible for the letter. In
this form the suggestion was first made by Harnack, but
Bleek had previously recognised the strong claims of
Aquila to consideration while deciding in favour of Apollos.
Harnack s suggestion was favoured by the present writer
in his Commentary, by J. H. Moulton and by Schiele, and
it has recently been reaffirmed with new arguments by
J. Rendel Harris. There are no tangible objections to it
except the use of a masculine participle where we should
have expected a feminine, but this would involve merely
the change of a single letter, and with the dislike of the
idea that a woman could have written it the correction
to the present text became very early inevitable. A lack
of feminine qualities has been detected by some writers
in the Epistle, but we may not unreasonably distrust their
insight into the complexities and possibilities of feminine
psychology. Besides, there are indications of an opposite
nature. In this connexion the absence of any reference
to Deborah in the eleventh chapter seems to the present
writer the most serious objection.
No doubt what really underlies the somewhat contemptu
ous attitude towards Harnack s theory adopted by some
scholars is the masculine feeling that it is a thing incredible
that any woman should have been equal to the composition
of such an Epistle. With absurd prejudices of this kind
one cannot argue, but if the claims of Aquila deserve serious
viii.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 81
consideration the claims of Priscilla, who seems to have
been the abler of the two, deserve it even more. The
teacher of Apollos may be credited with the composition
of such an Epistle as readily as Apollos himself. And
this accounts better than anything else for the remarkable
fact that the writer s name has not been preserved to us.
As the earlier freedom with which the Gospel had emanci
pated women and set them at liberty to use their special
talents for the edification of the Church, gave way to a
stiffer and narrower ecclesiasticism which defrauded them
of their rights, there was every temptation to suppress the
unwelcome reminder that a woman had so far ventured
out of her sphere as to write such an Epistle, so quickly did
the Church forget that in Christ Jesus there can be neither
male nor female. And of all members of the Pauline
circle for whom the authorship could reasonably be
claimed, Priscilla and Aquila are the only ones whose
connexion with Rome and especially with a house-church
in Rome, can be established (Rom. xvi. 5). It is quite
true that the argument falls far short of demonstration.
We have to content ourselves with probabilities, and the
combination of the Roman destination of the Epistle with
the suppression of the author s name favours the identifica
tion of the author with Priscilla.
An interesting suggestion has been made by Ramsay
that the Epistle was written by Philip from Caesarea to the
Judaising section of the Church at Jerusalem, and is the
outcome of discussions of Christians at Caesarea with Paul
during his imprisonment there. He takes the concluding
passage to have been written by Paul. This theory is
accepted by E. L. Hicks with the improvement, however,
that he denies Paul s authorship of the concluding verses.
The latter scholar draws out numerous parallels between
Ephesians and Colossians which he assigns to the Caesarean
imprisonment and our Epistle. Two reasons compel
the present writer to reject this ingenious and suggestive
F
82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
theory. One is that he cannot believe the Epistle to have
been written to Jerusalem, the other, which seems to him
even more decisive, is that the type of theology which the
Epistle presents is so radically different from that of Paul
that he can have had nothing to do with the letter either
directly or indirectly.
Wrede has put forward the theory that the work is not a
letter at all but a treatise, which was fitted with its con
cluding verses by an editor who wished thus to turn it
into a Pauline Epistle. The only tangible argument in
favour of this suggestion is that the Epistle has no address.
But this argument cuts also the other way, for if the
writer wished to turn the letter into a Pauline Epistle we
cannot understand why he did not adopt the most obvious
method and place Paul s name at the beginning of the
letter. Besides, it is not correct that the work is a mere
abstract treatise. There are constant references to the
conditions and perils of the community of such a kind
that we can largely reconstruct its history and present
situation. Finally, if the editor had wished in the closing
verses to pass the Epistle off as Paul s he would surely
have spoken with much greater definiteness and identified
the writer with Paul far more clearly.
The date of the letter is very difficult to determine.
Our lower limit is given by the Epistle of Clement, which
was written about 95 A.D. The reference to Timothy
suggests that Paul was dead. Many would place its
composition between Paul s death and the destruction
of Jerusalem. Most of the arguments are inconclusive.
The reference to the Jewish ritual does not imply that the
temple was standing, for the author leaves the temple out
of sight, nor are we entitled to argue that if Jerusalem had
been destroyed he could not have failed to mention so
signal a condemnation of the Jewish system. Previous
destruction or profanation of the temple had not implied
the abolition of the religion, and why should the de-
viii.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 83
struction by Titus form an exception ? The present tenses
which have suggested that the ritual was still going on, may
be matched from Josephus or Clement who wrote after the
destruction of Jerusalem. If x. 32-34 refers, as many think,
to the Neronian persecution, the most probable suggestion
would be that the Epistle was written when the persecution
by Domitian was anticipated. It is difficult, however,
to believe simply on the ground of the word made a
gazing-stock that the Neronian persecution can be in
tended, the language used being much too mild. It is
perhaps best to suppose that the letter was written in the
interval after the death of Paul and when the Neronian
persecution was in its initial stages. But there is no
warrant whatever for a dogmatic decision between this
and the later date.
84 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
CHAPTER IX
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES
THE Epistle has been generally assigned to James the
Lord s brother. There is much to make this plausible.
He was president of the Church at Jerusalem, his piety
was of a strongly ascetic type and commanded the venera
tion of Jews as well as Christians. He was, even as a
Christian, strongly attached to Judaism, though he acted
on occasion as a mediator between Paul and the extreme
Jewish Christians. And the Jewish Christians generally
seem to have looked up to him as a leader. Certain
characteristics of the Epistle appear to confirm the
traditional view of its authorship. It is very Jewish and
is remarkably poor in specifically Christian elements.
Much of it indeed might have been written by one who
remained at the Old Testament point of view. So much,
in fact, is this the case that Spijtta has suggested that it is
a Jewish writing, turned into a Christian by two small
interpolations. This theory, in which he does not stand
quite alone, is unlikely, for the supposed Christian reviser
would not have rested content with so slight a dash of
Christianity, and the parallels with the Sermon on the
Mount cannot so plausibly be referred to a Jewish origin.
Besides, we must have regard not simply to what the Epistle
contains, but to what it does not contain. But that such
a theory should have been possible shows how little that
is definitely Christian is to be found in the Epistle. So far
as Christianity is represented in it, it is on the ethical and
ix.] THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 85
practical, not on the speculative side. The preponderating
importance attached to the Second Coming, which furnishes
the sanction of warnings and the basis of encouragement,
was also characteristic of the Jewish Christians, but by
no means exclusively so. The attitude assumed to wealth
and the wealthy faithfully represents the Ebionism of the
Jewish Christians. When the writer condemns the respect
of persons in some of the Christian synagogues, he is not
simply blaming his readers for the preference they show
the rich, but says that God has chosen the poor to be rich
in faith and heirs of the kingdom, whereas the rich are their
oppressors and blaspheme the name of Christ. Similarly
in ch. v. he predicts the woes that are to fall on the rich
for their oppression of the poor and the righteous. If
he does not say that wealth is a bad thing in itself, he
comes very near it. His conception of Christianity as
a law is also very Jewish. The Christians meet in
synagogues, the organisation is simple. Indications of
Palestinian origin are discovered. There is no reference
to the destruction of Jerusalem or to the Gentile mission.
These characteristics have been thought by many to
demonstrate not simply that James wrote the Epistle, but
that it is the earliest book in the New Testament.
Both views, however, are now widely rejected. The
Epistle is written in better Greek than we should have
expected in a composition by James, but he may have had
assistance in this. It is also thought that the situation
presupposed carries us down a long way beyond his time.
The vices rebuked seem to imply a rather long develop
ment. Moreover, the writer s silence about Christ, especi
ally about His death and even His earthly life, in spite
of the rather frequent references to His teaching, is strange
in one who stood in the position of James. It is remarkable
that he quotes the prophets and Job as examples of
patience and says nothing at all about Jesus in this con
nexion. There is also a remarkable absence of features
86 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
which were prominent in the theology of the primitive
Church. There is no reference to the controversy with
Judaism as to the Messiahship of Jesus. The simplicity
of the theology is not necessarily a sign of early date.
In general standpoint the Epistle is nearly akin to that
which we find in the theologians in the first part of the
second century, especially Hernias. Harnack asks with
great force whether we can suppose that about 30-50 A.D.
there was a Christianity like that of Hermas, Clement,
Justin and 2 Clement, and that ninety years later it
reappeared though in a weakened form, while Paul,
Hebrews and John came between (Chronologic, p. 486).
The section on justification by faith raises the problem
of its relation to Paul in an acute form. It is held by many
that James is here taking the view that a dead orthodoxy,
exemplified in the theoretical confession of monotheism,
sufficed for salvation. In that case there need be no
reference of any kind to Paul s doctrine, since Paul
certainly did not mean by faith an intellectual
orthodoxy. It is difficult, however, to believe that the
passages are independent, since it is not simply a question
of the formulae but the fact that the example of Abraham
is chosen to prove both formulae, while the problem is
further complicated by the reference to Rahab which
looks as if the author had also the Epistle to the Hebrews
before him. The present writer finds it difficult to
believe that James is the earlier. The contradiction
is not so direct as is sometimes supposed, but it may be
questioned whether the attempts at reconciliation are
completely successful. Probably, however, we have not
in any case to do with an attack upon Paulinism but
rather on those who sheltered their failure in practice
behind a Pauline formula whose implications they entirely
misunderstood. This fact in itself favours a fairly late
date. The moral degeneracy which has affected the
Churches is often regarded as a sign of late date. This
ix.] THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 87
criterion, human nature being what it is, is of course quite
inadequate. So far as it goes, however, it seems to suit a
late better than an early period, especially the pre-Pauline
period. And here again the affinities to Hernias are very
marked. The references to persecution can be harmonised
with any date. What, however, speaks strongly against
the early date is the salutation. It is extremely difficult
to believe that an encyclical letter should be written by
James to the Jewish Christians of the Dispersion at so
early a period.
The external evidence also is not favourable to the early
date. Origen is the first to mention it by name, and the
form of expression which he chooses indicates his know
ledge that doubt was felt as to the authorship. It is
possible that it was used by Irenaeus and Tertullian, though
extremely doubtful. It was included in the Syrian
Version known as the Peshitta, but this is probably too
late to make the fact of any significance. There seems to
be nothing in the external evidence to counterbalance
the evidence for late date which the internal evidence
suggests. If we accept the authorship by James we
should probably do better to place it as late in his lifetime
as possible, though while this would have the advantage
of making the phenomena which point to a somewhat
advanced development more easy, it would be more
difficult to evade the conclusion that the Pauline formulae
are definitely attacked. More probably, however, we
should abide by the post- apostolic date. The absence of
any reference to Gnostic tendencies favours a date com
paratively early in^thejsecond century.
Of the author we know nothing. He speaks of himself
as James. It does not follow that the Epistle is pseudony
mous. Such may have been the author s name. Harnack
considers that the work was not originally an Epistle but
rather a homily of the type of the so-called Second Epistle
of Clement, which was turned into a letter of James about
88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
the end of the second century. He argues that the work
was not forged in the name of James about 120-140 A.D.,
inasmuch as the author nowhere hints that he intends to
be taken for James, which he must have done on the
contrary supposition. Moreover, the address contemplates
collective Christendom, but part of the work at least
contemplates a definitely limited circle. Further, its dis
continuity and its lack of connexion suggest that we must
look upon it as a compilation. We gain no clear insight
into the characteristics of the community or communities
to which it is directed. This difference in the readers
addressed is matched by a similar lack of homogeneousness
in the contents. Part, Harnack says, is like a reproduction
of sayings of Jesus, part Hebraic but in the spirit of the
old prophets, part in power, correctness and elegance to
be classed with good examples of Greek rhetoric (iii. 1-12),
part the work of a theological controversialist. The most
paradoxical thing of all is that a certain unity both of
moral feeling and language gives an internal unity to the
composition in spite of its lack of connexion. While no
certain explanation can be given of these phenomena, they
suggest that the different pieces were not originally written
for their context, so that we must distinguish between the
author and the redactor. The author drew from Jewish
proverbial wisdom, from speeches of Jesus and from Greek
wisdom. The book was probably compiled soon after his
death.
The lack of unity is acutely felt by other scholars.
Jiilicher considers that it is due to the gradual growth
of the Epistle. Von Soden also believes that certain
sections are so deficient in characteristic Christian ideas
(iii. 1 - 18, iv. 11 - v. 20) that we may conjecture that they
are of Jewish origin. The only section in which definitely
Christian ideas are discussed is ii. 14-26. At the same time
it would be a mistake, he holds, to consider that we have
here a Jewish work which has been taken over by Christians.
ix.] THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 89
And that not only because the discussion of justification
would be difficult to explain, but because specifically
Jewish ideas have been replaced by what is purely ethical.
An interesting suggestion has been put forward by
G. Currie Martin to the effect that the work really contains
a collection of sayings of Jesus which were made by the
author the basis of short homilies or reflections collected in
the Epistle by some of his disciples after his death. J. H.
Moulton, who agrees that the Epistle contains a considerable
number of otherwise unrecorded sayings of Jesus, has made
a still more interesting suggestion that the Epistle was
written by James of Jerusalem but was addressed not to
Christians but to Jews. This has the very great advantage
that it explains why a Christian writing should be so
destitute of avowedly Christian elements. The writer
would not damage his appeal by specific references to
Christ, above all to the scandal of His cross. But he
included many sayings of Jesus in the hope that their own
intrinsic beauty and worth would commend them to the
readers and prepare them for a truer estimate of the
crucified Nazarene whom they hated and despised. This
involves that, as other scholars have suggested, the refer
ences to Christ were not a part of the original composition.
This theory escapes several though not all of the diffi
culties which have to be urged against the view that the
Epistle was written by James to Christians. The passage
about justification is perhaps the most difficult to reconcile
with it, but the hypothesis deserves serious consideration.
90 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
CHAPTER X
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER
THIS Epistle claims in its salutation to be the work of
Peter, and this claim is attested by very full external
evidence. It was known to the author of the Second
Epistle of Peter and to Polycarp and to the author of the
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. According to Eusebius
it was also known to Papias. It is not mentioned in the
Muratorian Canon, but Eusebius includes it among the
generally accepted Epistles. It is quoted as Peter s by
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen.
It is probable that it was quoted by Clement of Rome
before the close of the first century, though, as in most of
these cases, the relationship might be reversed. If the
Epistle of James belongs to the early years of the second
century it is not at all impossible that the author has
drawn on this Epistle.
The traditional view, however, has been attacked by
many modern critics on various grounds. It has been
frequently asserted that the attitude of the State to
Christians depicted in the letter cannot be harmonised
with a date earlier than the edict of Trajan in his letter
to Pliny. This view has been rejected by the highest
authority on Roman history, Mommsen, and by writers
such as Neumann, Ramsay and Hardy, who have devoted
special attention to the subject. Whereas, however,
Ramsay thinks that the state of affairs contemplated
cannot have arisen earlier than 80 A.D., Mommsen, Hardy
x.] THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER 91
and others, think it may have originated as early as the
time of Nero. If Ramsay s date is correct, it is hardly
likely that the Epistle can be by Peter, for he probably
died in the Neronian persecution. Ramsay thinks that he
may have lived much longer than is usually supposed
and have written the Epistle, but this has found little
support. In view of Mommsen s judgment it seems safe
to assume that the relations of State and Church indicated
in the Epistle could very well have been reached in the
reign of Nero, and therefore no serious difficulty need be
felt on that score in the way of accepting its Petrine
authorship. It must be added, however, that while Von
Soden and others reject the date in the reign of Trajan,
placing the Epistle in the reign of Domitian about
A.D. 92-96, Schmiedel with full knowledge of the argu
ments on the other side holds to the origin of the Epistle
in the time of Trajan ( Christian, Name of, in Enc. Bibl.}.
The other serious objection to Peter s authorship is the
theological standpoint. It is urged that if Peter were
the author we must have had far more traces of the influ
ence of Christ s teaching, whereas what we find is very
marked influence of the teaching of Paul. B. Weiss has
attempted to show that the Epistle was written before any
of Paul s letters, and that so far as there is dependence it
is of Paul on Peter and not of Peter on Paul. In this he
is followed only by Kiihl, and the theory may be safely
set aside. Others, while admitting Pauline influence,
have minimised its extent. But neither does this seem
a legitimate way of meeting the difficulty. We may
rather state the problem in this form. Granting that the
dominant influence is that of Paul, is this incompatible
with Petrine authorship ? It should be observed that the
influence of Christ s teaching is not wholly absent, and
there are reminiscences which gain much of their point
if they are seen to rest on the personal recollections of an
eye-witness.
92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
It is, however, true that the emphasis lies on the
work of Christ rather than on His teaching. But this is
not unnatural. However great the impression made on
, Peter by the teaching of Jesus, that made by His death
and resurrection must have been far greater. At first
the meaning of the death was by no means clear to the
apostles. But helped by the references of Jesus to it
in such sayings as The Son of Man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom for many, and This is the new covenant in my
blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins,
and further by the prophecy of the Suffering Servant of
Yahweh, which was early applied to Christ, they connected
the death of Christ with the forgiveness of sins. And thus
there naturally came a change in the centre of gravity.
The death of Christ was no longer a perplexing incident,
the shame of which was partially cancelled by the
resurrection, and to be wholly done away when He
returned in glory. It was seen to have an essential
significance for salvation. And so Paul testifies to the
unity between himself and the original apostles in the
gospel they preached, and enumerates among its tenets
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
, Even then if Paul had never become a Christian, we
ought not to have been surprised if in an Epistle of Peter
a leading place should be given to the death and resurrec
tion of Christ. But since Paul had developed a theory
of the work of Christ as atoning for sin and doing away
with it, it is not surprising that Peter should avail himself
of the thoughts of his brother apostle in speaking of the
same theme. He had long before reached the same
general result as Paul, and the whole account we have
of him gives the impression of a highly-receptive and
large-hearted personality. Nor ought we to forget an
added reason why such emphasis should be laid on the
suffering and death of Christ. The Epistle was not called
x.] THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER 93
forth by the desire to give theological instruction so much
as to meet an urgent practical need. A State persecution
had begun, and it was necessary to encourage the readers
to patient endurance, and even joy in their distress. It
is natural that in dealing with this problem of suffering,
Peter should lay much stress on the suffering and death of
Christ.
A very interesting suggestion has been made by
McGiffert to the effect that the Epistle may have been
written by Bjjjnabas. There are several features which
would suit Barnabas. He may have been a witness of the
sufferings of Christ. He knew Silvanus, he was a relative
of Mark which would account for the reference to my son.
He was a missioner to some of the Churches addressed,
and he was said to have written an Epistle. Two Epistles
were ascribed to him in antiquity, the Epistle to the
Hebrews and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas. His
authorship of the former is on the whole improbable, and it
is almost certain that he did not write the latter. May he
not then have written our Epistle ? The Pauline character
of the theology might perhaps be more easily explained
on this hypothesis. If we were compelled to surrender
the Petrine authorship, Barnabas would certainly be a
plausible suggestion. At the same time there are con
siderations which tell against it. At the date to which
McGiffert assigns it in the reign of Domitian, probably
before A.D. 90, Barnabas must have been very old. He
may of course have survived to this time, but this is hardly
probable. Besides, if Barnabas wrote the letter we cannot
understand why it should not from the first have circulated
as his. The senior companion of Paul was of sufficient
weight to give his own name to the Epistle and not send it
forth anonymously, leaving a later scribe or editor to attach
Peter s name to it.
Von Soden s suggestion that Sjlvaiuis was the author
is also not lacking in plausibility. He was a companion
94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
of Paul, and the Pauline character of the letter would be
thus accounted for. Moreover, the author says by Sil-
vanus our faithful brother as I account him I have written
unto you briefly. This probably implies that Silvanus
was his amanuensis, and it is not unlikely that Peter, who
was unskilled in literary composition, might leave a good
deal of the actual wording of the letter to Silvanus. That
Silvanus, however, long after the death of Peter should have
written the letter in Peter s name, and put this testimony to
himself in Peter s mouth, can hardly be considered probable.
If the Epistle was not written by Peter, the mention of
the apostle s name at the opening of the letter has to be
accounted for. Several consider that the author of the
Epistle deliberately issued it in Peter s name. It would be
a mistake to apply our modern standards to such a pro
ceeding ; nevertheless it is better to avoid these suggestions
unless we are driven to them. Harnack formerly suggested
that it was originally anonymous and was in fact not a
letter at all, but that it was turned into a letter and
ascribed to Peter by an author in the second century,
probably the author of the Second Epistle. It is, however,
extremely difficult to detach the beginning and the end
from the letter, and the theory of its originally non-
epistolary character is hardly borne out by the composition
itself. His latest utterance implies a greater readiness to
accept the Petrine authorship. McGiffert agrees that the
Epistle was originally anonymous, and that the addition
of Peter s name was the mere guess of a scribe.
If Peter wrote the Epistle its date is determined within
rather narrow limits. He seems to draw upon the Epistles
to the Romans and to the Ephesians, so that if the apostle
perished in the persecution of Nero we should be obliged
to date it in the early sixties. The reference to the Church
in Babylon, when combined with the amply attested
tradition that Peter was crucified in Rome after a pastoral
activity of several months, favours the view that Rome was
x.J THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER 95
the place of its composition. The only tenable alternative
to this would be to regard Babylon as the famous city of
that name. More probably, however, the mystical
Babylon is meant, though it must be confessed that this
designation of Rome is more natural in apocalypses than
in an Epistle. The letter was addressed, as we see from
i. 1, to the sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. The reference to the
dispersion suggests that the readers were Jewish Christians.
This, however, is not favoured by the language of the
Epistle. The leading thought with the writer is that the
Christians are the true Israel, and it is in the light of this
thought that the utterances must be interpreted. The
references made by the author to the pre-Christian con
dition of the readers cannot reasonably be harmonised
with the theory that they were Jewish Christians. He
can hardly have said of them that in time past they were
no people (ii. 10) or have spoken of their former manner
of life in the terms of i. 14, 18, iv. 2, 3. The implied
contrast between the present and the past in iii. 6 also
suggests that they had first become descendants of Sarah
when they became Christians.
96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
CHAPTER XI
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER AND THE
EPISTLE OF JUDE
THESE writings are so closely related that it is desirable
to treat them together. We may take first the relation
between the two Epistles. The extent of coincidence
between them is so great that one must have copied the
other. In the judgment of most scholars Jude is the
original from which 2 Peter borrowed. It is in the first
place curious that, if 2 Peter were the earlier, Jude should
have contented himself with extracting simply the section
against the false teachers. But apart from this general
improbability, when we come to place the two documents
side by side and test them, it is generally easy to explain
why the author of 2 Peter has altered Jude, but it is not
easy to see why, if Jude had 2 Peter before him, he should
have altered his original to the form that we find in his
Epistle. Obscurities in 2 Peter can in some cases be
cleared up by reference to Jude. Moreover, the task of
the writer of Jude would, as Chase has pointed out, have
required little short of a miracle of literary skill. He
eliminated harsh and tortuous phrases, brought together
scattered ideas, infused reminiscences of Enoch, and
wrought the whole into natural compact and harmonious
paragraphs. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact
that Jude not only fails to incorporate the greater part of
2 Peter, but betrays no trace of its influence in vocabulary
or style. We may therefore take the priority of Jude,
XL] SECOND PETER AND JUDE 97
in spite of the ingenious arguments to the contrary, as made
good.
This has an obvious bearing on the genuineness of
2 Peter. It is quite true that there is no reason why Peter
should not have borrowed from Jude. The First Epistle
of Peter shows striking traces of the influence of the
Pauline Epistles, especially of Romans and Ephesians,
and Peter impresses one as a very receptive personality,
so that in itself we need feel no insurmountable objection
to the view that he should have borrowed from Jude.
But as Adeney says : It is one thing to lean upon Paul,
and even James, and another thing to absorb and utilise
virtually the whole of the short Epistle of so obscure a
writer as Jude. In defending the genuineness of 2 Peter
we accuse the great apostle of plagiarising in a remarkable
way. And quite apart from this, there is the serious
question whether we can bring back the date of Jude
into the lifetime of Peter. If not, a work which has been
based upon Jude cannot have been written by the apostle
Peter. The inference from the relationship between this
apostle and Jude is confirmed by comparison with 1 Peter.
Mayor has calculated that as regards vocabulary the
number of agreements with 1 Peter is a hundred as opposed
to five hundred and ninety-nine disagreements. The
relationship between 2 Peter and the Old Testament is
much slighter than is the case with the First Epistle, and
the author alludes less to the Gospel narrative. Spitta,
who is one of the most vigorous and ingenious defenders
of the authenticity of 2 Peter and its priority to Jude,
is quite convinced that identity of authorship cannot be
claimed for the Second Epistle, accordingly he rescues
2 Peter by surrendering the authenticity of 1 Peter.
E. A. Abbott has also argued for dependence upon Josephus
which would negative Pe trine authorship. The resem
blances must be admitted, but we cannot build with any
confidence upon them. Mayor explains them as due in
G
98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH
the main to the diffusion of commonplaces of rhetorical
study, set prefatory phrases, and the like, which were
employed by those who learnt Greek in later life.
When we turn to the external evidence we find that its
attestation in early Christian literature is very late,
Origen in the third century being the first to mention it,
and apparently with doubt as to its authenticity.
Eusebius tells us that he had not received it as canonical.
It is extraordinary if the Epistle is genuine that it should
be first mentioned so late in Christian history, and that
Eusebius should tell us that the tradition he had received
was unfavourable to its canonicity. This is all the more
remarkable when we remember that it was not to an obscure
apostle or to a non-apostolic writer that the work was
attributed, but to one who was at the time universally
regarded with reverence. There were other writings
besides the two Epistles attributed to him to which Peter s
name was attached, notably the Apocalypse of Peter.
These, however, were not ultimately included by the
Church in its Canon, a fact for which we may be profoundly
grateful. Yet the Apocalypse of Peter comes to us with
better attestation of authenticity from the Early Church
than the Second Epistle.
The suspicions created by the lateness of the external
evidence and the dubiousness with which it is expressed
are confirmed by the internal evidence. In the first place
the Epistle brings before us a time when through long delay
the hope of the Second Coming had grown faint. There
were mockers asking, Where is the promise of his coming ?
For, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things
continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
It is extremely difficult to believe that such a sentence as
this could have been written by the apostle Peter. He
was himself one of the Fathers on whose age the writer
looked back as to a distant past. Nor is it probable that
in his time the hope in the Second Coming should have
XL] SECOND PETER AND JUDE 99
given place to scepticism. It is true that the author
speaks in the future tense, but a consideration of the
whole passage leads to the conclusion that he is dealing
with a state of things which either actually confronts him
or which he anticipates hi the immediate future. In the
next place the author s reference to the Epistles of Paul is
very strange in the time and on the lips of Peter. They are
spoken of as if a collection of them had been formed ; they
had already been the object of considerable misinter
pretation. What is most remarkable of all is that they are
spoken of as Scripture. It will not therefore seem wonder
ful that the doubts which were so widely entertained in
the early Church revived again at the Reformation, and
that a large number of scholars in the conservative as well
as in the critical camp have definitely set aside the ascrip
tion of the Epistle to Peter. The date cannot be brought
down below the close of the second century. Origen was
acquainted with it, and probably Clement of Alexandria.
It_cannot be much earlier than the middle of the second
century. This is suggested by the lateness of the external
evidence, by the reference to the Pauline Epistles not
simply as a collection of writings but as canonical Scripture
which the heretics have wrested to their own destruction,
and by the type of false teaching which is attacked. This
date is also confirmed by the close relationship with the
Apocalypse of Peter. No certain conclusion can be reached
as to the place of composition, but the affinities withr
Philo and Clement of Alexandria point to Egypt, in which
also the Apocalypse of Peter was probably written.
The Epistle of Jude was generally accepted as authorita
tive by the close of the second century. It is included in
the Muratorian Canon and quoted by Clement of Alex
andria, Tertullian and Origen. The omission of reference
to it or even inclusion in lists of New Testament books
may be accounted for by its brevity and by the objection
felt to its use of apocryphal literature.
100 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
The Epistle claims to be by Jude the brother of James.
If these words are an integral part of the Epistle the
reference must be to James of Jerusalem, the brother of
Jesus. If the Epistle is not the work of this Jude, we may
either suppose that to secure attention to the letter it was
written in Jude s name, against which we have the diffi
culty of accounting for the choice of so obscure an
authority, or we may suppose that the author s name was
Jude and the identification with the brother of James
was due to a later hand. Many scholars believe that the
Epistle cannot have been written before the second century,
at a time when Jude the brother of James was dead. No
weight can be attached to the quotation of apocryphal
writings. These were much earlier than Jude s day, and
there is no tangible reason for the assumption that he
would have hesitated to employ them. Still less can we
assume that he would not have employed the Pauline
Epistles with which the writer was certainly familiar.
More serious is the argument derived from the reference
to the false teaching which is often taken to be some form
of antinomian Gnosticism. The Gnostic character of the
false teaching, however, cannot be proved, and immoral
inferences from the doctrine of grace were drawn before
the second century. At the same time the reference would
suit very well the libertine Gnostics of the second century.
The age of the apostles it is also said lies in the past (w. 17,
18), and they are referred to as a collective body. This
is certainly not impossible in a brother of Christ, though
it would be more natural in a later writer. The balance
of. probability perhaps inclines against the authorship
by Jude the Lord s brother, but there are no decisive
reasons for rejecting the traditional view.
xii.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 101
CHAPTER XII
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
The Synoptic Problem
THE Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have received
the not very happy title the Synoptic Gospels from the
fact that they largely present a common view of the
Gospel narrative, so that they may be frequently arranged
in parallel columns, as telling substantially the same story.
This fact places them in a class by themselves, it being
perhaps the only known example of a threefold biography
which could be treated in this way. The agreement
between them extends often to the minutest details.
Side by side with this we constantly find remarkable
divergence. It is this combination of agreement and
difference that has given rise to what is known as the
Synoptic Problem. The problem is to frame a theory
which shall account for the relations between the first
three Gospels, setting them in their chronological order,
tracing the sources from which they have been compiled,
and explaining both the coincidences and differences which
they present. Since the phenomena are very complex,
it is clear that a complicated rather than a simple solution
will be required to do them justice.
When we compare the Gospels in detail, we observe that
Matthew and Luke alone give any account of the life of
Jesus befora His ministry, and that their accounts are
completely independent of each other, touching at very
few points and difficult to harmonise. It is therefore
102 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
most significant that when the two authors begin to tell
the story of the ministry, they tell it in the same way.
It is natural to conclude that the agreement between
Matthew and Luke is to be connected with the introduction
of Mark. And this is confirmed by the fact that as soon
as Mark comes to an end Luke and Matthew begin to differ
again in the incidents they relate. The original ending
of Mark seems to have been lost. The last twelve verses
which are absent in our best MSS. are a later addition, and
Mark breaks off suddenly at xvi. 8. When Matthew and
Luke reach this point their agreement ends and they go
different ways. Luke and Matthew therefore agree in
the main within the limits covered by the Gospel of Mark.
Outside these limits, both before Mark begins and after
he ends, they are completely independent. Thus Mark
binds Matthew and Luke together. An interesting fact,
which may be simply mentioned here, is that the order
in which the incidents are narrated is generally the order
of Mark. Sometimes all three agree in order, but where
two agree Mark is practically always in the majority.
Mark and Matthew may agree against Luke, or Luke and
Mark against Matthew ; rarely, if ever, Matthew and Luke
against Mark.
But while it is true that outside the limits of Mark,
Matthew and Luke have nothing in common, they have
several sections in common within these limits which are
not found in Mark. These sections consist for the most
part of speeches not of narratives, and there is a closer
correspondence between Matthew and Luke in these two
sections than between any two of the evangelists, where
all three cover the same ground.
Further, with the exception of two miracles (Mark vii.
31-37, viii. 22-26) and one parable (Mark iv. 26-29), the
whole of Mark has parallels in Matthew or Luke or both.
Of course, the parallels present considerable variation,
and Mark has isolated verses peculiar to himself, but
xii.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 103
substantially with the exceptions mentioned, Mark has
nothing which is not found in one or both of the other
Synoptists. On the other hand, both Matthew and Luke
have a large amount of matter to be found in neither of
the other Synoptists.
So far, the correspondence between the Gospels referred
to has been general, touching the selection of incidents
or discourses, and not the language in which they are
preserved. Even so we are driven to postulate the use of
a common source or sources. It cannot be accidental
that out of the large number of incidents and discourses
in the ministry of Christ the few which are selected should
be in the three Gospels to so great an extent the same.
If the authors had gone to work independently, it is
incredible that they should have hit on such large agreement
in the selection of incidents. When we add to this that
the order is largely the same and that gaps occur at the
same points, the conclusion is strengthened that we must
assign these coincidences not to accident but to employment
of common sources. This is substantiated by other con
siderations.
When we examine the Gospels side by side we quickly
discover that the parallels they present are characterised
by remarkable verbal coincidences. If we take the
Gospel of Mark and the sections parallel to it in the other
Synoptists (the so-called Triple Tradition) we find that
Mark and Matthew have in common nearly fifty per cent,
of the total number of words in Mark, while Mark and Luke
have nearly thirty-five per cent. 1 While this is so in the
Triple Tradition, it is even more striking in the Double
Tradition, that is in the matter common to Matthew and
Luke which is not found in Mark. It should also be
pointed out that these figures do not indicate how large
the agreement often is, but only the average distributed
1 The statistics in this chapter are derived from calculations, much more
elaborate than can be here indicated, made several years ago by the writer.
104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
over a considerable number of sections. Thus in Mark
ii. 18-22 we have 129 words, in Matthew ix. 14-17 103, and
in Luke v. 33-38 129. In this section 58 words are common
to all three, and in addition Mark and Matthew have 23
in common, Mark and Luke 22, and Matthew and Luke 2.
That is, 80 words are common to Mark and Matthew and
to Mark and Luke, while 60 are common to Matthew and
Luke. In the speech of John the Baptist to those who came
to his baptism, Luke and Matthew give for several verses
practically the same report, something like 87 words out
of 90 being found in both.
It is clear that the common matter, even more than the
common selection of incidents, and the common order,
demands a common source, and this has been generally
admitted. The questions that arise concern the number
of sources and their character, whether oral or documen
tary. The latter point may be taken first. The theories
that have been put forward in solution of the Synoptic
Problem fall into two classes, the oral and the documentary.
The oral theory accounts for the parallels, which our
Synoptic Gospels present, by the hypothesis that the
writers made independent use of an oral tradition. It is
held that an official cycle of teaching was formed, probably
in Jerusalem, that this became more or less fixed, and that
it has been incorporated by our Synoptists without passing
to them through documents. The documentary theory,
on the other hand, while not denying that oral teaching
may represent the ultimate source of our Gospels, accounts
for the parallels as due to the literary use of a common
written source or sources, which may either be lost sources
or one or more of our Synoptic Gospels. Thus each of
our Gospels may be completely independent of the others
and dependent only on common documents which have
perished, or two of our Gospels may have used a third,
or one of our Gospels may have used the other two, and
this may be further complicated by the use of one of these
xii.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 105
two by the other. It is also possible that one or two may
have used lost sources along with two or one of our present
Gospels. It is clear that the possibilities are very numerous,
and probably most conceivable forms of the documentary
theory have at one time or another been put forward.
The oral theory does not admit of such complex variations.
Several considerations may be urged in favour of the
oral theory. It is clear that the narratives of Christ s
life and the reports of His teaching were first given to the
world by word of mouth and not in documents. From
the formation of the Church it was felt necessary that he,
who was chosen to the apostolic office to be a witness of
the Resurrection, should be one who had companied with
the apostles from the Baptising by John to the Ascension
(Acts i. 21, 22). Teaching on the ministry of Jesus must
have been given from the first by the Apostles. And we
have evidence that the Gospel of Mark actually rests on
oral teaching. Papias informs us that Mark s Gospel
embodies the preaching of Peter as it was elicited by the
needs of his hearers. Again the preference of the Jews
for oral teaching may also be urged in favour of this
hypothesis. There was a reluctance to commit instruction
to writing, it was considered to be better that it should be
stored in the memory. Commit nothing to writing
was a Rabbinical maxim. It may be added finally that
this theory gives an easy account of the differences in the
Gospels. Three writers independently reproducing the
same tradition would naturally introduce much variation.
These arguments, however, are far from substantiating
the oral hypothesis. They make it probable that oral
tradition to some extent lies behind our Gospels. But
so much is generally admitted by defenders of the
documentary theory. The dislike of writing really proves
nothing. For if it did not prevent our three Gospels from
being written, we are not warranted in assuming that it
prevented earlier documents from being similarly com-
106 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
posed, nor can there be any reason why the writer of a
document such as one of our evangelists, should object
to employ documents as sources. It is also to be noticed
that Papias account of the origin of Mark, while it assigns
it to oral teaching, is yet inconsistent with the use of an
oral tradition such as the theory postulates. For the
latter is an official selection of incidents and discourses,
largely fixed by repetition alike in order and language,
whereas Peter s teaching was occasional and disconnected,
drawn forth by the needs of his hearers, and in no sense
systematic teaching as to the ministry of Christ. Nor
must we press unduly the argument from variations.
The standard of fidelity to which the evangelists would
feel themselves bound in reproducing documents would
not be so high as to exclude considerable variation.
But not only are the arguments in favour of the oral
theory less strong than they seem at first sight, but there
are most serious objections to it. In the first place there
is the difficulty as to the formation of the oral tradition.
To begin with, we have to account for two traditions.
If we assume that the official oral Gospel contained only
the sections common to all three Synoptists, then the
question arises how are we to account for the matter
common only to Matthew and Luke ? Are their coin
cidences to be accounted for by the use of a common oral
tradition ? If so, where did this spring up, and had it
any official character ? If not, then we must have re
course to a documentary source, and if we invoke a docu
mentary source to explain the Double Tradition, why not
also to explain the Triple Tradition ? If on the other
hand we make the Double Tradition correspond to the
original oral tradition, then the difficulties are increased,
for we should have to explain why Mark completely
overlooks it, and also why all three of the evangelists have
a tradition in common, viz. the Triple Tradition, quite
distinct from the official oral Gospel. If from these
xii.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 107
difficulties we take refuge in the assumption that the oral
Gospel consisted both of the Double and the Triple
Traditions, then the question arises why Mark should have
cut out so much of it, excluding some of its most valuable
portions from his Gospel.
In the next place it is difficult to explain on what
principles the oral tradition was formed. Out of so
large a number of incidents why should just those
have been selected which we find preserved ? In a
collection made by an individual this is much more easy
to account for than in a cycle officially formed, with the
deliberate intention of giving information on the ministry
and teaching of Christ. Papias account of the origin of
Mark s Gospel supplies some sort of an answer to the
question why Mark gives us the selection of incidents we
find in his work. Peter s object was not to give systematic
teaching as to the ministry of Christ, but to meet the
needs of his hearers as they arose. His choice was thus
determined by practical necessities, and his treatment
was homiletical rather than historical. There is another
difficulty connected with the selection, though it does not
affect those who believe that Christ did not visit Jerusalem
during His ministry till the close of His life. It is generally
supposed that the oral tradition was formed in Jerusalem.
It is therefore remarkable that the Synoptists omit all
account of the Jerusalem ministry till the Triumphal
Entry. That the minds of the disciples turned with
fondness to the Galilean ministry was natural, but it is
very strange that the tradition should be so detached from
the scenes amid which it was formed.
It is also difficult on the oral hypothesis to explain the
degree of fixity which was reached by the tradition. This
difficulty affects the selection of incidents, the order in
which they were arranged, and the language. The first
of these points has been touched upon, so far as concerns
the original selection. But in the present connexion the
108 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
difficulty touches not the choice of certain incidents, but
the method by which this first selection became per
manently fixed. It scarcely seems probable that a teacher
1 should confine himself strictly to the same cycle of stories,
and repeat these, and these only, so frequently, that
the limits of his narration should come to be so fixed
as in our Triple Tradition. But it is further noteworthy
that not only the selection of narratives, but the order also
is largely fixed. The order of Mark is usually followed
by one if not both of the other Synoptists. It would not
be so difficult to account for the order being fixed in oral
tradition, if this were chronological. But Mark s order
is probably not chronological. We have then to account
for the formation of an artificial order. It is quite easy
to suppose that a teacher narrated his set of incidents
in any given order once ; what is very difficult to believe
is that he again and again repeated them in the same
order, unless he was guided to it by some definite
principle. But no such principle seems to be discernible
in Mark s order. The difficulty is not that, once the order
was fixed, it should be remembered, it lies a stage further
back in the fixing itself. A similar difficulty attaches
to the stereotyping of the language. Are we to imagine
that in the course of repetition the language attained such
fixity of form as we often find in the parallel sections of
our Synoptists ? The verbal coincidence as it is found
there is very large, and the actual fixity of form in the
oral tradition must have been much larger, when we
allow for the imperfect memories of the writers. It is
(barely credible that an unwritten series of narratives
should have been told with such little variation.
But this does not exhaust the objections to the oral
theory. When the oral tradition had been formed, we
have the difficulty attaching to the view that it can have
been so faithfully remembered and reproduced by three
writers independently, even granting that memories were
xii.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 109
exceptionally powerful. It is perhaps a further objection
that the tradition must have been formed in Greek,
whereas we should more naturally have expected it to be
in Aramaic. The coincidences in the Greek are such that
they cannot be accounted for by the theory that the
writers translated independently from a common Aramaic ,
original. The common source must have been in Greek.
It is also difficult to believe that the insignificant phrases
which are often found in parallel texts could have been
preserved in oral tradition. Nor is it likely that such
dislocation of the true order as the story of John the
Baptist s imprisonment would have been found both in
Matthew and Mark and at the same point, if they had been
depending simply on oral tradition. Probably the words
Let him that readeth understand in Matt. xxiv. 15
and Mark xiii. 14 attest the employment of a document,
at least for this section. The interpretation let him
that readeth Daniel understand is possible but improbable,
since the reference to Daniel occurs only in Matthew and is
apparently an editorial note. If so the words cannot be
words of Jesus, for He would have said Let him that
heareth understand. The reference must accordingly
be to him who read the address of Jesus. Since it is
incredible that the two evangelists should have inde
pendently added this warning at this precise point, one
must have copied from the other, or both have taken it
from a common source. But this source cannot have been
oral, for oral tradition is not read but heard. It must
therefore have been written, and if so, a document is
necessarily implied.
If then the_documentary hypothesis is adopted, the
next question concerns the documents, which have to be
regarded as the sources of our Synoptic Gospels. It will
be convenient to keep the Triple Tradition and the Double
Tradition distinct. The former may be examined first.
It has already been pointed out that a documentary theory
110 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
may assume a large number of forms. It is therefore
well to avoid any detailed statement of all that are possible
in the abstract, still more any examination of them. The
simplest course is to determine which of the Synoptists
presents the Triple Tradition in its most primitive form.
The answer to this will at once exclude a large number
of theories possible in the abstract, and it will then remain
only to discover whether or no we have to admit the
existence of a lost source for the Triple Tradition more
primitive still.
It has already been shown that Mark binds Matthew
and Luke together in respect to the general plan of the
Gospels. This supplies a very cogent argument in favour
of__the priority of Mark. This alone gives an adequate
explanation of the fact that the other Gospels begin to tell
the same story at the precise point where Mark begins
and cease to do so just where he ends. If Mark had had
Matthew and Luke before him this would have been
unaccountable, and indeed, any theory other than that
which regards Mark as preserving the most primitive
type, would similarly fail to explain the facts. This is
strengthened by the further fact that the order is pre
dominantly that of Mark. If where two agree against the
third, Mark is always in the majority, this can only be
because his order is the most original. The deviations
from it by Matthew and Luke can be explained without
difficulty, so that they form no objection to its being taken
as the fundamental order.
The same conclusion results from an examination of
the verbal coincidences. Of the words common only
to two evangelists in the Triple Tradition, Mark and
Matthew have five to six times as many, Mark and
Luke twice to three times as many as Matthew and
Luke have in common. Mark has therefore much more
in common with Matthew and with Luke than they
have with each other. This also substantiates the
xii.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 111
priority of Mark. Further, if on the contrary we
assumed that Mark used Matthew and Luke, we should
have to admit that he has contrived to get into his
narrative from four-fifths to five-sixths of the matter
common to both, and has besides this borrowed more
than thirty per cent, of the matter peculiar to Matthew
and fifteen per cent, of that peculiar to Luke. And yet
having compiled his narrative in this laborious and com
plicated way, it turns out to be simple, graphic, and
straightforward in a very high degree. It may safely
be said that it is barely credible that this should have
happened, and the evidence here as elsewhere points
unmistakably to the preservation of the earliest form in
Mark. It must, however, be pointed out that this does
not account for the words which Matthew and Luke have
in common which are not found in Mark. The difficulty
of accounting for them on the theory that these Gospels
are based on Mark has led to the formulation of several
hypotheses, which must be mentioned later. Provisionally
the priority of Mark may be taken as made good. But
this does not prove that Mark is the source of the Triple
Tradition. It may simply represent it more faithfully
than any surviving Gospel, but the actual source may be
lost. The consideration of this point may, however,
be deferred for the present.
We may now pass to the sections common only to
Matthejv and Luke. It has already been pointed out that
these consist for the most part of speeches, and that the
verbal coincidence between the Gospels in this Double
Tradition is larger than that in the Triple Tradition.
We may assume that a document, now usually called Q
(i.e. Quette, the German word for source ), lies behind these
sections, from which our first and third evangelists have
dra_wn. Since they consist for the most part of discourses,
it is a probable conjecture that this document is to be
identified with the Logia of Matthew, mentioned by
112 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
Papias. His words are Matthew composed the L ogia
in Hebrew, and each interpreted them as he was able.
The word Logia may, no doubt, be used for a collection of
narratives and speeches such as our First Gospel, with a
Hebrew original of which it has commonly been identified.
But the word more naturally means discourses, and it is
highly improbable that Papias is referring to a Hebrew
or Aramaic original of the First Gospel. For we have
strong reason for believing that such a Semitic original
never existed. Quite apart from the fact that the style
of the First Gospel is not that of a translation, it is decisive
that the Greek Gospel of Mark has been employed in its
composition. Not only is it difficult to identify our First
Gospel with a translation of Matthew s work, but it is
most improbable that one of the twelve apostles, an
eyewitness of the events, should have used the work of
Mark, who was not an apostle, and neither saw nor heard
a great deal of what he relates. It follows from this that
the First Gospel can hardly be the work of Matthew.
But, if not, the question arises why does it bear Matthew s
name ? It can only be because it has an intimate con
nexion with that apostle, embodying a tradition derived
from him. It can hardly be an accidental coincidence,
that criticism should postulate a collection of discourses
as the source for the common sections of Matthew and
Luke, and that tradition should assert that Matthew
compiled a collection of discourses. The conclusion thus
becomes highly probable that the Source of the Double
Tradition is the collection of speeches compiled by Matthew,
of which Papias speaks. We must suppose, then, that
this was used independently in the composition of the
First and Third Gospels. And since the coincidences
are so large in Greek, it seems necessary to assume that
the authors used for the most part the same translation.
And we thus understand why the First Gospel bears the
name of Matthew, because though it is not from his hand
xii.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 113
it incorporates the substance of his lost work. We thus
gain as the main solution of the Synoptic Problem, the
almost universally accepted Two-Document hypothesis,
namely that our First and Third Gospels have used as their /
two common sources, a document most faithfully preserved
in the Gospel of Mark and a document largely consisting
of speeches and sayings, probably a Greek translation of
the Logia of Matthew.
It should be added, however, that some scholars who
fully accept the two-document hypothesis refuse to believe
that we should identify the Logia referred to by Papias
with the common source of the Double Tradition. Some
suppose that he intended the complete Gospel, but errone
ously believed that this was a translation of the Semitic
original, and though they recognise that the criticism
of the Gospels forces us to postulate a common source for
the Double Tradition, consider that we have no right to
assume that this was what Papias had in mind. Another
view has been put forward by Professor Burkitt. He also
agrees that we must postulate a lost document as a common
source employed by Matthew and Luke in addition to Mark.
He thinks, however, that this is not to be identified with
the Logia. He suggests that Papias had in mind rather
a collection of Messianic proof texts from the Old Testa
ment. It is of course significant that such passages have
great prominence in Matthew, and it is probable that at a
very early period in the history of the Church collections
of these texts were drawn up for use by Christians in
their controversies with Jews. At the same time these
passages constitute a rather small part of the entire work,
so that it is not quite easy to understand why the name
Matthew should have become attached to the whole
Gospel. It is easier to understand if it incorporated so
large a work as the collection of discourses. It might
of course be urged that we have no more reason for trans
ferring the name of Matthew from the Logia to the First
H
114 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [cir.
Gospel than to the Third. But the authorship of the
Third Gospel by Luke was a fixed point in tradition,
guaranteed by the fact that the author of the Third Gospel
was also the author of the Acts of the Apostles. It is
true that no certainty in the matter is attainable, but it
seems still to remain the most probable view that the work
mentioned by Papias was the Semitic original of Q. It
is more likely that the original language was Aramaic than
Hebrew.
We may now return to the_ question whether the First
and Third Gospels were based on Mark or on a document
similar to but not identical with our Second Gospel. One
of the main reasons for accepting the latter alternative is
the existence of coincidences between Matthew and Luke
in the Triple Tradition which are not found in Mark.
Largely these may be explained as due to independent
revision of the same document. In this way we may
explain the identical substitution of more literary turns of
speech for Mark s blunter and harsher forms of expression,
and the consequential alterations which are sometimes
considerable, or the modifications and suppressions which
were prompted by reverence. But this does not cover all
the cases of coincident variation from Mark, and various
theories have been put forward to account for the un
explained residuum. The first is that Mark lay before the
first and third evangelists in another form than that with
which we are familiar. Usually it has been supposed
by those who hold this view that they used an earlier
Mark (Urmarkus). We need not argue for an earlier
Mark on the ground which has sometimes been put forward
that our Gospel does not correspond to the description of
Mark s work given by Papias, and that we must therefore
suppose that this description originally applied to another
form of the Second Gospel than that which we possess.
In all probability it applies sufficiently well. The state
ment that it was not in order is discounted by its polemical
xii.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 115
intention. Its order varied from that which Papias
regarded as correct. But our different verdict on this
point should not lead us to infer that Papias had a different
work before him. Of course the further question is raised
as to how far he was warranted in affirming that the preach
ing of Peter lay behind Mark s work. But that is a point
which would probably tell against an earlier Mark almost
as much as against the present Mark. In the main it is
likely that the authors of the First and Third Gospels
had Mark before them practically in its present form,
apart of course from the spurious ending. In any case
the difference between the two was probably so slight
that substantially we might speak of them as the same
book. It is perhaps more probable that if their edition
of Mark varied from ours it was a later rather than an
earlier that they used. If we assumed that Mark had been
slightly revised and that it was this revised edition which
was employed by the two evangelists, we should go a good
way towards meeting the particular difficulty in question.
Of course this conclusion does not settle the question
whether Mark may not once have existed in a briefer form.
Wellhausen for example argues that a fairly large section
in it is secondary. But he leaves the question open
whether this secondary element was introduced during the
oral or the written stage of the Mark tradition. And he
considers that Matthew and Luke used it in its present
form.
The second theory is that held by Holtzmann,
Weizsacker, Wendt and Allen, that Luke had a certain
knowledge of Matthew. The great objection to this is
that he should have neglected so much that is peculiar
to the First Gospel. Possibly he had only a cursory know
ledge of it, and in any case he could only have made a very
subsidiary use of it. Even allowing this, it seems strange
that this knowledge should have left such slight traces.
The third is the view of B. Weiss that Mark knew and
116 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
employed Q. This accounts perhaps better than either
of the other theories for the phenomena. For if all three
Synoptists drew from Q and the first and third copied it
faithfully but the second modified it in the cases
mentioned, this would satisfactorily explain the coin
cidences of Matthew and Luke which are not in Mark,
as well as their more primitive form. The chief objection
to this view is that if Mark knew Q he should have made
such sparing use of the work, omitting in fact its most
valuable features. No theory is quite satisfactory, and the
problem is perhaps not yet ripe for solution. Possibly no
theories of the kind will ultimately be found necessary.
If we allow for the influence of oral tradition, for the
possibility that Matthew and Luke used a revised edition
of Mark, and for the assimilation of the text of Matthew
to that of Luke, or the text of Luke to that of Matthew,
the phenomena may be sufficiently explained.
Since Q has been lost the question arises whether we can
reconstruct it. The analogy of the companion document
warns us that such an attempt can be only partially
successful. If the single mutilated copy of Mark from
which all our copies have apparently descended had dis
appeared, we could not have reconstructed it by a com
parison of Matthew and Luke. We could not even argue
that identical language in Matthew and Luke must have
been derived from Mark. Moreover, where Matthew and
Luke both abbreviate, much of Mark would have
irretrievably disappeared. We have therefore to allow
for the probability that the same causes may have pre
vented a complete preservation of Q even in sections
which have been taken over by both Gospels. It is also
possible that some sections in Q have been included by
neither evangelist, nor can we feel any great confidence
in assigning to Q non-Marcan matter found only in one
of the Synoptists, though probably such sections exist.
Some conclusions, however, seem to be fairly warranted.
xn.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 117
The document consisted in the main of sayings and dis
courses, but not exclusively so. Short introductions
giving the occasion would naturally be inserted, such as
the mention of the fact that John sent his disciples from
prison to Jesus. It contained one or two complete narra
tives such as the story of the Temptation and the healing
of the centurion s servant. The most interesting question
of all is whether it contained the history of the Passion
and the Resurrection. Generally this has been denied,
though Burkitt has recently argued that Luke s Passion
story was largely derived from Q. If the usual opinion is
correct, we ought not to infer that Q was written before the
Crucifixion. The author probably did not intend to
write a Gospel in our sense of the term, but to collect the
sayings and discourses of Jesus. It would, in fact, be
more reasonable to infer that he was already acquainted
with a Gospel in which the story of Christ s Ministry,
Passion and Resurrection was recorded, though it is by
no means necessary to assume this, still less to argue that
he must have been acquainted with Mark.
An important element in the reconstruction is the
decision we form as to the use of Q by the Synoptists.
It has been mentioned already that B. Weiss thinks that
Q was used by Mark. This would naturally imply that
Q contained a good deal more than is commonly assigned
to it. Von Soden on the other hand argues that Mark
obviously was acquainted with Q because he has included
so few discourses. Both suggestions are precarious. So
far as we know, the two documents were quite independent.
A less intangible but rather perplexing problem is raised
by the question, Is Q better preserved in Matthew or
in Luke ? So far as arrangement is concerned, the pro
babilities favour the greater originality of Luke. It has
long been observed that Matthew exhibits a marked
tendency to combine sayings or brief discourses into
larger wholes. These are often found in detached frag-
118 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
ments in Luke, frequently and perhaps usually in a more
appropriate historical setting. The most striking example
of this is that of Luke s parallels to Matthew s Sermon
on the Mount. The corresponding sermon in Luke is
almost one-third of the length of Matthew s. Yet the
parts absent from Luke s version are almost all to be
found scattered up and down in his Gospel. If Q con
tained the Sermon in the form in which Matthew gives it,
it is very hard to believe that Luke should have broken
it up and distributed the fragments here and there in his
Gospel, supplying appropriate historical introductions.
If, however, it existed much as in Luke, it seems quite
natural that the author of the First Gospel, with his
tendency to group similar sections together, should have
taken these fragments and combined them with the
sermon. Probably this applies to the reproduction as a
whole. The order of Q is better preserved in Luke than
in Matthew, though for a large part of the material the
order of the two sufficiently coincides to enable its main
outline to be recovered. This agreement makes it also
probable that most if not all the non-Marcan matter con
tained both in Matthew and Luke belongs to Q. It is
another question, however, which of the two evangelists
has reproduced most faithfully the phraseology of Q.
On this point scholars differ, some preferring Luke s version
in substance if not in form, while others prefer that of
Matthew. It is not possible in our space to investigate
the question. The present writer can only say that he
is inclined on the whole to give the preference to Luke.
He considers that no general rule can safely be laid down,
and that each case must be decided on its merits.
The date of Q cannot be settled with any confidence.
It must be earlier than Matthew and Luke, but since the
date of these Gospels is very uncertain, we cannot infer
anything with confidence from its employment in them.
Irenaeus tells us that Matthew wrote while Peter and Paul
MI.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 119
were preaching and founding the Church in Rome. The
form of the statement hardly inspires confidence, and
Irenaeus was thinking of our First Gospel. It is quite
possible, however, that a date in the first half of the sixties
might be assigned to Q. If the reference to Zachariah
the son of Barachiah in Matt, xxiii. 25, Luke xi. 51
belonged to Q, it might be necessary to fix the date some
what later. Assuming that the Zachariah intended is
the man who was killed by the Zealots in A.D. 67 or 68
shortly before the siege of Jerusalem, Q would have to be
at least as late as 67. Wellhausen has recently argued
strongly for this identification, which has received the
assent of Jiilicher, but Harnack considers that it is im
possible and that in any case it is probable that the words
son of Barachiah did not belong to Q. The work seems
to have been written for the Christians of Palestine before
the. destruction of the Temple.
That in_addition to Mark and Q other sources were
empjoyed by Matthew and Luke is very probable, especially
in the case of Luke, who in fact hints as much in the
preface to his Gospel. But here we are left for the most
part to conjecture. It should be added, however, that
this problem, especially as regards Luke, has recently been
the subject of some extremely suggestive discussions.
The Gospel of Mark.
Papias gives an account of the origin of Mark which is so
important that it must be quoted at length. The elder
who is quoted as the authority for the statement is appa
rently the presbyter John. And the Elder said this also :
Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down
accurately everything that he remembered, without
however recording in order what was either said or done
by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he
follow him ; but afterwards, as I said (attended) Peter,
120 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers)
but had no design of giving a connected account of the
Lord s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake, while he
thus wrote down some things as he remembered them ;
for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he
had heard, or to set down any false statement therein
(quoted from Lightfoot s translation). It has already been
pointed out that too much stress must not be laid on the
statement that the Gospel is not in order, since this is
suggested by the elder s preference for the order of another
Gospel, probably John. Papias accounts for the diver
gence from the true order by the statement that Peter s
treatment of the life of Jesus was homiletical rather than
chronological. Probably, however, we should be right in
trusting his statement to the extent of recognising that
reminiscences of Peter do lie behind the Second Gospel.
Peter s prominence in it is not to be accounted for simply
by the fact that he was the most important member of the
apostolic band, for some of the incidents are too trivial
to have found their way into a story of Christ s ministry
had it not been for the personal interest which they had
for Peter. Yet the Gospel is not a mere reproduction of
Peter s preaching. Even on Papias own showing the
arrangement of the material, which is extremely important,
was not due to Peter. The apostle gave only an accidental
collection of incidents and sayings to meet the needs of his
hearers. Mark has so arranged his material as to repro
duce some of the main lines of the historical development.
It is probable that in addition to the arrangement some of
the material itself was not derived from Peter, and that not
on account of its legendary character but for reasons of
literary criticism which do not depend on a particular
theory of the universe. The eschatological discourse in
chapter xiii., which possibly incorporates a small inde
pendent apocalypse, has apparently been taken from a
written source. Moreover, the presence of doublets
xii.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 121
suggests that a non-Petrine version of the same incident
occasionally stands side by side with the Petrine.
There is no substantial reason for doubting the traditional
authorship. The_titles of the Gospels are not of course
original, but they are very early, and they are probably
intended to claim direct authorship. In the case of all the
Synoptists they are corroborated by unbroken tradition,
and no plausible reason can be suggested why Mark
should have been chosen for the authorship of the Gospel
if he had no hand in it. It is true that he was connected
with Peter, but if Petrine authorship was to be claimed
it would have been simpler to assign it to him outright,
in spite of the references to him in the third person. It is
of course possible that the Second Gospel is the work of a
later writer Incorporating an earlier work of Mark (so
Von Soden and Schiirer), but the uniformity of style makes
it more probable that we have to do with the same author
throughout. The work seems to have come down to us in a
mutilated form. In spite of Wellhausen s opinion to the
contrary, it is most improbable that it could have ended
with xvi. 8. Possibly accident prevented the Gospel
from being completed, but it is more likely that it was
finished, though whether we are in a position to infer its
conclusion from the close of Matthew or John xxi. is very
problematical. Since all our copies are derived from the
mutilated copy, we may conclude that the Gospel was at
one time all but extinct. It is very striking that it should
have been preserved at all in view of the fact that it was
almost entirely incorporated in Matthew and Luke, and
that its tone was much less congenial to Christian piety
in the latter part of the first century. The tradition of its
connexion with Peter probably saved it for the world.
Nothing certain can be affirmed with reference to the
place of composition. Clement of Alexandria says that
it was written in Rome, and this is not improbable if we
accept the tradition of Peter s residence in Rome and con-
122 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
nexion with the Second Gospel. Wellhausen argues that
Jerusalem is the most probable on the ground that the oral
tradition is likely to have been first committed to writing
in the place where it was current. But this implies a very
sceptical attitude towards the Petrine origin of the Gospel.
According to Irenaeus the Gospel was written after the
death of Peter and Paul, and this is intrinsically more
probable than the later statement of Clement of Alexandria
that it was written in Peter s lifetime but without his
co-operation. Some scholars place its composition after
the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is more likely that it
was somewhat earlier. We have therefore as the probable
limits A.D. 64 and A.D. 70. The consideration of the
genuineness of Mark xvi. 9-20 belongs mainly to Textual
Criticism. The MS. evidence is in itself almost conclusive
against it, and the internal evidence is almost as clear,
both as regards connexion with the preceding context
and characteristics. Mr. F. C. Conybeare discovered in
1891 a late Armenian manuscript in which this section is
headed Of the Presbyter Ariston. Perhaps he should be
identified with the Aristion who is coupled by Papias
with the presbyter John. An expanded form of the
Greek text has been recently discovered in Egypt.
The Gospel of Matthew.
From the time of Irenaeus onwards the First Gospel
was attributed to the apostle Matthew. It is quite possible
that Papias held the same opinion if by the Logia he under
stood the First Gospel, and it is even conceivable, though
not likely, that the same misconception was shared by the
presbyter John. In any case we have already seen that
the First Gospel can neither have been written in Hebrew
nor in Aramaic nor by the apostle Matthew. It is probable
that we must assign to him the authorship of Q, all the
more that there was no substantial ground for the
attribution of the Logia to so obscure an apostle if he
xii.] THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 123
had not actually written it. We have no knowledge of the
author except such as we may infer from his book. That
he was a Jewish Christian is clear both from the general
characteristics of the work and from the fact that quota
tions from the Old Testament peculiar to the First Gospel
diverge widely from the Septuagint showing the influence
of the Hebrew original and are related to the interpreta
tions in the Targums.
The date is a very difficult problem. It is intrinsi
cally improbable that it belongs to the same decade as
Mark and Q, both of which it has employed. The
argument which has weighed most on the other side is
that no indication is given in the eschatological discourse
that Jerusalem had actually fallen. If, however, the
author reproduced his source here with fidelity we could
draw an inference only with regard to it, not to the Gospel.
Some who think that it was written later than A.D. 70
argue that it cannot have been much later, otherwise
the author would have made a clear distinction between the
fall of Jerusalem and the Second Coming. As against
this, however, it must be urged that the Gospel seems
to reflect a somewhat later period of ecclesiastical develop
ment. Nothing forbids the view that this rather
catholicised Gospel may have been written towards the
close of the first century. If we are right in supposing
that the first and third evangelists were unacquainted with
each other s works, we cannot allow any considerable
interval to lie between them, so that our decision on the
date of Luke will affect that on the date of Matthew.
We have no evidence as to the place of writing. The
interest in Peter and the ecclesiastical character of the
Gospel have suggested Rome to some scholars, while
others on account of its markedly Jewish Christian
characteristics prefer Palestine or Syria. Whether the
author employed other documents besides Q and Mark
is uncertain, but is not improbable.
124 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
The Gospel of Luke.
There is no question that the ancient Church from the
time of Irenaeus onwards attributed the Third Gospel and
the Acts of the Apostles to Luke. Its existence at a much
earlier date is guaranteed by the fact that Marcion
included it in a mutilated form in his Canon. This view
as to the authorship maintained itself in the Church
down to the critical period, and is still held by conservative
scholars, though it has become almost an axiom among
more advanced critics that the Lucan authorship cannot
be maintained. Against this Harnack has recently put
forward a very weighty protest, which seems at present
to have made little impression on German opinion. The
objections to the Lucan authorship are based rather on the
Acts than the Gospel, but since it is on all hands admitted
that both of these works were written by the same author
the denial of Acts to Luke carries with it a similar verdict
on the Gospel. It will be more convenient therefore to
defer the question of authorship and also that of date till
we come to the latter work,
We have already seen that for the account of Christ s
ministry Luke drew mainly on Mark and Q. That he used
other sources is probable. In his very important preface
he tells us that he had had many predecessors, and although
he was apparently dissatisfied with their work, it is likely
that he used more than two of them. It is of course
possible in the abstract that some of the matter peculiar
to Luke was to be found in Q, but if so it is very hard to
understand why Matthew should have omitted it. Even
if he was governed by considerations of space, it would be
surprising that he should have excluded some of the
most beautiful sections now found in Luke in favour of
matter greatly inferior in interest. It is therefore most
likely that Luke derived his peculiar matter from one or
more of these documents, though we need not exclude the
possibility that he may have been indebted for not a little
to oral communication.
xiii.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 125
CHAPTER XIII
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
IT may be assumed that this book comes from the same
hand as the Third Gospel. This is guaranteed by the
preface to the two writings, each addressed to Theophilus,
and by the explicit reference to the Gospel in the preface
of the Acts. The style leads decisively to the same con
clusion. The uniform tradition from Irenaeus onwards
ascribes this work as well as the Gospel to Luke. It
was apparently known to Justin Martyr, and perhaps
to Ignatius and Polycarp. We have also numerous
apocryphal Acts which presuppose the history as told in
our work.
If we turn to examine the internal evidence for author
ship, the point of departure is found in what are known
as the we-sections. Certain parts of the book are
written in the first person plural. This means on the most
obvious hypothesis that the writer of the book was a
companion of Paul on some of his journeys. This is the
opinion ordinarily accepted. But in view of the diffi
culties which the phenomena present, many critics believe
that the we-sections were written by a companion of the
apostle, but that the book itself was composed by a later
writer who incorporated these sections with or without
alteration. This hypothesis has assumed several forms,
according as the we-sections are attributed now to one,
now to another writer. Timothy, Silas and Titus have
been suggested, but the first two seem to be excluded by
126 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
the language of the book itself (xx. 5, 6, xvi. 16 ff.), and
there is no object in accepting Titus or any support for
, this view. The only form of the hypothesis which
deserves consideration is that which attributes these
sections to Luke and regards them as incorporated by a
later writer. This has the support of tradition so far as
it assigns a share of the work to Luke. And it has an
analogy in the case of the First Gospel.
The real question, however, is whether these sections
can be separated from the rest of the book. In the
first place it would be an extraordinary proceeding for
any writer, and especially for a writer of such literary
skill, to have incorporated a document, or extracts from
a document, without even changing the first person
plural into a third person or naming the writer. For
there can be no doubt that as the work reads now, the
author gives the distinct impression that he himself
was present at those incidents related in these sections.
It seems highly improbable on the face of it that he
should have allowed that impression to remain, if really
it was not he but some one else whose name he sup
presses while he borrows his words. But apart from this
difficulty which meets us at the outset, there are others.
The style of these sections is not to be distinguished from
that of the rest of the book. This has been convincingly
demonstrated by several scholars, among whom Hawkins
and Harnack may be singled out for special mention.
The suggestion made by some scholars that the identity
of style is to be explained by the author s revision of the
sections is difficult to harmonise with the fact that the
first person plural is left untouched. Not only so, but
there are cross-references from them to other parts of the
book. Thus in xxi. 8 we have a reference to the fact that
Philip was one of the seven, and who the seven were has
been explained in ch. vi., where it is also mentioned that
Philip was one of them. How he came to be in Caesarea
xni.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 127
has been told in viii. 40. It seems then far the most
probable hypothesis that the work is a unity, and if so due
to a companion of Paul, whom we need have no hesitation
in believing to be Luke. This is corroborated by the fact
that both the Third Gospel and the Acts seem to have been
composed by a physician such as we know Luke to have
been (Col. iv. 14). The fullest collection of evidence was
made by Hobart in his Medical Language of St. Luke.
Even when every reasonable deduction has been made
the evidence is sufficiently cogent to render this con
clusion highly probable, and it has recently secured the
adhesion of Harnack.
Since Acts is an historical book, it is natural that our
critical conclusions should be affected to a certain extent
by the author s treatment of history. A discussion of his
character as a historian lies outside our scope, but some
thing must be said on the history so far as it affects the
criticism. The author is distinguished by great accuracy
in his use of political terms. In view of the frequent inter
change of provinces between Emperor and Senate, it was
not easy for a later writer to be strictly accurate, since
different terms were employed for the two types. A
critic would expect the we-sections to be accurate.
Philippi was a Roman colony, the local magistrates were
duumvirs, but dub themselves praetors, and they have
their lictors. But the same accuracy characterises the
other parts of the work. It was thought even by some
apologists that Luke had used terms incorrectly when he
called the governor of Cyprus a proconsul. As a matter
of fact when the provinces were originally divided it fell
to the Emperor s share, but subsequently he gave it to the
Senate, so that Luke is strictly right in speaking of the
governor as proconsul. Another case is that of Thessa-
lonica. Here the magistrates are spoken of as politarchs.
The word does not occur in any Greek literature known
to us, but inscriptions have been found at Thessalonica
128 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
showing that this city had several politarchs. Achaia is
another good example owing to the frequent change of
government. From A.D. 15-44 it had been in the hands
of the Emperor. In the latter year it was handed over to
the Senate, to which ifc had formerly belonged and was
retained by it till 67. Then it ceased to be a Roman
province and became independent, but subsequently
Vespasian made it a province again. In spite of the
numerous changes the Acts correctly represents Gallic
as a proconsul, and its description of him agrees admirably
with information from other sources. None of these
cases is taken from the we-sections, so that even in the
parts where the writer is not credited with having the
accurate knowledge displayed by the author of those
sections, it is plain that on such slippery ground as this
he meets with no mishap. The knowledge of localities is
also accurate and betrays first-hand knowledge, as does
the description of the character of the people in particular
places. But while these have considerable weight, and
must be set down to the writer s credit, there is not the
same evidential value as in the instances just given, since
such knowledge might be obtained by travel a considerable
time afterwards. But not only does the account show
first-hand knowledge of the localities, it is also faithful to
the state of things that obtained at the time, but became
obsolete hi the second century.
The writer shows a good understanding of the develop
ment of the early Church. He knows the composition of
the community at Jerusalem, and points out quite
naturally how the first sign of friction within it was due
to difficulties between the Palestinian Jews and the
Hellenists. He knows of the communistic basis of the
Church, though that would presumably have passed away
by his time even in the Jewish Christian Churches, while
in the Pauline it probably never existed. He gives a
perfectly natural account of the almost incidental way in
xni.] THE ACTS OP THE APOSTLES 129
which the Gospel was first preached to the Gentiles. He
is also aware of the external relations of the Jerusalem
Church. Thus he has accurately caught the attitude of
the Jewish parties towards it. In the Gospels the
Pharisees are for the most part the persistent enemies
of Jesus, though the Sadducees became more prominent
towards the end. In the Acts, however, the Pharisees sink
into comparative insignificance, while the Sadducees are
the chief persecutors of the Church. This is due partly
to the fact that the Sadducees had been foremost in putting
Jesus to death, but partly also to their dislike of the
doctrine of the Resurrection, which was a prominent
article of Christian preaching, since it all rested on the
resurrection of Jesus. It is likely that if the writer had
been relying on his inventive powers rather than actual
historical information, he would have followed the Gospel
and given the prominent place to the Pharisees as the
persecutors of the Christians.
It has also been noticed that the speeches of Peter and
Paul present marked parallels with the Epistles of these
apostles respectively. This is an argument of a kind that
requires to be employed with caution, but so far as it
goes, it is a confirmation of the general accuracy of the
book. With reference to the speeches generally, it may
be said that in their main outlines they seem eminently
appropriate to the situation in which they are placed.
An example of this is the speech of Stephen. Lightfoot
thinks that the speech as we have it is only a preamble to
the real reply which Stephen had no chance of giving
owing to his attack on his accusers in the last verses.
But really it seems to be a most skilful reply, conducted
except for these three verses, with consummate tact.
While recounting the national history of which the Jews
were proud, he yet tells it in such a way as to indicate
the independence of true religion on the local sanctuary
or the Holy Land which had been exemplified frequently
I
130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
in that history, and to hint that the rejection of Jesus
by the Jews was all of a piece with the conduct of their
fathers. He thus brings his own position into line
with much in the Old Testament that could not be
objected to by the Jews themselves. It is also a mark of
authenticity that there is no reference in Stephen s speech
to the abolition of the Law. This could scarcely have
been kept out if the narrator had invented the speech.
In the speeches of Paul too it is noticeable that when
addressing non-Christian audiences he starts from what
he has in common with those whom he is addressing.
Thus in his speech to the people of Lycaonia he takes his
stand on the truths of natural religion as they appear
to the untrained intelligence. In his speech at Athens
his treatment is philosophical, and he starts from the
truth contained in pantheism and the kinship of men
with God. Similarly he treats the Jews at Antioch. In
each case the speech is relevant to the audience.
Another argument has been worked out by Paley in his
Horae Paulinae. He has shown in numerous cases that
the allusions in Paul s Epistles fit perfectly into the
narrative of the Acts. This is important because the
author does not seem to have used the Epistles in con
structing his story, for it would be difficult to explain if
he had done so why he should not have availed himself
of much of the material to be found there. And even if
he had used the Epistles, it is scarcely credible that the
minute coincidences, which are just those that would be
least obvious and most difficult to invent, should be just
the coincidences that we find.
There are, however, certain difficulties raised as to
matters of fact. The most serious is perhaps the reference
to Theudas in the speech of Gamaliel. We know from
Josephus of a Theudas who raised an insurrection in the
proconsulship of Fadus. This cannot have been earlier
than A.D. 44, the date when Fadus became procurator.
xiii.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 131
Yet not only is Gamaliel s speech earlier than this date,
but he places the insurrection before the time of Judas
the Galilaean. This latter is dated in the time of the
taxing soon after the birth of Christ. Two alternatives
are possible. Either the author has made a mistake or the
Theudas mentioned is to be distinguished from the Theudas
mentioned by Josephus. The name is not uncommon,
and insurrections of this kind were numerous.
One of the most serious difficulties is that occasioned
by the story of the apostolic council in Acts xv. If the
identification of this visit to Jerusalem with that recorded
in Gal. ii. be accepted we have apparently a grave dis
crepancy. Paul asserts that the Jerusalem apostles im
parted nothing to him, recognised the validity of his call and
divided the sphere of service, making only the request that
he should remember the poor. According to Acts they
drew up a letter in which they made four stipulations,
that the Gentile Christians should abstain from things
sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled, and from fornication. It is argued that such
an agreement cannot have been accepted by Paul, and
therefore that his companion Luke cannot be responsible
for this account. The question as to the historicity of the
decrees does not concern us, unless we are prepared to
draw the inference that inaccuracy on such a matter would
be impossible to a companion of Paul writing a great many
years later. It is now, however, more and more admitted
that the underlying assumption is unjustified. It is not
intended of course that there is any necessary discrepancy
between Acts and Paul on this point, but only that if
there were it would not necessarily involve the non-
Lucan authorship. The difficulty would largely disappear
if Harnack were right in adopting the contention of the
younger Resch, that we should accept the Western text
of the decrees though without the golden rule. In that
case we have not food prohibitions in the decrees but
132 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
the summary of Jewish ethical catechetics, abstinence
from idolatry, murder and fornication. This solution of
the difficulty has been rejected by Schiirer and by Sanday
(The, Apostolic Decree in the volume of Essays in honour
of Zahn) . It remains to be seen whether it will secure any
wide acceptance. What has been said on this historical
difficulty applies also to others. The primary element in
determining authorship is the proof that the author of the
we-sections was the author of the Third Gospel and
the Acts as a whole. The objections taken to the narrative
must accommodate themselves to this conclusion rather
than vice versa. The question how far other sources have
been used by the writer cannot be discussed here. A
whole series of attempts has been made to detect sources ;
the most recent discussion is to be found in Harnack s
The Acts of the Apostles.
The question of the date is one of great difficulty. Some
consider that the work was written soon after the con
clusion of the narrative, that is two years after Paul s
arrival in Rome. This view is suggested by the close of
the Acts at this point. It is argued that if Luke had
known more he would have told more, and not simply
said that Paul dwelt for two years in his own hired house.
This argument has been met in various ways. Some have
supposed that Luke intended to write a third book in
which he would have carried on the history from the
point where he leaves it at the close of the Acts, and
rounded it off by a peroration to match the elaborate
preface to the Third Gospel and Acts. For this we have
no evidence, certainly not in the use of first instead of
former in Acts i. 1, nor have we any for the view that
this book was left by him in an unfinished state. It has
already been pointed out in the discussion of the Pastoral
Epistles that as a matter of fact the work closes very
skilfully. Other arguments are that Acts xx. 25, cf. 38,
expresses the conviction that Paul would never see the
xin.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 133
Ephesian elders again, whereas from 2 Timothy it appears
that he did so. This, however, rests on the assumption that
Paul was released from the Roman captivity which we
have already seen reason to set aside. Moreover, there is
no reference either in the Acts or in the Gospels to the
destruction of Jerusalem and the terrible misfortunes
which fell upon the Jews. But this argument from
silence is too weak to bear any weight. The fact was
notorious. The failure to use the Pauline Epistles is
much easier to account for in Paul s lifetime than at a
later period. But this implies rather too modern a demand
on the historian.
There are very weighty arguments hi favour of a later
date. The preface to the Gospel definitely states that the
author had been preceded in his enterprise by many. It
is in the abstract quite possible that these numerous
Gospel narratives may have been in existence by A.D. 60.
It is nevertheless much more likely that the number
points to a considerably later date. We have seen reason
to believe that Luke based his Gospel on Mark and Q.
So far as our evidence for date goes, it is unlikely that
either of these was earlier than the sixties. Mark,
it would seem, belongs at the earliest to the late sixties.
If so we must place the Third Gospel in the seventies at
the earliest. The later we go the more easily we can
account for some of the phenomena. The version of the
Judaistic controversy suggests that it originated in a period
when the question had become one of rather remote
historical interest, and the conception of the apostolic
age was moving towards the catholicised picture of the
second century. The apologetic character of both Gospel
and Acts in relation at once to Judaism and the Roman
Empire is similar to what we find in the Fourth Gospel,
and also suggests a date not earlier than the reign of
Domitian.
If the view that Luke used Josephus could be sub-
134 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
stantiated, we should be definitely committed to a date
later than 93-94 when his Antiquities was written.
Dependence on Josephus has been asserted by Holtzmann,
Schmiedel, Wendt, Burkitt and other scholars, but
especially by Krenkel, who in his work Josephus und
Lucas (1894) sought to prove that Luke knew the whole
of Josephus writings and was greatly influenced by them.
His demonstration of this, however, is not satisfactory.
That Luke was in any way dependent on Josephus is
denied by very many scholars, including Schiirer, Harnack,
and Wellhausen. The difficulty about Theudas has been
already mentioned. According to Acts, Theudas is first
mentioned and then Judas of Galilee. Both the anachron
ism and the reversal of the historical order would be
explained if we assumed that Luke was acquainted with
the Antiquities (Book xx. chap. 5), inasmuch as after
the account of Theudas we read in the next paragraph
that the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain, I mean
of that Judas who caused the people to revolt when
Quirinius came to take an account of the estates of the
Jews as we have showed in a former book. It must,
however, be confessed that not only would the author
have read Josephus very carelessly, but that it would have
been far more easy to account for if Josephus reference
to Judas had not been so very incidental. The other
serious argument for acquaintance with Josephus is the
reference to Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, in Luke iii. 1.
Lysanias had been put to death in B.C. 36, so that we should
have to assume that it is a later Lysanias who is mentioned
by Luke. It is a little surprising that Luke should have
introduced Abilene into his synchronism, and the
suggestion is that this is due to his having read that
Claudius in the twelfth year of his reign bestowed upon
Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanaea, and added
thereto Trachonitis and Abila, which last had been the
tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antiquities, Book ii. chap. 7).
xui.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 135
Others who agree that the mention of Lysanias is an
inaccuracy, account for it by the fact that his kingdom
continued after his death to bear his name, and that Luke
did not know Josephus. The view that Luke may have
been acquainted with Josephus literary sources rather
than with Josephus himself can hardly be considered
a probable alternative since the chronological inaccuracies
charged against him are due to incidental combinations
in Josephus, which the latter would have been very unlikely
to have derived from his source. The present writer is i
accordingly inclined to believe that Luke had a cursory
acquaintance with this section of the Antiquities, and
therefore that the Gospel was probably not earlier than 95,
while Acts appears to have been written a few years later.
It is trie that this would make Luke rather an old man
at the time, but if we assume that he was quite young
when he began to accompany Paul, he would not be in
credibly old. At the same time an early date, say from
75-80, is not at all impossible in view of the somewhat
precarious inference from the coincidences with Josephus.
136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
CHAPTER XIV
THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS
WE have five writings in the New Testament which are
attributed to John, namely the Fourth Gospel, three
Epistles, and the Apocalypse. The critical opinion of the
present time is very much divided as to this literature.
Some still ascribe all five of these works to John the son
of Zebedee, others are willing to credit him with the Gospel
and the Epistles but deny to him the Apocalypse, while
others accept his authorship of the Apocalypse but deny
the apostolic authorship of the other writings. Others
again attribute some or all of these writings to John, but
consider that he is not to be identified with the apostle of
that name. Some admit that the Fourth Gospel and the
First Epistle are by one author, attributing the Second
and Third Epistles to a different writer, but some believe
that neither the Epistles nor the Apocalypse were written
by the author of the Fourth Gospel. Questions are also
raised as to the unity both of the Fourth Gospel and of the
Apocalypse. In view of these and other problems it will
be most convenient to begin by discussing some pre
liminary questions before we pass on to those that are more
central.
The first is concerned with the_ideutity_of John of Asia
known, to us from Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
Poj^crates and others. It has been usual to identify this
John with the apostle. The Tubingen school naturally
held firmly to tradition on this point, in face of the attacks
xiv.] THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 137
of Liitzelberger, Keira and Scholten, since it was an axiom
for it that the apostle John was the author of the
Apocalypse, with its supposed bitter attack on Paul, and
the Apocalypse can have been written only by one who
was intimately acquainted with the Seven Churches of
Asia. Probably scarcely any one now believes that the
Apocalypse contains an attack on Paul, or has any critical
axe to grind in claiming the Apocalypse for the apostle.
Accordingly the critical case gains nothing from the
tradition of the Asian residence, while this tradition is
really awkward for it when it comes to deal with the
Fourth Gospel. Several scholars, however, consider that
he was not the apostle but the presbyter John. Of the
latter we hear simply from Papias who enumerates, in a
list of those about whose discourses he was in the habit
of making inquiries, two Johns. The former of these
was clearly the apostle, the latter is called the presbyter
John. The passage runs as follows : And again on any
occasion when a person came (in my way) who had been a
follower of the Elders, I would enquire about the dis
courses of the Elders What was said by Andrew or by
Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John
or Matthew or any other of the Lord s disciples, and what
Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord
say. 1 (Quoted from the translation in Lightfoot s Apostolic
Fathers.) It is clear that the term disciples of the Lord
is used in two different senses, in the former case in the
narrow sense of apostle, in the latter case in a wider sense.
It seems further to be clear that the John mentioned
before Matthew is to be distinguished as the apostle from
the presbyter John who is coupled with Aristion. And it
may also be inferred that either at the time when Papias
was writing, or more probably when he was collecting
his material, John the apostle was dead, while John the
presbyter was alive, unless with Drummond we explain
the present tense say to mean say in their books.
138 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [OH.
The possibility must therefore be admitted that reieiences
to_Jphn as resident in Asia may in some instances,. have
been intended to relate to the presbyter rather than the
apostle.
The most important of these occurs in a letter written
by Irenaeus to Flprinus. He as well as Irenaeus had in
his earlier days been a hearer of Polycarp, but had been
later attracted by Valentinianism. In this letter Irenaeus
gives a vivid account of Polycarp s teaching. In it he
recalls how he would describe his intercourse with John
and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would
relate their words. He proceeds : And whatsoever
things he had heard from them about the Lord, and about
His miracles, and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having
received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word,
would relate altogether in accordance with the Scriptures.
It is clear from this that Polycarp was in the habit of
relating in very considerable detail the discourses he heard
from John and others who had seen and heard Jesus, and
of recounting their narratives about His life, teaching and
w T ork. It is therefore highly improbable that Irenaeus can
have made any mistake as to the identity of the John,
whose teaching Polycarp used to relate. The frequency
of his references to him and the detail into which he used
to go, seem to exclude the possibility of such misunder
standing. It must have been clear in several instances,
whether it was John the apostle or some other John of
whom Polycarp was speaking.
It is urged on the other hand that Irenaeus was very
young at the time, and that he was probably merely a
hearer of Polycarp and not one of his familiar disciples.
It is, however, very dubious whether he was so young
as these scholars attempt to make out, and he himself
lays special stress on his vivid recollections of that
period. Moreover, the accuracy of his statement is
guaranteed by the circumstances. However unscrupu-
xiv.j THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 139
lously he might overstate his points against those who
were not in a position to check his assertions, he could
not very well have afforded to do so when he was
appealing to recollections shared by the very man whose
views he was engaged in refuting. It is alleged that
Irenaeus made a similar mistake about Papias. He
says : These things Papias, who was a hearer of John
and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient worthy, witnesses
in writing in the fourth of his books. For there are five
books composed by him. Eusebius, after quoting this
statement, passes a criticism on it to the effect that Papias
does not declare himself in his preface to have been a
hearer of the apostles, but shows that he had received his
information from their friends. He then gives an extract
from the preface to substantiate his criticism. It is
generally agreed that Eusebius is right, for he read his
authorities with considerable care, and that Irenaeus was
incorrect in his assertion that Papias was a hearer of John.
But it does not follow from this that Irenaeus is likely to
have made a similar mistake about Polycarp. We have
no evidence that he had ever seen Papias, but we know
that he had seen and heard Polycarp frequently, and had
often listened to his reminiscences of John. Besides, his
statement about Papias is a mere passing allusion, while
his account of Polycarp s relations with John is vital to
his argument. Moreover, we know that Irenaeus _was
immensely impressed by the idea of continuity with the
apostolic teaching. He_believed himself to stand in re
lation to the apostle John through Polycarp. That he
should have made a mistake at this point is not easy to
believe.
But Irenaeus does not stand alone. Pojycrates, the
bishop of Ephesus, in a letter to Victor bishop of Eome
about the Paschal controversy mentions among the great
lights that have fallen asleep in Asia, John who was
both a witness [or confessor] and a teacher, and who leaned
140 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
upon the bosom of the Lord. This makes it probable
that the apostle is intended. He adds, He fell asleep
at Ephesus. The date of this letter is about 190 A.D.
Since the writer speaks of himself in it as having sixty-
five years in the Lord the date of his birth, if he was born a
Christian, will be about 125. Of course we cannot assume,
as Harnack observes, that he was born in Ephesus, or
spent his early days there. Still this is not unlikely, and
in any case the fact that he himself lived in Ephesus as
head of the Christian Church there, lends great weight to
his identification of the John who died there with the
beloved disciple. At the same time there is force in the
objection that he confused Philip the deacon with Philip
the apostle. It is not certain that he did so, but it is at
least sufficiently probable to lend plausibility to the
suggestion that he similarly confused John the presbyter
with John the apostle. This evidence of course does not
attest the residence of the apostle in Ephesus unless we
can identify the apostle with the disciple whom Jesus
loved. Clement of Alexandria relates the story of the
Apostle John and the Robber, and says that the incident
happened while John lived at Ephesus.
Justin s evidejice is, however, of more weight. He
ascribes the Revelation to the apostle John. It is clear
from the early chapters of the Revelation that it was
written by some one closely connected with the Seven
Churches of Asia. Accordingly Justin, whether he is a
witness to the Johannine authorship of the Gospel or not,
is at least a witness for the residence of the apostle John
in or near Ephesus. This is significant when we remember
that Justin was himself for a time hi Ephesus. Nearly
fifty years, then, before Polycrates wrote to Victor, the
fact that the apostle John lived in Asia is indirectly
attested by a writer who had himself been in Ephesus.
If, further, it be allowed, as it generally is, that the
Fourth Gospel originated in or near Ephesus, then this
xiv.] THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 141
may also be urged in corroboration of the belief that the
beloved disciple lived there. If the work was written by
him, this would follow as a matter of course. But if not,
the prominence assigned to him in the narrative is most
easily explained if it was the work of disciples of his who
were concerned to vindicate their master s true position.
And if such disciples wrote hi Ephesus it is most likely
that there John had taught them. We can the better
understand why it w r as felt necessary to correct the im
pression that Jesus had promised the beloved disciple that
he should not die, if he had lived or was at the time living
in the community from which the Gospel proceeded. If
then the beloved disciple is to be identified with the
apostle John, it seems probable that the interest in him
in the Fourth Gospel is due to the apostle s connexion
with Ephesus. Unless very forcible reasons can be
alleged on the other side, it must be admitted that John s
residence_"m Asia is a well-attested fact.
The question accordingly arises if the arguments against
it are sufficiently cogent to neutralise the reasons in its
favour. In the first place, while Papias mentions two
Johns, he says nothing as to their residence, and other
early writers betray no knowledge that two famous Johns
lived in Asia. They seem to know of one only. Accord
ingly it is inferred that there was only one highly dis
tinguished John in Asia, viz. the presbyter, and that by
a natural confusion he was identified with the apostle.
In answer to this it may be said that we cannot assume
that the presbyter John did live in Asia. If he did not,
then the identity of Polycarp s John with the apostle
would be very probable. But if the presbyter did live
in Asia, nothing was more likely than that he should
speedily be forgotten, eclipsed by the great apostle.
It must be admitted, however, that the argument from
the silence of certain writers is really strong. We should
have expected reference to the apostle s residence in Asia
142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
in the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp. The latter,
however, was writing to the Philippians, and it was natural
for him to refer to Paul, who had founded the Church and
written at least one letter to it, while there was no need
for him to mention John. The silence of Ignatius is more
difficult to explain, especially in his letter to the Church
at Ephesus, in which he refers to Paul but not to John,
who if he had lived there, could have died only a short
time before. The mention of Paul seems to be due partly
to his relation to the Ephesian Church in its earliest period,
partly to Paul s connexion with Antioch, where Ignatius
was bishop, and especially to the fact that he was going
to Rome to be martyred and thus, as he says, following in
Paul s footsteps. The difficulty is a real one, but a negative
argument, which might with fuller knowledge be readily
rebutted, cannot count for much against the mass, of
positive evidence for John s residence in Asia. 1 Ignatius
refers to the connexion of the Church in Ephesus with
apostles, and the plural may imply Paul and John.
It jwpuld nevertheless be difficult to maintain the
correctness of the tradition if the apostle John was really
martyred in Palestine. No weight could attach to the
bare statement found in a single MS. of the Chronicle of
Georgios Hamartolos that in the second book of his Logia,
Papias stated that John the apostle was put to death by
Jews. The Chronicle belongs to the ninth century, and
the statement is found only in one of the twenty-eight
MSS. of the work. There is, however, a confirmation of
it in an extract from a MS. of an epitome that seems to be
based on the Chronicle of Philip of Side, which belongs
to a date early in the fifth century. Here we read,
Papias says in his second book that John the Divine and
his brother James were slain by Jews. And as confirming
1 In any case Pfleiderer s statement is extravagant that the silence of one
who, in time as well as locality, stood so near the Ephesian John of tradition,
aud had such urgent reasons to appeal to him, is sufficient by itself to refute
this tradition ( Urchristentum, vol. ii. pp. 413, 414).
xiv.] THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 143
this, we have the argument derived from the oracle in
Mark, that James and John should drink of the cup
Jesus drank of and be baptized with His baptism.
Without knowing of the alleged quotation from Papias,
Wellhausen had inferred from this passage in Mark that
both John and James had been already martyred when
the Gospel was written. In his note on Mark x. 39 he
says : The prophecy of martyrdom refers not simply
to James but also to John, and if half of it remained un
fulfilled it would hardly have stood in the Gospel. Accord
ingly a serious objection is raised against the reliability
of the tradition that the apostle John died a peaceful
death at an advanced age.
Apparently Wellhausen does not regard the oracle as
authentic, but as very old. E. Schwartz was stimulated
by Wellhausen s note to publish a special discussion of the
subject. He thinks that the oracle was very old, inas
much as the later Gospels tone down the story, but he
supposes it to have originated from the martyrdom of the
two apostles. From the reference to the seats, the one
at the right hand and the other at the left, he infers that
they must actually have been martyred at the same time,
and that this claim cannot have been made for them
unless they had been the first of the twelve to be martyred,
and for some time remained the only martyrs. These
results are stated as if the mere statement of them made
them self-evident, and the difficulties in the way are very
lightly brushed aside. Schwartz is not disturbed by
the mention of John in Gal. ii. 9 as alive when Paul and
Barnabas were recognised by the pillar apostles, but
argues that the John intended is John Mark. Naturally
this does not at all harmonise with the relative positions
assigned to Paul and John Mark in the narrative of Acts.
Schwartz has no hesitation in setting this aside, especially
as the legendary character of the mission in Cyprus seems
to him quite obvious, or in denying the identity of John
144 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
Mark with the Mark of the Pauline Epistles. A further
difficulty is that Acts is completely silent about the death
of the apostle John, and this is explained by Schwartz
as due to deliberate suppression on account of the later
tradition. Besides, how was it that John Mark, who was
not one of the twelve nor yet a kinsman of Christ, came
to possess so eminent a position in the Jerusalem Church
as to rank with Peter and James the Lord s brother ?
The only answer that Schwartz is able to give is that he
was the son of the Mary who permitted meetings of the
Church in her house !
It is scarcely probable that, weighted with these
numerous improbabilities, Schwartz s theory that James
1 and John perished at the same time will make many
converts. Besides, there is a very serious difficulty
created by the fact, as Schwartz considers it, that Papias
recognised the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse as
the work of the apostle. Is it likely that he supposed
, that John was put to death by Herod Agrippa, and
yet had already seen his vision in Patmos and written
his letters to the Seven Churches ? Schwartz replies
that Papias tested his traditions not with reference to
their historical truth or probability, but their orthodox
or heretical character. But surely he can hardly have
been unconscious of the glaring improbability which would
thus be created, especially as his familiarity with the
conditions of the apostolic age must have been sufficient
to assure him that the residence in Patmos could not
possibly be placed so early. It is therefore extremely
difficult to accept Schwartz s view that John was
martyred at the same time as James. Wellhausen at one
time rejected the view that John died at the same time as
James though he has since accepted it (Das Ev. Johannis,
p. 100), and most of those who accept the quotation from
Papias as authentic and historical will probably refuse to
date the martyrdom of John so early as the reign of Herod
xiv.] THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 145
Agrippa. Clemen (American Journal of Theology, vol. ix.)
believes that Papias made the statement attributed to
him, but that it was a mere inference from Mark, and
unhistorical. It should be added as a further piece of
evidence that in the Syriac Calendar of the Church of
Edessa, the MS. of which is dated A.D. 411, we have
John and James coupled together as martyrs at Jerusalem
and they are described as apostles, the date of their
martyrdom being Dec. 27th. John is apparently the son
of Zebedee, though in the entry for Dec. 26th Stephen
is described as Stephen the apostle. In a Carthaginian
calendar we have John the Baptist in place of the
apostle, but this is clearly a correction, for the Baptist
is also commemorated on June 24th. But J. H. Bernard
has shown that we, cannot rely on this evidence to prove
the martyrdom (Irish Church Quarterly, vol. i.), and
his arguments have been accepted not only by J. A.
Robinson but by Harnack, . who has all along refused
to^credit the story, though he denies the Ephesian residence
of^the apostle.
In spite of these arguments and the confidence with
which many critics accept them, the grayest doubts must
arise as to whether Papias ever made the statement at
all. For all scholars have said to the contrary, it is hard
tojbelieve that in the face of it the view that John died a
peaceful death in Asia in extreme old age could ever have
gained its universal currency. Irenaeus appeals to Papias
as an authority, at the same time he betrays no shadow
of misgiving that his opponents had at hand so awkward
an argument with which to pulverise his statement.
Eusebius similarly is quite unaware, so far as appears,
that any such statement was made, and yet he read
Papias thoroughly. That Eusebius deliberately sup
pressed the statement is hard to believe. He could not
remove it from the pages of Papias if he wished, and his
opposition to Papias millenarianism might have made
K
146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
him welcome such an exhibition of Papias capacity for
blundering. We need not doubt that Papias must have
* said something which gave rise to the distorted statement
that we at present possess, but what this statement was,
whether it had originally reference to John the Baptist,
as Zahn supposes, or whether, as Lightfoot and Harnack
.have suggested, something has dropped out of the text,
will be shown only when further evidence is discovered.
Further, if the identification of the beloved disciple with
the apostle John can be accepted we have another piece
of evidence in the appendix to the Gospel. Its point is,
that while Peter is to die a martyr s death, the ^beloved
disciple is not. Whether the appendix was written by
the author of the Gospel or not, it must have been written
very early, and probably published at the same time as
the Gospel, since we have no trace that the rest of the
Gospel was ever in circulation without it. The chapter
then gives us evidence, at least contemporary with Papias
and probably earlier, that the beloved disciple did not die
a martyr s death. Moreover, the prominence which the
. beloved disciple receives in the Fourth Gospel points in
the same direction if the common view is correct that the
^ Fourth Gospel originated in or near Ephesus. If the
i Gospel was the work of the beloved disciple, such promi
nence is readily accounted for. But if it was not his work,
then the question arises why in this Gospel he is so much
i more prominent than in the Synoptists. Obviously
because he was of special interest to the circle out of which
it came. But if it originated in Asia, why should John the
. apostle be thus honoured there ? The best explanation
is given by the tradition which asserts that during the
1 latter part of his life he lived in Ephesus, and gathered
pupils about him to whom he was the object of special
veneration. Harnack himself is so impressed by this that,
while he denies the tradition, he thinks that John at some
time paid a visit, though only a brief one, to Ephesus.
xiv.] THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 147
It is questionable, however, whether a brief visit would
make the impression that he seems to have made in Asia.
In the preceding discussion the qualification has been
constantly made that this or that argument holds good
only if the beloved disciple and the apostle John are
to be identified. This identification has been universally
made in tradition, and it is still accepted by the great
majority of critics. Some, it is true, have considered him
an ideal figure invented by the evangelist. This view,
however, may be safely set aside. It would be hard to
hold it in face of the phenomena of the Gospel. But
it is really impossible, with any show of reason, to carry
it through for the appendix. The author is obviously
embarrassed by the necessity of clearing up a prevalent
misunderstanding, to the effect that Jesus had promised
that this disciple should not die till His return. People
do not speculate on the future of non-existent persons,
and certainly if the evangelist had created the figure he
would never have represented such a misunderstanding as
arising, still less have felt himself under the compulsion
of correcting it. It is plain that the writer is confronted
by a real difficulty touching a real person, about whom
a current expectation had been or was likely to be falsified.
Assuming, then, that there was a beloved disciple, is
any other identification than the usual one possible ? The
view put forward by Delff may first be mentioned. He
eliminates from the Gospel most of the Prologue and the
Galilaean sections. He thinks the author was named John,
and belonged to one of the high-priestly families in
Jerusalem, better educated than the apostles and there
fore more capable of appreciating the deeper teaching of
Jesus, a friend of Nicodemus. In the first edition of his
Commentary on the Apocalypse (1896) Bousset put
forward the view that there was a disciple of Jesus living
in Asia to extreme old age, who bore the name of John,
and is to be identified with the presbyter John of Papias.
148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
This John was the beloved disciple, but he was not the
apostle ; he was an inhabitant of Jerusalem, and connected
with the high-priestly family. He has since modified
his position in a more negative direction (Theologische
Rundschau, June and July 1905). He now leaves the
question open whether the presbyter John had actually
seen Jesus. He may have done so, but he may simply
have belonged to the primitive Jerusalem Church, and
have been called a disciple of the Lord in that wider
sense. He was not the author of the Fourth Gospel,
which was written by one of his disciples some decades
after his death. Apart from the date given for the day of
Christ s death, we have no tradition in the Gospel superior
to the Synoptic. The part assigned to the beloved disciple
in the Gospel is of a fanciful character ; indeed, on the
general question as to the trustworthiness of the Gospel
he occupies pretty much the same position as other
advanced critics (see the summary in his Was Wissen wir
von Jesus ?).
The identification of the beloved disciple with John of
Jerusalem seems to be growing in favour, and mediate
or immediate authorship is claimed for this John rather
than the apostle by Von Dobschiitz, Burkitt and
others. This theory has some advantages : it accounts
for the prominence given to Jerusalem in the Fourth
Gospel, and removes some of the difficulties that have
been felt as to the authorship of such a work by the apostle
John. In spite, however, of its attractiveness it is exposed
to considerable difficulty. It is possible to identify the
beloved disciple with one of the two other of his disciples
mentioned in the twenty-first chapter (cf. i. 35) rather than
with one of the sons of Zebedee, though on a fishing
expedition in Galilee we do not expect the High Priest s
friend from Jerusalem. It is even possible that one who
was not an apostle was present at th_ Last Supper,
especially if he were the host in whose house the supper
xiv.] THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 149
was held. But it is very improbable that the place of
chief honour at the feast should be accorded to one who
was not an apostle. Moreover, the close association with
Peter points to_the apostle John, since the two are closely
associated in the Acts of the Apostles. It may be added
that the difficulties which seem to many scholars to
negative the supposition that the Gospel was written by an
eye-witness are not much relieved by this hypothesis,
inasmuch as they specially touch those very points on
which a Jerusalem resident should have been exceptionally
well-informed. On the whole, then, it seems best to
acquiesce in the usual view which hjj,s recently been re-
affirmed by Harnack, that the beloved disciple was none
other than the son of Zebedee. So far then from haying
suffered martyrddm in Palestine, he lived to so extreme
an old age that the saying was current about him that he
would survive till the Second Coming.
It may be convenient to discuss here another question
raised by the passages which speak of the disciple whom
Jesus loved. In an extremely acute and suggestive study
of the Monarchian Prologues to the Gospels published in
Gebhardt and Harnack s Texte und Untersuchungen,
Corssen found in the Leucian Acts of John the key to the
Gospel. His discussion has attracted great attention,
and Pfleiderer has accepted his results. In the Acts of
John a Docetic view of Christ s Person is taken. During
the Crucifixion, Jesus appeared to the apostle John on the
Mount of Olives, and revealed to him that while for the
crowd He was suffering in Jerusalem, John alone was
deemed worthy of the revelation that the Crucifixion was
an empty appearance. The Acts explained why John
was the beloved disciple, a thing which the Gospel does not
do. It was because of his celibacy. Corssen argued that
the author of the Leucian Acts did not know the Fourth
Gospel, and that if there was dependence they were the
original. If the two works, however, were independent,
150 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
then the Fourth Gospel was based on an earlier form
of the tradition later embodied in the Acts. In order to
attack the Docetic doctrine the Fourth Evangelist wrote
a Gospel vigorously asserting the fact of the Incarnation
and real humanity of Christ. He took from the Docetists
the John under whose name they had promulgated their
doctrines and made him the guarantee for his own. But
since caution was necessary, he did not openly say who the
beloved disciple was, though he indicated that John was
intended.
This theory suffers under several disabilities. In the
first place, Corssen s theory of the relation between the
Gospel and the Acts cannot be maintained ; it is very
improbable that the Fourth Gospel can be so late as
the Leucian Acts ; the date of the latter is uncertain, but
it is not probable that they are as early as 130, and it is
highly improbable that the Fourth Gospel is so late. Of
course this does not negative Corssen s general theory,
for the Acts may embody earlier stories. Still, these have
to be postulated. In the next place, Corssen seems to
invert the relation between Christ s special affection for
John and his celibacy. The representation is not that
his celibacy was the cause of Christ s love (Monarchianische
Prologe, p. 131), but the effect of it. If so the Acts do not
account any more than the Gospel for the love entertained
by Jesus for him. The Gospel gives no explanation
because none was needed ; it was simply the statement
of a fact. The extravagant importance attached to
virginity, not only by the Gnostics but by others in the
early Church, as we see from the story of Paul and Thecla,
comes out in the emphasis on the virginity of the beloved
disciple. But how, on Corssen s view, did the story of
his virginity arise at all ? He himself rejects the
suggestion that it had anything to do with Rev. xiv. 4.
Pfleiderer, however, has seen in that passage the key to
the story ; he argues from it that the prophet John to
xiv.] THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 151
whom we owe the Apocalypse was not only a prophet
but also an ascetic, and that the whole story which we
find in the Leucian Acts and then in the Gospel of John
about the beloved disciple arose in this way. The
Gnostics made the virgin and prophet John of the
Apocalypse into the beloved disciple on account of his
virginity, and then in virtue of this close relation to Jesus
made him the recipient of esoteric revelations ; thus they
managed to secure his sanction to their own Gnostic
doctrine. The author of the Fourth Gospel wrested their
weapon from them and turned it against them, using for
his own representation the great prestige which the name
of John had thus acquired. The prophet John may have
been a celibate ; that is pure assumption. But since in
this very passage the Apocalypse represents the number
of celibates who accompany the Lamb as 144,000, it seems
not to have been such an exceptional virtue as to qualify
for John s exceptional position. The usual view is not j
only far more obvious, but it has support from the position i
accorded to John by Jesus in the Synoptists, to say nothing
of the prominence he enjoyed in the primitive Church, as
shown both by Galatians and the Acts of the Apostles.
152 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
CHAPTER XV
THE REVELATION OF JOHN
IT may initiate us more easily into the tangled problems
of this book, if we remind ourselves of the various ways
in which they have been handled by modern scholars.
A quarter of a century ago the opinion was confidently
expressed that from being the most obscure it had come
to be the most easily understood portion of the New
Testament. It was not unnatural that such an opinion
should be expressed. The brilliant work which had been
performed by such scholars as Liicke, Ewald, and Bleek
seemed to have made plain the true character of the book.
The points to which one would specially direct attention
in their work were the following : First of all, they
rescued the Biblical apocalypses from their isolation.
So long as the Book of Revelation could be illustrated
only by the Book of Daniel and sporadic sections in the
Old and New Testament, the material at the disposal
of their interpreters was seriously limited. When, how
ever, it was recognised that the Biblical apocalypses were
only a section of a much larger literature, a new era in
their interpretation began. They were studied in the
light of this larger literature, and much that had been
dark now became plain. And as these non-canonical
writings have themselves been more closely studied,
the results have been very fruitful for the understanding
of the canonical apocalypses. In the next place they
emphasised the fact that the Book of Revelation, like the
xv.] THE REVELATION OF JOHN 153
Book of Daniel, was to be understood through the con
temporary history. The identification of the beast with
the Roman Empire in general, and with Nero in particular,
ruled the interpretation of the book, and it was confidently
believed that the true key, after centuries of futile groping,
had been discovered.
The dominant school of critics accordingly took the
apocalypse to be a unity and to reflect the political con
ditions shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. In
1886, however, Vischer published an investigation which
placed the problem in a new light. He put forward the
theory that_the Apocalypse was^a fundamentally Jewish
writing worked over by a Christian hand. Harnack, his
teacher, at first gave the new theory no cordial reception,
but on studying the book afresh in the light of it was
converted to it. As we look back it is perhaps less sur
prising than Harnack felt at the time that such a solution
should have been put forward. The method of literary
analysis had been applied to the Pentateuch and the
Synoptic Gospels, not to mention other parts of Biblical
literature, and it was therefore not to be wondered at that
it should be applied to the Revelation. And once the
idea had been started that more hands than one had been
at work on the book, it was not a difficult step to the
theory that one of the hands was Jewish and not Christian.
In fact, it was rather an accident that it fell to Vischer to
cause the sensation which was created by the publication
of his study. For, apart from other suggestions, Spitta,
a very acute and learned scholar, had already worked out
an elaborate analysis of the book, which he published
not so long after (in 1889) with valuable exegetical dis
cussions which still reward patient study even on the part
of those who cannot accept his main thesis. The method
of analytic criticism, once started, ran riot, and much
ephemeral literature was published designed to solve the
riddle as to the structure of the book.
154 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
The. movement received its quietus with Gunkel, who
published in 1895 his epoch-making Scliopfung und Chaos
( Creation and Chaos ). The book was an investigation
of the first chapter of Genesis and the twelfth chapter of
the Apocalypse, but it was a fundamental investigation
and embraced much more than would be suggested by the
title. The literary analysis had been intended to do
Justice to the inconsistencies and incongruities within
the book which seemed to point to the authorship of two
or more writers. Gunkel introduced another method to
explain the phenomena. The sharp criticism to which
he subjected the theories of his predecessors misled some
into thinking that he was on principle opposed to analytic
criticism. This was a mistake, and those who were looking
to him to lead a reaction against Old Testament criticism
were sharply disillusioned by his very important com
mentary on Genesis, in which he not only accepted the
customary analysis into four main documents and the
Grafian theory as to their order, but analysed narratives
which had previously been treated as unities. To the
Apocalypse, however, he applied a different method.
The phenomena, he said, which the analysts pointed out
were there, but their explanation was incorrect. They
could be rightly accounted for only on the view that the
Apocalypse incorporated a very ancient eschatological
tradition which originated in Babylonia and had a con
tinuous history reaching back for some thousands of
years. During that period it was natural that inconsis
tencies should arise, and these were not to be explained as
due to the literary blending of works by different authors ;
they had arisen in the development of the tradition itself.
Much in the Apocalypse and in Daniel was unintelligible
to the authors themselves. They regarded the tradition,
however, as sacred, and therefore preserved what was
mysterious as well as what they understood. Moreover,
Gunkel attacked not only the analysts, but those who
xv.] THE REVELATION OF JOHN 155
explained the Apocalypse through contemporary history.
He did not, it is true, deny references to current condi
tions entirely, but much that had been so interpreted he
explained as far more ancient.
Gunkel s work naturally made an immense impression.
It left its mark deep upon Bousset s commentary, which
appeared the following year, and also on his special in
vestigation into the doctrine of Antichrist. Bousset,
however, was much less averse than Gunkel from admitting
allusions to contemporary history, and he recognised the
employment of sources by the author, though he believed
that he was no mere compiler but had impressed his own
stamp everywhere on the book. Wellhausen had some
important pages on the subject in the sixth part of his
Skizzen und Vorarbeiten. He was especially severe on
Gunkel s attempt to refer, as he said, everything possible
and impossible to a Babylonian origin. As regards the
twelfth chapter, which constitutes the greatest difficulty
for those who consider the book to be purely Christian,
he agreed with Vischer as against Weizsacker that it was in
the main of Jewish origin.
In the important second edition of his Urchristentum,
published in 1902, Pfjeiderer revealed himself as an adherent
of_the Eeligionsgeschichtliche Methods which Gunkel had
brought into such prominence. But he recognised to a
very much fuller extent than Gunkel that the author had
drawn on earlier literary sources. A much more pro
nounced return to the analytic method came with the
publication of a special investigation from the pen of
J^Weiss which appeared in 1904. The author had been
much influenced by Spitta s keen-sighted investigation,
and his analysis reminds us at certain points of that given
by his predecessor, but it was more plausible and perhaps
less mechanical. At the close of his investigation he
brought the problem of the Apocalypse into connexion
with the larger problem of the Johannine literature in
156 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
general, but simply sketched his results, leaving the detailed
establishment of them to a later period. His theory was
as follows : John of Asia, whom, in common with a large
number of modern scholars, he identified with the presbyter
and not with the apostle, shortly before the year A.D. 70
composed an apocalypse. Subsequently, having out
grown his apocalyptic stage, he composed the letters which
go by his name and wrote reminiscences of Jesus. In the
reign of Domitian a disciple of John who had not kept
pace with his master in his development took up his
earlier apocalypse. He combined with it a Jewish
apocalypse composed in the year A.D. 70, to some extent
probably out of pre-existing materials, and added a good
deal of his own and thus created our present Apocalypse.
What had happened to John s Apocalypse happened
later to his reminiscences. These also were taken and
expanded into our Fourth Gospel. A judgment on the
whole scheme can hardly be pronounced before the
author s case for it is fully published, and it will then be
seen whether he has been more successful than his pre
decessors in reversing the Judgment of Strauss that the
Fourth Gospel is like the seamless robe we can cast
lots for it, but we cannot divide it. So far as the Apoca
lypse is concerned, the theory has not been favourably
received, Swete and Sanday in this country have pro
nounced against it, and this is true also of Jiilicher in the
latest edition of his Introduction, and Bousset hi the
valuable second edition of his Commentary, which appeared
in 1908, to say nothing of other scholars. A very interest
ing and suggestive analysis of the Apocalypse has recently
been published by Wellhausen. It is a very independent
piece of work, reminding one not a little of J. Weiss. He
considers that Nero Caesar is the correct solution of the
number 666, but regards it as merely a gloss which has had
the effect of throwing students off the right scent. It is
not the key, as has been thought, to the understanding of
xv.] THE REVELATION OF JOHN 157
the whole book, but simply to the misunderstanding of
the figure of the beast.
The story of these attempts to solve the riddle of the
book will naturally make on many readers the impression
that criticism will be forced to confess itself bankrupt.
We ought rather to conclude that we_shall understand it
only by an eclectic method, which combines the lines along
which the solution has been sought. We^must recognise
inj/t a reflection of contemporary history, the stratification
of_ documents, and the incorporation of very ancient
arjpcalyjptic tradition. The earlier critics were right,
not only in the emphasis they laid on its relationship to
the cognate literature, but in their conviction of relevance
to the conditions of the time. The writer diverges from
many apocalyptists in that he does not write history in
the guise of prediction. Still less is he concerned with a
distant future ; the end is at hand. It is with the urgent
problems of the troubled present and the still darker
immediate future that he is concerned. There are not
easily missed contemporary references. The whole aim
of the Apocalypse in its present form is to encourage the
Christians in the persecution they are suffering from the
Roman Empire. The scarlet woman is drunk with the
blood of the saints, the souls under the altar cry to God to
avenge their blood, the martyrs of Jesus are seen after they
have passed through the great tribulation. It is the
worship of the Emperor which constitutes the peril to the
Church and its terrible temptation to apostasy. Other
illustrations of this reference to contemporary events or
anticipations are to be found in the mention of the death
of Nero and his expected return, the prediction of the
overthrow of Rome, the city on seven hills, by the beast
in alliance with the ten kings, and of the fall of Jerusalem
except the Temple. Yet while we are to see in the Roman
Empire the power to which the Church stands in implacable
antagonism, while Nero is to return from hell as the beast s
158 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
last incarnation, it would be a mistake to interpret all
the details in the book as created by the contemporary
situation. It is obviously likely that the acceptance
of the other methods would carry with it a different
attitude towards the interpretation of the details. If
earlier sources lie behind the present form of the book,
we should naturally assume that they depict a somewhat
different situation. And since it is with a long-continued
tradition that we have to deal, the key to some of the
details may quite easily be altogether lost.
That Gunk el rightly refers much hi the Apocalypse to
very ancient tradition can hardly be doubted. The
twelfth chapter, while, apart from Christian interpolations,
in its present form a piece of Jewish Messianic theology,
cannot be explained without reference to a Gentile origin.
That we should follow Dietcrich in connecting it with the
story of the birth of Apollo can hardly be believed, and it
would be premature to find in it with Gunkel a version of the
birth of Marduk, for which we have as yet no Babylonian
evidence. The parallel of the birth of Horus, adduced
by Bousset, lies open to less serious objection. Probably,
however, both the Apollo and the Horus myth are forms
of the very widespread myth of the conflict between the
chaos-demon and the sun-god. This has been transformed
in Judaism into a Messianic forecast. And elsewhere we may
discover clear traces of dependence on traditional apoca
lyptic lore. Where we find the writer introducing elements
which seem to have no significance for himself and receive
no development, we may infer with some probability that
these have been derived from older tradition and have no
reference to contemporary history. In other cases where
we can be sure of direct borrowing from an older source,
we cannot be sure whether the borrowed elements were
intended by the author to refer to events in the history
of his own time, or whether he simply took them over
into his own scheme because he did not feel free to cast
xv.] THE REVELATION OF JOHN 159
them aside although their meaning was not clear to himself.
For example, the figure of the beast in the thirteenth
chapter is directly derived from the seventh chapter of
Daniel. The beast is represented as having ten horns,
these horns are in Daniel identified as kings, therefore in
Revelation they are represented as wearing diadems.
Usually interpreters think the ten horns represent ten
Roman Emperors, but this is difficult to harmonise with
the interpretation given in the seventeenth chapter where
the beast reappears, so that it is quite possible that the
author took over the horns simply as a part of the tradition
without attaching any special significance to them. At
the same time two qualifications must be borne in mind.
In the first place the very fact that the apocalyptist
incorporated a piece of earlier tradition probably implies
that he saw sufficient general resemblance to the con
temporary conditions to induce him thus to incorporate
it, so that even if the details in many cases are devoid of
special importance the general outlines may bear signific
ance for his own time. And secondly, we must not assume
too readily that the details which are borrowed are neces
sarily without meaning. Gunkel swork, however, while most
valuable and stimulating, was itself open to some criticisms.
In the first place he probably much overrated the Baby
lonian origin of the material. In the next place he denied
^ - - o i^ *^^" J.
allusions to contemporary history where they probably
really exist. Lastly, he believed too exclusively in the
value of his own method. Some at least of the incon
gruities in the book cannot have thus originated, we must
seek for their origin in the combination of literary sources.
In spite of the recoil from analytic criticism, the_present
writer believes that it is not possible to regard the Apoca-
Ivpse as a unity. It is no doubt true that there is a very
marked unity hi the style and character which forbids
us to suppose that the book is a mere compilation. It is
with a real author that we have to do, not simply with an
160 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
editor ; with an author who has left his impress on the book.
But while he has stamped it with his own individuality,
he has borrowed from earlier sources. He hints this
himself, not obscurely, in his description of the little book
which he took and ate (x. 8-11), and in the veiled reference
to the seven-thunders apocalypse (x. 4) which he was
apparently inclined to incorporate. We have probably
to recognise the presence in the book of non-Christian
elements. In xi. 1, 2 the anticipation seems to be expressed
that while Jerusalem would be captured, the Temple
including the forecourt would be preserved. Is it likely
that a Christian writer should thus contradict Christ s
prediction that not one stone of the Temple should be left
upon another ? Reverting to the twelfth chapter, while
its ultimate origin must be sought in Pagan mythology,
it is very difficult to believe that the author of the Revela
tion simply drew on unwritten tradition. For a Christian
the birth of the Messiah and His earthly career belonged to
the realm of history, not of prediction. How could such
a writer represent the Messiah as caught up to the throne
of God immediately after His birth, that He might be
saved from the dragon who was waiting to devour Him ?
We can see what prompted the writer to include the section;
it was to warn the readers that, now the devil has been cast
down to earth, an unprecedented persecution will begin,
but to comfort them with the assurance that when the
three and a half years allotted to him by destiny are past,
he will be overthrown. For the Messiah is already in
heaven, and will intervene when the time is ripe. And
yet, while the section had this significance for the writer,
the bizarre non-Christian elements in it would naturally
have repelled him. This suggests the possibility not
merely that it lay before the author in written form,
but that it originally belonged to a larger document,
and has been incorporated not so much for its own sake
but as part of a fuller insertion.
xv.] THE REVELATION OF JOHN 161
The_ numerous incongruities in the book also suggest
composite authorship. In some parts of the book, e.g.
the letters to the seven churches, we gain the impression
that the persecution was mild, and though severe measures
were anticipated, these were not of an extreme character.
But other parts are written under the influence of a very
severe persecution, which has already claimed a large
number of victims, and which is expected to become more
terrible still. The seventeenth chapter, which is perhaps
the most important in the book for the determination of
the literary and historical problems of the Apocalypse,
exhibits several marks of composite origin. There are
two interpretations of the seven heads (w. 9 and 10). In
v. 14 the beast with the ten kings wars against and is over
come by the Lamb and his followers, while in v. 16 the
beast and the kings utterly destroy the harlot, and do so
as God s instruments. Again, the description with which
the vision opens is that of the great harlot. The beast on
which she rides is a very subordinate part of the picture,
in which the scarlet woman forms the central figure.
When, however, the explanation follows, the woman is
much less prominent than the beast. Moreover, the
judgment on the harlot seems to rest on different grounds.
In w. 1-5 her sin is that of luxury and uncleanness, with
which she has contaminated the rest of the world. The
goblet she holds is filled with the wine of her fornication.
This is also true with reference to the closely connected
eighteenth chapter. The judgment comes on her for the
corrupting influence she has exerted over the world (xviii.
3, 7, 9-19, 22, 23), with her sorcery all the nations have been
deceived, and the exhortation to God s people to leave her
is that they may avoid contamination and judgment.
But according to xvii. 6 the woman is drunk with the
blood of the saints, in xviii. 20 God has judged on her the
judgment of the saints, in xviii. 24 in her is found the
blood of prophets, saints and all that have been slain on the
L
162 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
earth. Much the greater part of ch. xviii. betrays no
consciousness of Rome as a persecutor. It is also possible
that there are two different accounts of the destruction
of Babylon. In xvii. 16 she is destroyed by the beast
and the ten kings, in ch. xviii. there is no reference to
these, but God judges her with plagues in a single day.
In both descriptions she is utterly burned with fire, and
there is no necessary discrepancy between the two accounts.
If composite authorship, however, be recognised, it is
likely that the two belong to different strata.
Further, there seems to be a difference in the reckoning
of the kings. There are only seven emperors of Rome,
since the beast has seven heads. The author of xvii. 10
writes while the sixth emperor is on the throne, i.e. pro
bably during the reign of Vespasian, and he expects the
series to be closed by another emperor, the seventh, who
is to continue a little while. According to v. 11 there are
to be eight emperors, the eighth being Antichrist; he is
identified with one of the seven heads, but he is also
identified with the beast that was and is not. Several
suppose that this must have been written under Domitian,
and was intended to harmonise the fixed number of the
emperors as seven with the fact that the seventh (Titus)
after a brief reign (v. lOb) had been succeeded by an
eighth. In that case the author saw in Domitian an earlier
member of the series reincarnate, presumably Nero. It
is an objection to this that we have no evidence of a
belief that Domitian was Nero reincarnate, nor that he had
risen out of the abyss. Moreover, the author of v. 11 says
that he is not. It may therefore be better to conclude
that this author wrote under the seventh emperor and was
driven to postulate an eighth ruler because he did not
identify the reigning monarch with Antichrist, but had to
make the eighth identical with one of the seven, because
the number could not exceed seven.
On the exact analysis of this section opinions differ,
xv.] THE REVELATION OF JOHN 163
but the following general sketch is not unlikely. The
earliest stratum predicts God s destruction of Rome for
luxury, pride and immorality, and describes the grief at
her downfall felt by those who had been associated with
her sin. There is no reference to persecution, the author,
while regarding the overthrow as deserved, yet betrays
no exultation over it or hatred of Rome. Pfleiderer thinks
this belonged to the little book and assigns it to the time
of Caligula, but J. Weiss thinks it was written under the
sixth emperor, i.e. Vespasian. A later writer represented
the destruction of Rome as due to the alliance of the beast,
i.e. Nero, with the Parthians. Probably he was a Jewish
not a Christian writer who saw in Rome s overthrow
God s judgment on the destroyers of Jerusalem. He
describes the scarlet woman as drunk not with luxury
and immorality but with the blood of the saints. This
would suit the martyrdom of Christians hi the Neronian
persecution, only Nero was himself more responsible for this
than Rome, and therefore could not so well appear as its
avenger upon Rome. It is therefore more likely that the
reference is to the Jews who had perished hi the Jewish
war, especially in the siege and sack of Jerusalem and
the dark days that followed. This writer was accord
ingly not a Christian but a Jew and may have written
under Titus. But since we have apparently a refer
ence to the return of Nero from hell as Antichrist, a
view which cannot be traced till towards the close of the
first century, we have probably to postulate a third
author who was a Christian and wrote under Domitian,
out of experience of his persecution. It is he who repre
sents the beast as making war on the Lamb and inserts
the references to the blood of the martyrs of Jesus
(xvii. 6), to the apostles and perhaps prophets in xviii. 20-24.
In the examination of this chapter we have already
anticipated to some extent the discussion not simply of
structure but of date. So far as the former is concerned,
164 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
the most important point is that we apparently have to
recognise the incorporation of documentary material
Jewish in origin. Since the eleventh chapter, which
opens with a probably Jewish prophecy, immediately
follows the episode of the eating of the book, it is a natural
inference that a Jewish apocalypse begins at this point
or perhaps with the tenth chapter. The date of this seems
to be fixed as A.D. 70, when the Romans were besieging
Jerusalem. It is very uncertain how much this apocalypse
contained, and how far the elements of which it was
composed were themselves ready to its author s hand.
It must of course be remembered that the final author did
not leave the Jewish sections untouched ; he has worked
them over and frequently inserted Christian additions.
Pfleiderer thinks the little book contained chs. xi.-xiv.,
xvii.-xix. J. Weiss finds it in chs. x., xi. 1-13, xii. 1-6,
14-17 (xiii. 1-7), xv.-xix., xxi. 4-27. He considers that this
was a literary unity, in which earlier groups of apocalyptic
matter had been combined. Nothing definite can be
affirmed as to the time and circumstances of some of the
visions employed, but the author put them together in
the year 70 A.D. in the belief that Jerusalem itself would
not be saved, but only the Temple and the worshippers in
its court. Von Soden thinks that the Jewish Apocalypse
of A.D. 70 extends from vi. 12 to the end of the book, with
of course a good deal of Christian redaction. And other
attempts have been made to reconstruct it. Within our
limits no discussion is possible. It may be questioned
whether the Jewish element is so considerable as these
scholars suppose. It is most clc Try discernible in chs.
xi., xii., xvii., xviii., though the t vo latter as already
shown are almost certainly composite, and contain a
Jewish section of later date than the main Jewish Apoca
lypse. It is also not improbable that ch. xii. is itself
composite, though the analysts are by no means agreed
as to its dismemberment.
xv,] THE REVELATION OF JOHN 165
But the Christian sections are themselves not homo
geneous. It has already been pointed out that the refer
ences to persecution in the letters to the Seven Churches
are quite different in character from those in later portions
of the book. In the former the Jews are the enemy, in
the latter the Roman Empire with its insistence on the
worship of the Emperor, to which multitudes have been
sacrificed. In the letters the condition of the Churches
suggests no serious peril from the government, rather
they are in peril from their own shortcomings, which are
of a type we do not expect in communities harried by a great
tribulation. The tone of severity in which they are
addressed is also unsuitable to a time of bitter persecution.
How much of the book belongs to the Apocalypse which
the seven letters were intended to introduce is most
uncertain. J. Weiss supposes that it consisted of i. 4-6
(7-8), 9-19, ii.-vii., xi., xii. 7-12, xiii. 11-18 (xiv. 1-5), 14-20,
xx. 1-15, xxi. 1-4, xxii. 3-5, xxii. 8ff. (in part). Here
again space permits of no adequate discussion of details,
which alone could warrant a conclusion. It must,
however, be recognised that, although earlier sources have i>
been employed, the author has contrived to impart a real
unity to the completed work and has not merely strung
earlier compositions together, He has made it an artistic
whole characterised by considerable uniformity of style
and language.
While some elements in the book must be earlier .than
A.D. 70, the Apocalypse as it stands must be later. It
employs the legend of the returning Nero, not simply
in its older form of a return from the Parthians but in its
later form of a return from hell. So far as can be made
out, this legend does not appear much before the close of
the first century. The enumeration of emperors carries
us down at least to Titus and possibly to Domitian. The
references to persecution, and indeed the whole tenor of
the book in its final form, point strongly to Domitian s
166 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
reign. The external evidence is also very cogent for a
date in the time of Domitian. Irenaeus referring to the
Apocalypse says it was seen no such long time ago, but
almost in our own generation at the end of the reign of
Domitian (v. 3). The tradition as to Domitian is not
uncontradicted, but as Hort says, if external evidence alone
could decide, there would be a clear preponderance for
Domitian. It is true that external evidence does not
settle the question, but in this case it coincides with the
indications of internal evidence. The phenomena which
point to a Neronian date or a date at_the beginning of
Vespasian s reign are real, but they may be satisfied by
Hie recognition that the book includes a large element
dating from the period before the destruction of Jerusalem.
A suggestion has been made by Reinach, that vi. 6 fixes the
year 93 A.D. as the date of the Apocalypse. In 92 Domitian
forbade the cultivation of the vine in the provinces, really
as a protective measure for Italy, but under the pretext
of encouraging grain and reducing drunkenness. In 93
he reversed this, so that the author apprehended that
grain would be scarce and wine abundant. The state of
things presupposed in the passage is so peculiar that
some definite incident may well have suggested this
vision. On the other hand, the edict does not account
for the reference to oil.
As_early as Justin Martyr the Apocalypse was attri
buted to the apostle John. Irenaeus assigns both the
Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel to John a disciple of
the Lord, apparently meaning the apostle John, and
Hippolytus, Tertullian and Origen affirm apostolic author
ship. On the other hand, the Alogi rejected not only the
Gospel but the Apocalypse, ascribing it to Cerinthus,
probably in each case on doctrinal grounds. Their
attitude was shared by Caius of Rome at the beginning
of the third century. Probably no importance should be
attached to these opinions, they were based on theological
xv.] THE REVELATION OF JOHN 167
prejudices, not on critical considerations. Much more
interest attaches to the suggestion made by Dionysius of
Alexandria. No doubt his discussion of the question was
prompted by his dislike of millenarianism and his desire
to deprive it of apostolic endorsement. But his internal
criticism of the book was very able, and he called attention
to phenomena which make it difficult to believe that the
Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse could come from the
same author. Since the apostolic origin of the Gospel
was assumed without question by Dionysius, he had to
suggest that the Revelation was the work of another John.
This he argues cannot have been John Mark but some
other John, and he corroborates his conjecture by
the story that in Ephesus there were two tombs of John.
Eusebius completes his criticism by a reference to the two
Johns., mentioned by apias, and argues that if the apostolic
authorship of the Apocalypse is to be denied the work
should be attributed to the presbyter.
Leaving aside for the present the problem raised by
Dionysius and looking at the Apocalypse by itself, there is
probably no valid reason to doubt that the author really
bore the name of John. It is true that apocalypses are
usually pseudonymous writings, and the fact that the
author does not give himself out as an ancient worthy
is not decisive against the conclusion that our book con
forms to the rule of its class, for a Jewish apocalypse can
hardly be the measure of a Christian apocalypse in this
respect. An apostle would be quite as naturally chosen
as Enoch or Baruch. But if the book were pseudonymous,
the author would probably have claimed explicitly to be
an apostle, whereas he contents himself with the bare
name of John. We_need not doubt that the author who
gives himself out as John really bore that name, lived in
Asm, and received His vision at Patmos. It is important
to remember that it is not with apocalypse pure and simple
that we have to deal. The letters to the Seven Churches
168 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
are certainly not apocatyptic fictions dealing with
fictitious circumstances, and the same conclusion must
be adopted with reference to the claim to authorship which
is inseparably united with them. It must, however,
be pointed out that if the book is composite the claim to
Johannine authorship can be established only for a portion
of the book, unless we can identify the author of the seven
letters and the related sections with the final editor.
This, however, is very improbable. But while we may
confidently accept partial Johannine authorship, this
gives us no warrant for identifying the prophet John with
the apostle. The author speaks as a prophet telling the
message of the glorified Christ, and the tone of authority
must not be held to prove his apostolic position.
It is held by many that the identification with the
apostle is excluded by the absence of reminiscences of the
author s earlier intercourse with Jesus during His earthly
career and by the objective reference to the twelve apostles
of the Lamb. The Tubingen critics, we do well to remem
ber, found no difficulty in holding the apostolic authorship
of the whole book in spite of these objections and in spite
of its very advanced Christology. And probably in this
respect their judgment was sounder than that of their
successors. The same objection apart from the references
to the twelve apostles would lie, though in a mitigated
form, against the identification with the presbyter if he
was acquainted with Jesus, especially if he was the beloved
disciple.
It was formerly thought by many scholars to be possible
to identify the author of the Apocalypse with the author
of the Gospel, the wide divergences between them being
explained by the interval that was supposed to separate
them. It is extremely questionable, however, whether
any lapse of time would account for the development
from one to the other, especially as the apostle cannot
well have been less than fifty at the earliest date to which
xv.] THE REVELATION OF JOHN 169
the Apocalypse could be assigned. And the same objec
tion would hold if we ascribed all the works to the
presbyter. If, however, we adopt the Domitian date for
the Apocalypse~7~the difficulty of supposing that it was
written by the" author of the Gospel is probably insuperable,
thougji it must be remembered that Harnack assigns all x
th7ohannhie literature to the presbyter. It is no doubt
the case that there is a very close connexion both in
vocabulary and in thought between the Apocalypse and
the other Johannine writings. But these are more than
balanced by the differences. On this it may be enough to
quote the words of Hort, who asserted the unity of author
ship and the early date for the Apocalypse. His con
clusion is made all the more weighty by his protest against
exaggerating the difficulties which immediately precedes.
It is, however, true that without the long lapse of time
and the change made by the Fall of Jerusalem the transition
cannot be accounted for. Thus date and authorship do
hang together. It would be easier to believe that the
Apocalypse was written by an unknown John than that
both books belong alike to St. John s extreme old age.
We cannot carry the discussion further without reference
to the other Johannine literature. Without deferring it
till the critical problems of the Fourth Gospel and the
Epistles have been considered, it may be said that, accept- %
ing_jthe agpstolic authorship of the Gospel, we sEould
probably assign the Apocalypse to the presbyter unless
we are willing to assume the existence of a third John
otherwise unknown to us.
170 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
CHAPTER XVI
THE EPISTLES OF JOHN
THE First Epistle is anonymous, but from the time of
Irenaeus, who is the first to mention it by name, it was
regarded in the ancient Church as the work of John. It
is quoted as such not only by Irenaeus but by Tertullian,
Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. It is also assigned to
him in the Muratorian Canon. Polycarp probably quotes
it though this is disputed, and we learn from Eusebius
that Papias employed it. Polycarp and Papias are of
course authorities simply for the early date, not for the
authorship. The__prevailing view even among modern
critics has been that the Epistle is from the same hand
as~the Fourth Gospel. This has been denied by some
eminent scholars, for example Holtzmann, Pfleiderer,
Schmiedel and Martineau. Wellhausen put forward
the suggestion in his first work on the Fourth Gospel that
the interpolator of John xv.-xvii. might not improbably
be identical with the author of the Epistle. The dis
cussion of the question would involve too much detail,
but in spite of differences between the Epistle and the
Gospel, which so far as they are not fanciful are accounted
for by difference of subject-matter and aim, and possibly
by an interval of time, the_links of connexion are_so
numerous and unstudied, the peculiar Johanninejstyle
so jnimitable, that it is hypercriticism to deny the identity
of. authorship. The question of authorship therefore
need not be independently discussed ; it is sufficient to
xvi.] THE EPISTLES OF JOHN 171
remind ourselves that the author appears to claim that he
had known the incarnate Christ during His earthly life.
The date of the work cannot be determined with any
precision. The external testimony hardly permits us to
descend below 125 A.D., but it is far more probable that
we should take 110 A.D. as the lower limit. It isjpften
said that a second century date must be adopted on
account of the false teaching which it attacks. This is
alleged to be second-century Gnosticism. The condition
of things reflected in the Epistle is as follows. The false
teaching is not a novelty. Antichrist is not one but many,
and already at work in the world while the author writes.
Many false prophets have gone out into the world. The
representatives of the tendencies attacked had belonged
to the Christian communities. They have left them,
however, because they were not in spiritual sympathy
with the members of those communities. The members
are themselves untouched by the contamination. In
virtue of the anointing spirit they know all things and
do not need to be taught the truth. But there are those
who would lead them astray, and much of the writer s
letter is a warning and appeal intended to guard them
against these dangers. Even hi the Christian congrega
tion there was a danger lest the spirit of Antichrist should
manifest itself in the meetings, hence it was necessary to
subject the spirits to a test. Heresy in doctrine was com
bined with immorality in conduct. The heresy touched
especially the Person of Christ. It denied the Son, denied
that Jesus was the Christ. It confessed not [or dissolved]
Jesus. It denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh.
Against it the author strongly affirms the real humanity
of the Logos as attested by the evidence of the physical
senses, i. 1-3. The heresy was accordingly a form of
Dqcetism similar to that attacked_in the Ignatian Epistles.
But some of the expressions suggest another form of
Christology, the denial that Jesus was the Christ. This
172 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
has of course no reference to Judaism, but suggests the
distinction made by some Gnostics between the man Jesus
and the aeon Christ. In that case the reading dissolveth
Jesus would, whether textually correct or not, give the
right sense.
On the moral side they professed sinlessness, but were
antinomians who walked in darkness while they pro
fessed to be in the light, claimed the knowledge of God
while they failed to keep His commandments. Hatred
of one s brother is especially singled out for condemnation.
They seem to have made similar claims as the libertine
Gnostics. They knew God, had a special spiritual illu
mination, which rendered sin something out of the question
for them, so that conduct became a matter of complete
moral indifference. We find the combination of this with
a false Christology among the Gnostics. There is no
necessity to descend into the second century for .this
teaching, though it has a close parallel in Ignatius.
Gnosticism was originally independent of Christianity
and came into existence before it. It probably touched
the Christian Church long before the close of the second
century, even though we may Justifiably refuse to
recognise it in the heresy attacked in the Epistle to the
Colossians. If the Epistle of Jude belongs to the first
century, we have a parallel in it to some features which
recur in our Epistle. The tendencies attacked in the
apocalyptic letters to the Seven Churches present much that
is similar, though we have no indication of false teaching
as to the Person of Christ. But we read of teachers who
teach immorality and to eat things sacrificed to idols ;
they profess to know the deep things of Satan. This is a
kind of libertine Gnosticism, which is in some cases at
work in the Churches themselves. If the seven letters
belong to the final stratum of the Revelation, they are
evidence simply for the reign of Domitian. But more
probably they are a good deal earlier, in which case the
xvi.] THE EPISTLES OF JOHN 173
development reflected in the First Epistle may easily have
been reached well before the close of the first century.
Naturally this does not demand but only permit a first-
centuiy date. Tt is at any rate noteworthy that no
reference is made to the great Gnostic systems. The
letter was probably written from Ephesus, perhaps to
accompany the Fourth Gospel, though it is more likely
that the two works were not written at the same time,
especially as they do not seem to be addressed to the same
conditions or designed to correct the same errors.
ThejSecond Epistle of John seems at first sight to be a
private letter. According to the English version it is
addressed to the elect lady, and this is probably the
correct translation, though either of the two Greek words
might be taken and have been taken as a proper name,
and we might translate to the elect Kyria or to the
lady Eklekte. In the latter case it is also possible to
take the term lady as a term of endearment rather
than of dignity. It is nevertheless improbable that either
of the words is a proper name. If we take Eklekte as a
proper name, we are confronted by the difficulty that in
v. 13 it is also applied to her sister, and to have two sisters
with the same name is out of the question. Kyria is used
as a proper name, but we should have expected rather
different Greek if this had been intended. The tendency
of recent writers is to regard the letter as addressed to a
Church, though several, for example Salmond, J. Rendel
Harris, and Harnack take it to be a private letter.
The parallelism with the third letter, which is unques
tionably addressed to an individual, favours a similar
interpretation here, which is also the more natural mean
ing of the expression. The contents of the letter, how
ever, support the alternative view. The doctrinal tenor
of the Epistle is more appropriate in a letter addressed
to a Church. The references to the lady s children also
174 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
favour this view. That the lady and her children are
loved by all who know the truth would be hyperbolical
if an individual were intended. The greeting from the
children of thine elect sister would be very strange,
if the meaning was that the children sent a greeting
to their aunt. We should have expected thine elect
sister and her children salute thee. It is much more
natural if the elect sister and the children are the Church
and its members. In that case there is no material dis
tinction between the mother and the children. The
omission of the mother from the greeting would on the
other interpretation be hard to account for.
Accepting this interpretation, we may ask what Church
is intended. If we suppose that the Epistle is a free
composition without an actual situation for its back
ground, we might suppose that it was a Catholic Epistle
addressed to the Church generally. If, however, we
reject this conception of the letter, we are obliged by v. 13
to accept the view that an individual Church is intended.
The statement that the elect lady is greeted by her elect
sister is incompatible with a Catholic destination of the
Epistle; it could only mean that one Church greets
another. In that case the elect sister may possibly be
identified with the Church in Ephesus, where the author
presumably was writing. It is accordingly probable that
the elect lady should be identified with one of the Churches
of Asia, perhaps with Pergamum, as Findlay has suggested.
The Third Epistle is addressed not to a Church but to
an individual, (..Jaius. The admit k-s with the Second
Epistle are so close that we may assume that it was written
by the same author and in all probability at the same
time. In that case it is possible that the letters were sent
to the same destination. It is a plausible suggestion that
the letter referred to in v. 9 is the Second Epistle, and
that the writer sends this letter to Gaius to guard against
the suppression of his letter to the Church by Diotrephes.
xvi.] THE EPISTLES OP JOHN 175
On the other hand, the happy relations with the Church
which seem to be reflected in the Second Epistle are not
quite what we should gather to have prevailed where
Diotrephes was so powerful.
It has been generally held that the two letters are by the
author of the First Epistle and the Gospel. The Johannine
phraseology and point of view are very marked especially
hi the Second Epistle, though it must be admitted that
there are differences on which, however, in the case of
such brief and informal letters it would be unreasonable
to lay too much stress. In a very important and thorough
study of the Third Epistle, Harnack, who accepts the unity
of authorship of all five Johannine writings, has suggested
thatjn Diotrephes we are to see the first monarchical
biEop. He objects to the supervision exercised by the
elder over the local Churches, which belongs to the old
system of patriarchal control of a whole province, and
especially to the way in which the author interferes by his
agents with the autonomy of the Churches. It is clear
that Diotrephes not only refused to receive the presbyter s
emissaries himself, but was in a position to expel from
the Church those who gave them hospitality. That his
motive was to assert local independence as against central
ised administration, is of course possible, as the author
asserts that personal ambition was the mainspring of his
action. But it is also possible that the root of the differ
ence may have been doctrinal rather than ecclesiastical.
This would gain in probability if we could suppose that
the Second Epistle was written to the Church in which
Diotrephes was an officer. In that case, however, we
should have expected the writer to stigmatise Diotrephes
as a heretic and an antichrist, whereas he hints nothing
of the kind against him. If the dispute was purely
ecclesiastical, Harnack s suggestion may be correct, though
it would be possible to reverse the relation and suppose
that Diotrephes was fighting for the old independence of
176 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
the local Churches against the presbyter s attempt to bring
them under his personal control. There is no reason to
suppose with Schwartz that the original letters were
written by a presbyter who gave his name, and that the
name was subsequently struck out in order to suggest that
they were written by the famous presbyter John. It
would be more reasonable to suppose with Jiilicher that
the letters were originally pseudonymous and designed
to secure apostolic authority for the author s own ideas.
There is no ground, however, for suspecting the author
of sailing under a false flag. Besides, for two such insignifi
cant compositions such an explanation is altogether too
artificial. The self-designation of the author favours
the view that they were written by the presbyter John.
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCOKDING TO JOHN 177
CHAPTER XVII
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
The External Evidence.
IT is needless to seek for evidence of the existence of the
Gospel and its ascription to the apostle John after the
time of Irenaeus. It is not disputed that he knew and
used all of our Gospels and regarded them as authoritative.
In fact he asserts that in the nature of the case there cannot
be either more or fewer Gospels than four. The fantastic
arguments by which he proves this view speak rather for
than against the strength of his independent conviction
that our four Gospels and those Gospels alone were
canonical. It might be fairly inferred that these Gospels
stood out so conspicuously in a class by themselves, that
Irenaeus found it hard to imagine the Church without
them. C. Taylor thinks that for his view that the four
Gospels are the four pillars on which the Church rests,
Irenaeus is indebted to Hennas, who represents the Church
as sitting on a seat with four feet. If this were so, it would
carry back not only the existence but the unique authority
of the four Gospels to 155 at the latest. But not much
weight can be laid on this theory. The testimony of
Irenaeus is important in several ways. He had lived as a
youth in Asia Minor, where he was acquainted with
Pojycarp, and later he lived in Rome and Gaul. He was
therefore in a position to know the view of the Churches
in these widely separated districts. He appeals to the
M
178 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
Fourth Gospel as John s with a triumphant certainty,
betraying no consciousness that on this point he could be
successfully challenged. His contemporary TJiepphilus of
Antioch and his somewhat junior contemporaries, Clement
of Alexandria in Egypt, TerJtullian in Carthage, and
Hijapolytus in Rome, occupy a similar position. This
testifies to a full recognition of the Gospel throughout
the Church before the close of the second century. And
it is important to remember that this involves a fairly
long previous history. Had the Gospel been written only
a short time before, it could hardly have been widely
accepted as the work of the apostle John, for the question
would naturally have been pressed in very large circles,
How is it that we only hear of this book now, when John
has been dead so many years ?
But testimony to the Johannine authorship goes back
to a date earlier than Irenaeus. The Muratorian Canon,
which is possibly as early as about 170 A.D., not only asserts
that John, whom it describes as one of the disciples, wrote
the Gospel but gives a detailed tradition as to its origin.
The recent discovery of Tatian s Diatessaron has proved
what had been contested, though generally admitted by
impartial critics, that Tatian used our four Gospels in its
composition. This means, not merely that these Gospels
were in existence, but that they were marked off from all
other Gospels and set in a class by themselves. The date
of the work is uncertain ; it may be fixed with some pro
bability about 170 A.D. It has even been argued that this
was not the earliest Harmony of the Gospels, since some
early writings exhibit what seems to be a blending from
different Gospels in their quotations. But this theory
is uncertain in itself, and obviously nothing can be built on
it. . Probably a little later than Tatian, Theophilus of
Antioch published a Harmony of the Gospels.
Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr. Few questions in
New Testament criticism have been more hotly and keenly
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 179
debated than the question whether Justin used the Fourth
Gospel. The affirmative view has been very strongly
maintained not only by Lightfoot, Westcott and Sanday,
but especially by Ezra Abbot and James Drummond,
and has been admitted by Hilgenfeld, Keim, Wernle and
others who reject the Johannine authorship of the Gospel.
Loisy says his dependence on the Fourth Gospel cannot be
denied, but he never cites it formally. He thinks with
several other scholars that he used the Gospel of Peter
(but on this see Drummond, pp. 151-155). On the other
hand E._A. Abbott has recently in the article Gospels
in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, after an elaborate examination
of the evidence, reaffirmed his negative conclusion. He
argues that where Justin seems to be alluding to John,
he is really alluding to the Old Testament or to Barnabas,
or to some Christian tradition distinct from and often
earlier than John ; further, that when he teaches what is
the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, he supports it not by
what can easily be found in that Gospel, but by what can
hardly, with any show of reason, be found in the Three,
and lastly that his Logos doctrine differs from that of the
Fourth Gospel. He concludes either that Justin did not
know the Gospel, or that more probably he knew it but
regarded it with suspicion, partly because it seemed to
him to contradict his favourite Gospel, Luke, partly
because the Valentinians were beginning to use it.
Schmiedel in the article John the Son of Zebedee, after
pointing out that while Justin has more than one hundred
quotations from the Synoptists, he has only three which
offer points of contact with the Fourth Gospel, and even
these may possibly have come from another source, which
the evangelist also may have used, proceeds : Yet, even
apart from this, we cannot fail to recognise that the
Fourth Gospel was by no means on the same plane with the
synoptics in Justin s eyes, and that his employment of
it is not only more sparing but also more circumspect.
180 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
This is all the more remarkable since Justin certainly
champions one of its leading conceptions (the Logos idea),
lays great weight upon the " Memorabilia of the Apostles,"
and expressly designates the Apocalypse as a work of
the Apostle. It must, however, be remembered that we
have only apologetic treatises from Justin, and the Fourth
Gospel may have seemed less suitable to this purpose. (On
the argument from silence see especially Drummond,
pp. 157, 158.)
The description of the style of Jesus given by Justin is
sometimes said (e.g. by Pfleiderer) to look like a direct
repudiation of the long dialectical speeches of the Fourth
Gospel. When correctly translated the passage runs,
Brief and concise sayings have proceeded from Him ;
for He was not a sophist, but His word was a power of God.
This does not mean that His sayings were exclusively
brief utterances, but rather that this was a characteristic
form of utterance. As Drummond points out, the
Johannine discourses are largely made up of such sayings,
while if we were to press the description as covering all
Christ s teaching it would exclude the longer parables in
the Synoptists.
Papias the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia is said by
Eusebius to have used testimonies from the former
Epistle of John. Usually this has been regarded as
practically equivalent to a recognition of the Fourth
Gospel. Thus E. A. Abbott admits that he quoted from
1 John, which was written by the author of the Fourth
Gospel. But since some scholars deny that the Epistle
is from the hand of the author of the Gospel, we cannot
appeal to this statement of Eusebius as evidence for Papias
knowledge of the Fourth Gospel so confidently as if the
composition by the same author were undisputed. It
has, however, been argued that Papias cannot have
mentioned either Luke or John, since otherwise Eusebius,
who quotes his account of the origin of Matthew s Logia
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 181
and the Gospel of Mark, would have referred to his account
of Luke and John. But, as Lightfoot convincingly proved,
this argument from the silence of Eusebius is not valid.
He promises that if any writer has anything of interest
to relate as to the origin of undisputed books he will
tell it, while he will mention the mere use of disputed
books. Since the Fourth Gospel was an undisputed book,
we are not to expect Eusebius to mention quotations from
it, or use of it, but only interesting circumstances connected
with it. We may infer then that Papias told nothing
which seemed to Eusebius of interest as to the origin of
this Gospel, but not that he did not quote it or refer to it.
This double inference is justified by the general practice
of Eusebius. He often fails to mention the use by early
writers of New Testament books undisputed in his day,
though we have actual references to them, often very
numerous, in their own writings.
It is in fact now freely admitted by some scholars, who
entirely reject the Johannine authorship, that Papias
knew the Fourth Gospel. E. Schwartz considers that the
statements made by Papias as to the origin of Mark and
Matthew were intended to emphasise their inferiority to
John. Mark embodies Peter s preaching, but he gives it
at second hand and not in order, while Matthew s Gospel
was written in Hebrew and was now accessible only in
poor translations. This depreciatory estimate Schwartz
says must have been in contrast to some more satisfactory
work, since Papias would not accept the Gnostic principle
of the insufficiency of the written tradition. This more
satisfactory work cannot have been Luke; probably
Eusebius preferred not to reproduce Papias judgment
on it. Accordingly it must have been John. In harmony
with this we have another statement attributed to Papias
and often set aside as absurd, that the Gospel of John was
manifested and given to the Churches by John while he
was still in the body. The point of this would be that
182 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
while Mark wrote after Peter s death, and Matthew s
Gospel was accessible not in the original but only in poor
translations made by others, the Gospel of John was
communicated by the apostle himself hi his lifetime to
the Churches for official use. But it is very unlikely that
Schwartz is right in thinking that Papias called John
the theologian as the author of the Fourth Gospel.
Even if the extract referring to his death at the hands
of the Jews were genuine in the main, it is unlikely that
this description of him is due to Papias.
The date at which Papias composed his work is un
certain. Kriiger places it as early as the first decade
of the second century. E. A. Abbott gives the date
115-130. On the basis of a fragment recently published
according to which his work referred to people who had
been raised by Christ and survived till the reign of
Hadrian, Harnack, followed by Schmiedel, argues that
his book cannot have been written earlier than between
140 and 160, since Hadrian s reign was 117-138. If it is
so late as that the use of the Fourth Gospel, if it could be
established, would not prove very much, unless we could
show that Papias was in an exceptional position for
knowing the facts. This would be so if, as Irenaeus
states, he was a hearer of John. But scholars generally
are agreed that Eusebius was correct in the inference he
drew from Papias own language that he was not person
ally acquainted with John. It is very uncertain, however,
if the fragment comes from Papias. Schwartz thinks
it does not, and Bousset agrees with him ; so also J. V.
Bartlet and Sanday.
Critics are also divided as to the use of the Gospel by
Polycarp and Ignatius. The evidence as to the former is
inconclusive, but from so brief a composition as his letter
negative conclusions such as those of Pfleiderer cannot
safely be drawn. It is generally allowed that the Epistle
of Polycarp shows a knowledge of 1 John iv. 2, 3. But
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCOKDING TO JOHN 183
this is denied by Schmiedel, and several scholars think
that the Epistle of Poly carp is wholly or in part spurious,
and even if genuine need not have been written so early
as the reign of Trajan (98-117) to which it is usually
assigned. It is beyond question that Irenaeus confidently
attributed the Fourth Gospel to John the Apostle. In
view of his own definite statements it becomes very diffi
cult to believe that in so doing he was not resting on
Polycarp s statement. It is to be noticed that he asserts
that Polycarp s relation of Christ s life and teaching
was altogether in accordance with the Scriptures. This
perhaps attests the presence in his reminiscences of a
Johannine as well as a Synoptic tradition. On the other
hand, it might be urged that Irenaeus makes no reference
to any account given by Polycarp touching the origin of
the Fourth Gospel. As to Ignatius, Pfleiderer asserts
that in the whole of his genuine Epistles there is not a
single sentence which points to dependence on the Gospel
or Epistles of John. Had Ignatius known them, he must
have used them in his conflict with Docetism. On the
other hand, Wernle, while he agrees with Pfleiderer as to
the bearing of the Ignatian letters on the problem of the
apostle s residence in Asia, asserts that Ignatius had read
the Johannine writings. So, too, Loisy says that Ignatius
must have known the Fourth Gospel a long time to be
penetrated with its spirit to the degree we see. This is
all the more significant since, while Pfleiderer adopts the
later date for the Ignatian Epistles formerly assigned to
them by Harnack (about A.D. 130), Wernle places them
quite early in the second century, and Loisy towards
A.D^ 115.
The Gospel was also employed in some of the ^Gnostic
schools. Heraclepn, a disciple of Valentinus, wrote a
commentary on the Gospel possibly as late as about
175 A.D. but more probably not long after 160 A.D. The
very fact that a commentary was written shows that
184 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
the Gospel was regarded as an authoritative work. This
implies a fairly long previous history, and this inference
is confirmed by the fact that false readings had crept into
the text on which Heracleon commented. Nevertheless
the date at which he wrote, and the affinity which a
Gnostic would feel for a Gospel that lent itself so readily
to the discovery in it of Gnostic doctrine, must be taken
into account on the other side. It is more important that
Basilides, according to a quotation in Hippolytus (vii. 22),
used the Gospel. Attempts have been made to turn the
edge of this argument by the assertion that Hippolytus
did not carefully distinguish between what Basilides and
what his followers had said. This is not borne out by
examination of his usage in this respect. If the view first
suggested by Salmon and elaborated by Staehelin, and
subsequently accepted by others were correct, that
Hippolytus was deceived into receiving as genuine forgeries
palmed off upon him by an unscrupulous author, the
quotation from the Fourth Gospel which he represents
Basilides as giving could, of course, count for nothing, if
among the forgeries thus accepted by him the account of
Basilides system is to be included. This theory, however,
is very improbable, at any rate as far as concerns
Basilides. It must, of course, be admitted that several
scholars who reject the hypothesis of forgery still believe
that the account of Hippolytus refers to a later develop
ment in the school and not to the views of Basilides him
self. The most weighty argument in favour of this view
is that it is difficult to harmonise the quotation given in
the Acts of Archdaus by Hegemonius, in which Basilides
expounds Persian dualism, with the monistic system
attributed to him by Hippolytus. In spite of this real
difficulty, the present writer continues to regard the
exposition of his views given by Hippolytus as the more
trustworthy and must refer for his reasons to his article
Basilides in Hastings Dictionary of Religion and Ethics.
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 185
At the same time, in view of the distrust of his account
which is widely entertained, it is not advisable to lay
overmuch stress upon it. It is a passage out of the
Prologue which is quoted, and therefore one which
originated with the author of the Gospel. This, says he,
is that which is said in the Gospels " that was the true
light which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world."
Against this very widespread acceptance of the Fourth
Gospel as the work of the apostle John there is very little
to be set on the other side. There were some people in
Asia Minor, about 160-170, to whom Epiphanius, perhaps
following Hippolytus, gave the name Alogi. This name
had the advantage in the eyes of its inventor that it
expressed his belief in their imbecility and at the same
time their disbelief in the doctrine of the Logos. They were
of a somewhat rationalistic turn of mind, and strongly
opposed to Montanism and millenarianism. Since they
disliked also the doctrine of the Logos, it was natural that
they should be hostile to the Gospel which so emphatically
taught it. Their rejection of it was accordingly based not
on critical but doctrinal grounds, and therefore is of less
importance than it would otherwise have been. They had
obviously no tradition to warrant their verdict, for they
attributed the Gospel to Cerinthus, which is clearly
impossible. And the very fact that they thus made it the
work of a contemporary of John testifies to a belief that
it was as old as his time. It has also been recently argued
with plausibility that Caius of Rome early in the third
century attacked the Fourth Gospel (see Ency. Bib.,
col. 1824, n. 4).
The external evidence, then, favours the view that the
Gospel was written by the apostle John. It is true that
it cannot be called conclusive. The possibility, though not
the probability, must be left open that Irenaeus confused
the apostle with the presbyter John. It even more dis-
186 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
tinctly leaves the possibility open that the Gospel incor
porates a work of John. In that case we should have a
similar phenomenon in the First Gospel, which is not in its
present form from the hand of Matthew, but probably
incorporates his collection of Logia. Whether such
theories can be successfully vindicated in the case of the
Fourth Gospel is a matter rather for internal criticism,
which alone can detect separate strata in the work if such
separate strata exist. It would, however, also be possible
that the relation between the apostle and the Gospel
might be similar to that asserted by Papias to exist between
Peter and the Gospel of Mark. In other words John
might have written nothing, but the story which he told
of the ministry of Jesus might have been the basis on which
the Gospel rested. Harnack, for example, considers that
the Gospel was the work of the presbyter John incor
porating the tradition for which the apostle was responsible.
Internal Evidence.
There are certain passages in the Gospel which have been
thought to affirm that the author was an eye-witness of
the events he describes, and one standing in a relation of
peculiar intimacy to Jesus. The first of these to be con
sidered is xxi. 24 : This is the disciple who witnesseth
concerning these things and he who wrote these things,
and we know that his witness is true. The disciple referred
to is identified by v. 20 with the disciple whom Jesus
loved, who also leaned on His breast at the supper. The
chapter from which this passage is taken is an appendix
to the Gospel, which obviously reached its proper close
with xx. 31. It is not of special importance for our
present purpose to decide whether xxi. 1-23 was written
by the author of i.-xx. or not. But it seems clear that
xxi. 24 is not from the hand of the author of the Gospel.
It is, so to speak, a certificate stating the authorship of
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 187
the Gospel and affirming the truthfulness of the narrative.
It has been commonly supposed that it was added by the
Ephesian elders, when the Gospel was first put into cir
culation. Some have inferred from the present tense
who witnesseth that the author of the Gospel was still
alive. This is uncertain, for the reference may be to the
witness which the author bears in his Gospel after his
death. We have no evidence that the Gospel was ever in i
circulation without these verses, and this favours the ,
view that they were attached before the Gospel was?
published. If so, they contain a highly important piece ,
of contemporary evidence for the authorship of the Gospel ,
by an eye-witness. Yet the possibility must be allowed f
that the words he that wrote these things ought not ,
to be pressed to mean the actual composition of the !
Gospel. They might mean simply that the author of the
Gospel based it on written material left by the disciple
whom Jesus loved. On the other hand, it is quite possible
that the verse in question is a late addition, resting on an
inference from the contents of the Gospel, which may or
may not have been mistaken. There is force in Schmiedel s
remark that the fact that the testimony of the author is
confirmed suggests that he is not a very authoritative
person, and also that doubt has been thrown on his
testimony. Nevertheless the verse is a very early piece
of evidence that the Gospel was written by the beloved
disciple, and as such is entitled to great weight.
The second passage is xix. 35, which has striking points
of contact with xxi. 24, and has given rise to much dis
cussion. The passage is as follows : And he that hath
seen hath borne witness and his (avrov) witness is true,
and he (eKeiVos) knoweth that he saith true, that ye may
believe. The reference is to the coming out of blood and
water from the pierced side of Jesus. The question is
whether the author is intending to identify himself with
the eye-witness, whose testimony he reports, or to dis-
188 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
tinguish himself from him and refer to him as his authority
for the statement. The question has been vainly argued
on grammatical grounds. It has been said that by the
use of tKeivos the author shows that he does not mean
himself. It is true that a man writing of himself in the
third person would not ordinarily refer to himself by this
pronoun. But that is little to the purpose here. For
one thing, e/ceu/os is a favourite word with the author,
and, apart from this, it is possible, as ix. 37 shows, for a
person thus to allude to himself, though the parallel is
not very close. It may now be taken for granted that no
decision can be reached either way on grammatical grounds.
On this point it will be enough to quote the words of
Schmiedel, since he holds very high rank as a grammarian,
and at the same time entirely rejects the Johannine
authorship of the Gospel, and does not favour the view
that the author meant to refer to himself as an eye
witness : The elaborate investigations that have been
made on the question whether any one can designate himself
by exeiVos ( that ) are not only indecisive as regards any
secure grammatical results ; they do not touch the kernel
of the question at all (Ency. Bib. 2543).
If then we look at the passage as a whole, it is not easy to
reach a decision. The real question, as both Westcott and
Schmiedel insist, is who is meant by the phrase he that
hath seen ? On the one hand, there is the presumption
that a reference to some one in the third person more
naturally suggests that the person so referred to is not
identical with the speaker. And this is confirmed by the
use of the first person in i. 14, and perhaps the first person
in the Revelation. On the other hand, the view that the
writer is here referring to another than himself, who was
his authority for the statement in virtue of the fact that
he had been an eye-witness of the event, labours under
difficulties. It is rather strange that the writer who did
not see the event should affirm the truth of the statement
xvn.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 189
made by one who did. It is stranger still that he should
say that his informant knows that he is speaking the
truth, for it may be urged that no human being save the
informant himself can know whether he knows or not.
If the writer had said, I know that he speaks the truth,
that statement, while in the strictest sense incorrect,
would have been a natural and substantially accurate way
of expressing himself. At the same time, the reference
to the eye-witness s consciousness that he is telling the
truth seems rather pointless after the explicit statement
his witness is true. Why add that he knows that he tells
the truth, especially with the purpose of arousing con
fidence in the accuracy of his statement ? If they could not
believe his statement, were they any more likely to believe
it when he told them that he knew that his statement was
true ? The question will therefore have to be raised later
whether a third way of taking eVeivos may not be possible.
If then, leaving aside for the present the clause he
knoweth that he saith true, we confine ourselves to
the first two clauses, the probabilities may seem equally
divided. This is practically Schmiedel s conclusion, not
simply from these two clauses but from the whole verse.
Accordingly he solves the problem in another way. He
urges that since we cannot admit the historicity of the fact
attested, for while blood may have flowed from the pierced
side of Jesus, water cannot have flowed with it, we must
assert that no eye-witness can have seen it. It therefore
relieves the character of the author if we do not identify
him with the eye-witness, for thus we avoid the charge
that he gave himself out solemnly as having seen what he
had really not seen at all. At the same time, he thinks
that owing to the crucial importance which the water and
blood had for him, we cannot be sure that he did not
represent himself as an eye-witness.
The difficulties attaching to the narrative relate partly
to the possibility of the incident taking place at all,
190 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
partly to the likelihood of the disciple being able to
observe it. The latter needs no serious consideration;
we do not know enough of the circumstances to
estimate his facilities for observation. As to the inci
dent itself, it was argued by Dr. Stroud in his Physical
Cause of the Death of Christ (published 1847 A.D.) that
Jesus died of a broken heart. This was based on the
statement in this verse that blood and water flowed from
His pierced side, and was confirmed by other arguments
such as the surprising quickness of His death, and the loud
cry at the moment when it occurred. Dr. Creighton,
however (Ency. Bib. col. 960), asserts that Dr. Stroud was
wrong in his facts, and that the phenomenon does not
occur, blood and water from an internal source being a
mystery. He thinks that possibly the soldier s thrust
may have been directed at something on the surface of the
body, left by the scourging or the pressure of a cord,
and adds, Water not unmixed with blood from such
superficial source is conceivable.
The difficulty of the narrative is enhanced by the fact
that blood and water play an important part in the
theology of the First Epistle of John. The writer
strenuously insists that Jesus came not by water only
but by water and blood. It is not surprising that
some consider that the mystical significance of water
and blood has coloured the narrative in the Gospel,
or that this narrative is to be spiritually interpreted
(so E. A. Abbott). In itself then we can hardly appeal
to the passage as attesting the reality of the fact,
though Dr. Creighton leaves room for its possibility, and
this saves us from the necessity of treating it as miraculous
or of denying it, and along with it the authentic character
of the testimony borne to it. Really we are still in the
same position with reference to the verse ; it may or may
not be meant to identify the author with the eye-witness,
and the ultimate decision must rest on other considerations.
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 191
The eye-witness in the verse is generally supposed to be
the same as the beloved disciple. Some, including
Schmiedel, think that this conclusively negatives the view
that he is to be identified with the author, since such a
claim to have been the especial object of the love of Jesus
would be intolerable on a man s own lips, but natural on
the lips of one who wished to assert that disciple s proper
place. Nothing certain can be based on this argument,
for the expression will seem offensive or not to the reader
according to his taste. Many see in it a beautiful expres
sion of gratitude for the love with which the writer knew
that Jesus had distinguished him.
Returning now to the meaning of e /ceivos in xix. 35, we *
are confronted by the view that it refers to the exalted
Christ. This occurred independently to Dechent and Zahn,
and is advocated by E. A. Abbott, perhaps also independ
ently, and by Jannaris, while it is favoured by Sanday.
Wendt says it is impossible, for no one could have under
stood by the pronoun any one but the eye-witness. This
criticism is perhaps less convincing than appears at first
sight. Neither of the two alternatives already discussed is
quite satisfactory, and they agree in identifying IKCIVOS with
the eye-witness. Further, in the first Epistle eKeivos always
refers to the ascended Christ, and had thus passed almost
into a technical expression. And the choice of so emphatic
a pronoun is best explained on this view. If the author had
meant by it simply the eye-witness it would have been
more natural to use am-o s, but by the emphatic pronoun
he calls the ascended Lord to witness that he speaks the
truth. We thus get a worthy sense for the passage. From
his own human testimony to the wonder of the blood and
water the writer adds a reference to Christ s consciousness
of its truth, thus satisfying the canon of double testimony
and rising in his effort to produce conviction from the
witness of fallible man to the knowledge of the infallible
Christ. Accordingly this passage cannot be quoted
192 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
either as a claim of the author for himself or a distinction
between the author and the eye-witness, since either
sense may be imposed upon it. It does, however,
definitely contain the claim that the authority on which
the statement rests was that of an eye-witness, whether
identical with the author of the Gospel or not.
The third passage in which it is thought that the author
claims to be an eye-witness is i. 14 : And the Word became
flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory. Those
who repudiate this interpretation argue that the passage
is to be interpreted of spiritual vision. It is the language
of a mystic, and not to be explained of perception by the
physical senses. It is quite true that the words may be
so interpreted, though the verb seems always to be used of
physical vision hi the New Testament. Still the passage
makes the impression that perception with the bodily
eye is here intended. Following the assertion that the
Word became flesh, a reference to spiritual vision is not
so natural. For the incarnation was a manifestation of
the spiritual hi the realm of the physical, and had to make
its appeal to physical organs of perception. It is true that
the writer says we beheld his glory, and thus may seem
to mean that the appeal was to a spiritual faculty, since
faith alone could penetrate behind the lowly appearance
to the glorious reality. But the reference might be to the
Transfiguration, and if not so, the glory of Christ
according to the Gospel itself was shown in miraculous
acts, apprehended by the physical senses. In ii. 11 we
read with reference to the miracle of turning water into
wine : This beginning of signs did Jesus hi Cana of
Galilee and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed
on him. The presumption is accordingly rather strong
that hi this passage the writer is not simply claiming for
himself such a spiritual vision of the glory of the Word as
all Christians may be said to enjoy, but to have actually
seen the incarnate Word as He dwelt on earth.
xvn.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 193
This presumption becomes little short of certainty if we ,
admit, as we should do, that the author wrote the First
Epistle of John. The opening words of the Epistle are so
explicit, that it would be hard to say how the writer could f
have more definitely claimed to have submitted the real
humanity of the Word to physical tests of sight, hearing,
and touch. That which was from the beginning, which
we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which
we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word
of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen,
and bear witness, and announce to you the eternal life,
which was with the Father and was manifested to us) that
which we have seen and heard we announce also to you.
This passage is all the more clear in its reference to
physical perception, that the false doctrine attacked by
the author affirmed that Christ had not come in the flesh.
The reality of the flesh could be tested only by physical
senses. Appeal to spiritual vision would be irrelevant.
When scholars who accept the unity of authorship of
the Gospel and Epistle are driven to the desperate ex
pedient of explaining such language as implying spiritual
perception in order to avoid attributing the two works to
an eye-witness, it becomes clear that their testimony to
authorship by an eye-witness can be suppressed only by
violent methods. Wendt fully admits that both passages
claim, and rightly claim, to proceed from an eye-witness.
But he considers the Gospel to be a composite work, its
author being a later writer who incorporated an earlier
work by the apostle John. He also attributes the First (
Epistle to the apostle. Unless this theory of composite
authorship be correct, it seems to be very hard to evade
the conclusion that the author of the Fourth Gospel claims
to have been an eye-witness.
From the direct testimony of the Gospel to its authorship,
N
194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
we turn to the indirect evidence that it supplies. The
proof of the Johannine authorship of the Gospel has often
been exhibited by its defenders in circles gradually
narrowing down to a point. The writer is shown to be
(1) a Jew, (2) a native of Palestine, (3) an eye-witness,
(4) an apostle, (5) the apostle John. Thi ; method has the
advantage of bringing the greater part of the evidence
under review, and gradually concentrating that in favour
of the Johannine authorship.
(1) The writer was a_Jew. This is now more and
more admitted by opponents of the authenticity. The
Tubingen school denied both that he was a native of
Palestine, and that he was a Jew. But the later criticism
has not supported it in the latter view, and even Schmiedel
thinks that he was probably a Jew, since a born Gentile
would not easily have attached so great value to the
prophetic significance of the Old Testament. Quite apart
from this, however, there is a large mass of evidence which
proves familiarity with Jewish ideas, customs, etc. This
is conspicuously the case with reference to the Jewish
Messianic ideas. The author has an accurate knowledge
of details and shades of opinion, which would have pos
sessed no interest for a Gentile. He takes us back into the
controversies of the time of Jesus, moving among them
easily, as one who had himself been familiar with them.
Thus in i. 19-28 we have references to three personages ex
pected by the Jews the Messiah, Elijah, and the prophet.
Again in i. 45 the Messiah is described as him, of whom
Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write. Incident
ally it may be noticed that Philip calls Jesns the son of
Joseph, a designation which Christian writers at a very
early period began to avoid. In i. 49 Nathanael hails
Jesus as Son of God, and King of Israel. The latter term
very soon became meaningless in the Church, the expecta
tion of a national Messiah having no significance for Gentile
Christians. But it is true to the Jewish expectation. Sc
xvn.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 195
in the sixth chapter the miracle of the loaves convinces the
people that Jesus is the prophet that cometh into the world,
and has its natural issue in the attempt to make Him the
Messianic King, a point missed by the Synoptists. In
vii. 25-36 we have an account of the disputes among the
people concerning the Messianic character of Jesus. Some
urge that the secrecy of the Messiah s origin is fatal to the
view that Jesus can be the Messiah, since His origin is
known. Others point to His miracles and argue that even
the Messiah will not do more. So in vv. 40-43 we have a
further account of the various views taken of Jesus by the
multitude. Some thought He was the prophet, others
regarded him as the Messiah, while others asserted that
the Messiah must be of the seed of David, and of David s
village Bethlehem, and therefore that Jesus could not be
the Messiah since He came from Galilee. The Messianic
title King of Israel is used again in xii. 13 (cf. also xix.
14, 15, 21), while in xii. 34 we have mention of a current
doctrine that the Messiah abideth for ever. All this
points very strongly to the author s Jewish nationality,
though it cannot be pressed to prove his early date. For
in itself it is quite compatible with the view that it reflects
the later controversies of the Christians and the Jews, and
that the writer antedates these discussions and puts the
Christian argument for the Messiahship and Divinity of
Jesus into His own mouth.
Other points of Jewish opinion with which he is
familiar are the contempt of the Pharisees for those
untrained in the law (vii. 47), the relation of punish
ment to sin, and the possibility that the sin of the
parents might be punished in the child, and especially the
possibility of sin before birth (ix. 1,2). He is acquainted
with the Jewish feasts, not merely with the Passover and
Feast of Tabernacles, but also the Feast of Dedication,
which is not mentioned in the other Gospels nor in the Old
Testament, He knows that the last day of the Feast of
196 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
Tabernacles is the great day of the feast, and that the
Sabbath mentioned (xix. 31) is a high day. He is aware
of the fact that Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans,
and that the command to circumcise on the eighth day
overrides even the law of the Sabbath. A precise descrip
tion is given of the Jewish method of embalming (xix.
39, 40). The author is aware that by entering the palace
of the Roman governor the Jews would incur ceremonial
defilement which would disqualify them for eating the
Passover (xviii. 28), and similarly that the bodies of the
crucified should not remain on the cross till the Sabbath
(xix. 31). We have a reference also to the Jews manner
of purifying (ii. 6). Moreover, the style of the writer is
strongly Hebraistic. His Greek is correct, but it is the
Greek of one who has been accustomed to form his
sentences on a Semitic not a Greek model.
Against this impressive evidence for the author s Jewish
nationality there is little to be set on the other side. It
has been urged that a Jew would not have spoken of
the Jews as the writer often speaks. Parallels may,
it is true, be quoted, as Mark s reference to the Pharisees
and all the Jews (vii. 8), perhaps Matt, xxviii. 15, this
saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and Paul s
statement to the Jews I became as a Jew (1 Cor. ix. 20).
At the same time the usage in the Fourth Gospel is much
more peculiar. The term is used nearly seventy times,
whereas its use in the Synoptic Gospels is rather infrequent.
It occurs sixteen times in them, and in all but four of
these in the phrase the king of the Jews. In John we
have such expressions as the feast of tabernacles, a feast
of the Jews (vii. 2), or the passover a feast of the Jews
(vi. 4), or even the Jews passover (ii. 13, xi. 55), or
the Jews Preparation (xix. 42), which certainly sound
strange on the lips of one who was himself a Jew. It
should be observed, however, that since the feasts could
be observed outside of Palestine, this usage tells not simply
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 197
against Palestinian residence, but against Jewish
nationality. Yet it is urged against the former by some
who admit the latter. But this does not apply to the great
majority of instances, which would be much more natural
on the part of a foreign than a Palestinian Jew. In these
the term indicates not those of Jewish nationality in general,
but a special section of the Jewish people. From vii. 1
it would seem that they were for the most part living
in Judaea, since it is said that Jesus was walking in Galilee,
for He was not willing to walk in Judaea because the Jews
were seeking to slay Him. It is true that we find the
Jews present at the discourse on the bread of life (vi.
40, 52). This is said to have been delivered at the syna
gogue at Capernaum, though Wendt argues that really it
was at Jerusalem. If it was a Galilaean discourse, then we
must conclude either that the reference is to Jews who
were present from Jerusalem, which the context does
not favour, or that the author used the term in a wider
sense than was usual with him.
The most characteristic employment of the term is
that for the party of hostility to Christ. We have
about twenty-five instances of this (cf. vi. 13 ; ix. 22 ;
xviii. 12, 14). The term is also used in some cases
in which disputes or discourses about Jesus are chronicled,
either because the sayings of Jesus were obscure giving
rise to various interpretations (vi. 52 ; vii. 35, 36 ; viii.
22), or because some asserted while others denied the
genuineness of His claims (x. 19). The term is also
used in a neutral sense with no suggestion of any
specific attitude towards Jesus (xi. 19, 31, 33, 36 ; xviii.
20) ; and we have references to believing Jews (viii. 31 ;
xi. 45), and Jesus Himself says to the woman of Samaria
that salvation is of the Jews (iv. 22). It may be suggested
that these phenomena are not incompatible with authorship
by a Palestinian Jew, in one who was a Galilaean, who
wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem had annihilated
198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
the nation but embittered and intensified the racial
and sectarian feelings of the Jews ; when, further, the Jews
and Christians were sharply distinguished from each other
and the former were notoriously hostile to the latter, and
when the author himself had been long absent from
Palestine and separated from his own race. It was not
unnatural that he should use a term, with which at the end
of the first century a definite attitude of hostility to
Christianity had become associated, to indicate those who
adopted a similar attitude towards Christ.
The statement about Caiaphas that he was high-priest
in that year (xi. 49, 51 ; xviii. 13) has been urged by some
against the Jewish nationality of the writer, though others
who admit that he was a Jew by race think that he was not
a native of Palestine. It is said that the author was so
ignorant of Jewish affairs that he regarded the High
Priesthood as a yearly office, a mistake which Holtzmaim
and his namesake Oscar Holtzmann suppose to have arisen
from the fact that the Asian high-priesthood did change
hands every year. It is by no means unanimously accepted
among those who deny the Johannine authorship that the
writer really made this mistake. Schmiedel, it is true,
speaks as if it needed no proof, and asserts that against
this serious mistake the evidence of accurate acquaintance
with geographical and historical detail has but little
weight. But Keim, who rejected the Johannine authorship,
expressed a different view. He says : The high-priest
of the Death- Year is significant and does not at all betray
the opinion of a yearly change hi the office. This seems
to be the correct view to take. The author meant to lay
stress on the fact that Caiaphas was the high-priest in the
year in which Christ died. He appears to have in mind
the yearly sacrifice which the high-priest had to offer
on the Day of Atonement, and it thus becomes significant
that Caiaphas as high-priest had a part in putting to death
the antitype of that yearly sacrifice. The author repeats
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 199
the phrase three times (xi. 49, 51 ; xviii. 13), and
evidently attaches much importance to it. For he uses
eKtuo?, which is a favourite word with him when he
wishes to make an emphatic statement. The expression
has been happily paraphrased high-priest that fateful
year. It has all the more point when it is remembered
that under the Roman rule the office so frequently changed
hands, and while Caiaphas himself held it for at least ten
years, his three immediate predecessors held it for only
three years between them. And it is difficult to admit that
one so well acquainted with Jewish life, thought, and
customs as the author clearly was, could have blundered
on a matter of such common knowledge. It may therefore
be granted as a result of the preceding inquiry that the
author was a Jew.
(2) The author was aJPalestinian Jew. This proposition
is still strongly contested by opponents of the Johannine
authorship, though many of the definite arguments on
which stress has been laid are now largely abandoned.
It used to be urged that a whole series of geographical
blunders had been committed by the author. To-day
the best representatives of the opposition to the tradi
tional view have withdrawn from this position. Schiirer
thinks that in each case the author may very well have
been correct (Contemporary Review, Sept. 1891, p. 408).
Schmiedel says that if the places in question have not
been satisfactorily identified, the fact ought not to be
urged as necessarily proving defective knowledge on the
part of the author (Ency. Bib., col. 2542). He mentions
other points in which the evangelist s accuracy may be
vindicated, such as the forty-six years during which the
Temple was in process of building, and the name of the
ravine mentioned in xviii. 1 (on the text see article Kidron,
Ency. Bib., col. 2661 ; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 172-
175). He thinks, however, that the mistake involved
in the phrase high-priest in that year outweighs all the
200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
evidence of acquaintance with Palestine which may be
found in these names. This point, however, has already
been discussed, and a different conclusion reached.
Not only has the criticism of the writer s accuracy broken
down, but the Gospel contains many positive indications
of his acquaintance with Palestine. The author cannot
with any plausibility be assumed to have derived his
knowledge from the Old Testament, the other Gospels,
or non-Biblical literature. He knows Cana of Galilee,
which has not been mentioned before, also Ephraim near
the wilderness, and Aenon near to Salim. His knowledge
of distances and the relative position of places is accurate,
but it comes to expression in a perfectly natural and
spontaneous way. He knows Jerusalem well, the Pool
of Bethesda by the sheep-gate with its five porches, the
Pool of Siloam, Golgotha nigh to the city with its garden
there, the Pavement with its Hebrew title. Some of these
are not mentioned elsewhere. It must be borne in mind
that the Gospel was written after the Jewish war, when
Jerusalem had been razed to the ground and old landmarks
had been effaced. It would not have been easy for one
who had never been hi Palestine to move so freely in the
descriptions of a city which had been destroyed a good
many years earlier.
An important question is raised in this connexion
with reference to the dqctrine.pf the Logos, found in the
Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle. It is frequently
asserted by opponents of the Johannine authorship, and
by some of its defenders, that this doctrine was borrowed
from Philo. Certainly the Logos has with Philo a very
important place. He is represented as the medium
between God and the universe, and as the agent through
whom the world was created. Very lofty terms are used
of him. He speaks of him as the Son of God, God,
the first-born Son, the head of the body, image of
God, high-priest, archetypal man. It is doubtful
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 201
whether he regarded the Logos as personal, his language
being indecisive and perhaps inconsistent. The term
with him means Reason rather than Word, and any
idea of the Incarnation of the Logos would have been quite
foreign to his thought. Nor has the Logos any relation
to the Messianic hope or special connexion with Jewish
history. The conception was mainly speculative and
metaphysical rather than religious, and designed to secure
the absolute separation of God from the world.
That Alexandrian philosophy influenced Christian theo
logy at an early period is true. Apollos was an Alexan
drian Jew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews bears clear
marks of the profound impression made by the teaching of
Philo. Yet it is significant that the term Logos is not
applied to the Son in Hebrews, though substantially its
doctrine coincides with that of the Prologue to the Fourth
Gospel. This fact makes it possible that we should dis
tinguish carefully between the contents of the doctrine and
the term by which it was indicated. It lies on the surface
that a deep gulf separates the Logos of Philo from the
Logos of John, though it has to be recognised that Philo s
conception must have been radically transformed if it was
taken over into Christianity. Still, Harnack says with
much reason, The conception of God s relation to the f
world as given in the Fourth Gospel is not Philonic. The ,
Logos doctrine there is therefore essentially not that of
Philo (History of Dogma, E. Tr., vol. i. p. 114). He says
elsewhere in speaking of the Johannine theology : even
the Logos has little more in common with that of Philo f
than the name (p. 97). Now the Johannine doctrine
of the Logos has in common with that not only of Hebrews
but of Paul essentially everything but the name. We are
therefore more justified in looking to these authors than to
Philo for the substance of the doctrine. Even if it be
granted that the term went back to Philo, and behind him
ultimately to Heraclitus and the Stoics, there is nothing
202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
in that which should make its use by the apostle John
strange. He would find it in use in Asia, and partly, it
may be, to rescue it from false associations, partly because
it seemed a fit vehicle for his doctrine of the pre-existent
Son, might adopt it as a fundamental term. This would
involve no deep study of Philo, but simply the taking
over of a term which he had introduced into theological
phraseology.
Several scholars indeed argue that even the term
is not borrowed from Philo but from Palestinian
theology. In the Targums we have a doctrine of the
Word or Memra. They constantly paraphrase the mention
of an act of God in Scripture by saying that God did it
through His Word. Thus God came to Balaam is
paraphrased The Word of Yahweh came to Balaam ;
and the word of a man even is often used for the man
himself. A third possible origin has been recently pointed
out, that the term may have been derived from the
Hermetic literature. There are several analogies between
the Poimandres and the Fourth Gospel. The combination
of Logos, Life, and Light occurs in both in a way not
paralleled elsewhere. Pleroma ( fulness ) is a common term
in the Hermetic literature, and the Door, the Shepherd, and
the Vine have also their analogies. The prevailing view
has been that the literature belongs to a later time than
the Gospel. Reitzenstein, the most recent editor of the
Poimandres and probably the highest authority on the
subject, dates it earlier, and thinks it has influenced Paul
as well as John, though he rejects the idea that the Gospel
can be explained out of the Hermetic literature. Grill
seems inclined to admit the probability of influence;
Clemen thinks it is really possible, but by no means
certain, since it is not clear that the Gospel is the later.
Mead in his Thrice Greatest Hermes strongly advocates the
priority of the Poimandres and its influence on the Gospel.
The latest discussion of the Hermetic literature, including
xvir.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 203
an argument for early date, is to be found in Petrie s
Personal Religion in Egypt.
The case stands then as follows. The doctrine of
the Prologue was already formulated in Paul and
Hebrews ; the term Logos may have been a mere trans
lation of Memra, and therefore requires no influence
outside Palestine to explain it, and even if the term
went back to Philo, there is no reason whatever why
a Palestinian who had lived in Asia should not have
used it, nor why he should have been unfamiliar with
Hermetic speculations, if it can be granted that they
had been formulated before his time. Wendt agrees that
John actually used the term both in the Prologue to the
Gospel, most of which he attributes to him, and in the
First Epistle, though he adopts the dubious theory that
the Logos is there regarded as impersonal. He thinks
the origin of the usage is to be traced to Alexandria rather
than Palestine.
(3) The author was an_eye-witness. This is shown by
the ease with which the writer moves among the cir
cumstances that he describes, and by the way in which he
constantly realises the situation. It has already been
pointed out that the author exhibits a remarkable know
ledge of the Messianic beliefs current in the Judaism of
the time. Here the further point is to be observed that he
describes how these beliefs affected the attitude of the
people towards Jesus. In other words, it is not simply
the enumeration of a series of beliefs, but the action of
these beliefs in concrete situations that he describes.
It would have been a matter of extraordinary difficulty
for a writer even of great imaginative power to have
delineated the play of these two forces on each other the
beliefs of the people on the one side, and the individuality
of Jesus on the other. In Sanday s words, No genius,
we contend, would have treated the collision between
Judaism and nascent Christianity as the Evangelist has
204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
dealt with it ; and we securely rest upon that for proof
that no middle link intervenes between the facts and
their narrator (Contemporary Review, Oct. 1891, p. 540).
The exact details as to time and place, persons and
numbers, point to the recollections of an eye-witness.
Special events are associated with definite localities ; the
nobleman s son was sick at Capernaum while Jesus was
at Cana ; Jesus finds the man, whom He had healed on
the Sabbath, in the Temple ; certain of His utterances are
connected with the Treasury and with Solomon s porch.
Persons are mentioned in a familiar and easy way ; some
of them do not occur elsewhere, e.g. Lazarus and Nicodemus.
Various persons are connected with definite questions
addressed to Christ. Points of time are exactly indicated :
the sixth hour, the seventh hour, the tenth hour, in the
early morning. The length of a period of time is indicated
in several cases : the duration of Christ s stay in Samaria,
of His delay before He went to Lazarus, of the interval
that elapsed between the death and the raising of the
latter. Definite numbers are freely given : the six water-
pots, the four soldiers by the Cross, the twenty-five or
thirty furlongs the disciples had gone before Jesus came
to them walking on the sea, the thirty-eight years that the
sick man had suffered, the two hundred cubits the boat
was from land (xxi. 8), the number of the fish caught,
one hundred and fifty-three (xxi. 11). To these
may be added little touches such as that the loaves
with which the multitude was fed were barley loaves,
that the house was filled with the odour of the ointment,
that the coat of Christ was woven without seam.
In a modern writer of fiction these details would not be
surprising, since it is in this way that he makes on his
readers the impression of reality. But it is very difficult to
, believe that the writer of a Gospel in the second century
should have been so far in advance of his age in literary
* art as to trick his narrative out with details invented
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 205
in order to make an impression of reality on his readers.
And it must be remembered that the modern novelist
intends his narrative to be taken as fiction, the details are
introduced not to make his readers believe that his story
is true, but to secure more powerful effects. In the case
of the Gospel, however, the writer would deliberately
invent precise details that he might mislead his readers
into accepting as true what was simply the product of his
own imagination. It is rather hard to believe that the
moral sensitiveness of the author was so blunt as this.
The case would be altered, however, if these details were
invested with a symbolic significance. This view of them
has been more or less taken by several scholars. Some of
these, of course, consider that the narratives are purely
allegorical, but some adherents of the traditional view
who have asserted the historicity of the events narrated
have nevertheless imposed upon them an allegorical
significance. It is probably true that the writer has
selected his material with this in view, as the connexion
between narrative and teaching strongly suggests. For
example, the feeding of the five thousand leads to the dis
course on the Bread of Life, the healing of the blind man
presents Jesus as the Light of the World, the raising of
Lazarus teaches that Jesus is the Resurrection and the
Life, the coming out of blood and water from His side is not
only a positive refutation of Docetism, but symbolises that
Jesus had come not with water only, but with water and
blood.
But the attempt to carry through allegory every
where leads to very strange results. When one reads the
interpretation of the story of the woman of Samaria one
is forcibly reminded of the Tubingen interpretation of
Euodia and Syntyche, a striking example of the possi
bilities of theory divorced from common sense. The
woman of Samaria is, of course, the half-heathen Samaritan
community. She has had five husbands, that means the
206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
five heathen gods mentioned in 2 Kings xvii. 31, 32 as wor
shipped by the Samaritans. Her present irregular lover is
Yahweh, whom she illegitimately worships. It is a pity for
this interpretation, which may be found in numerous com
mentaries and discussions, that these gods were seven and
not five ; that they were worshipped simultaneously and
not successively ; and it is hardly likely that idolatry
should be represented as marriage, when its usual symbol
is adultery, or that the author should have represented
Yahweh under so offensive a figure. Holtzmann, hi fact,
in view of this difficulty, supposes that by the irregular
lover Simon Magus must be meant ; but it would be very
odd to place a man in line with deities, and was Samaria s
connexion with him less legitimate than with them ?
Readers with any literary tact will feel that the story of
the woman of Samaria is admirably told, full of life and
movement, and even with touches of humour. The request
for water, the woman s surprise, the attempt of Jesus to
lead her to a sense of spiritual need, her crass misunder
standing, the probing of her conscience by the reminder
of her past, the woman s ready-witted diverting of the
conversation from the embarassingly personal channel to
questions of theology, all follow simply and naturally.
Yet of this scene, so admirably managed, Reville can say,
and Pfleiderer can quote his words with approval, Taken
literally, this scene is as absurd as that of the marriage
of Cana.
On the allegorical interpretation what are we to make of
many features in the narrative that Jesus was weary,
that it was Jacob s well, that the place was Sychar, that
the woman came at a certain hour, that Jesus had nothing
to draw with, that the woman left her water-pot, that
His disciples marvelled that He talked with the woman ?
The allegorist misses his mark if the allegory is not trans-
*"*" O ,, J _- t _n-.-- ^s^*^ *f **^
parent, yet what symbolical meaning can be attached to
! these trivial details ? If it is a real history that the author
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 207
means to tell, whether truth or fiction they fall naturally
into their places. If they are allegories it is hard to find
a suitable meaning for them. Wrede does much more
justice to the literary quality of the narrative ; he says that
the movement of the dialogue between Jesus and the
Samaritan w r oman is incomparably finer than that with
Nicodemus.
Similarly one might treat the story of the man born?
blind, or the incident of the feeding of the five thou- (
sand. And so we might accumulate a large number of
points which speak against the allegorical interpretation. I
Think of the numerous trivialities in the Gospel, the
reference to points of time to wnich significance cannot
without violence be attached, or to distances. Why does
the allegorist tell us that the boat was about twenty-five
or thirty furlongs from the shore, which looks like the
rough calculation of one who was actually there ; or
why that Bethany was about fifteen furlongs from Jeru
salem ? Why should he trouble to tell us that there
were six water-pots of stone, and again give a rough
estimate of their size, that they held two or three firkins
apiece ? What allegory lies concealed behind the lad at
the miracle of the feeding, or the fact that his stock
consisted of barley loaves ? Why should the eyes of the
blind man be anointed with clay ? Why should we be told
that Lazarus was buried in a cave ? What is the object
of saying at one time that Jesus spoke in the treasury,
and on another occasion that it was in Solomon s porch, with
the added touch that it was winter ? What is the meaning
of the fire of charcoal at the scene of Peter s denial ? Why
the curious new and insignificant names such as Cana and
Ephraim and Malchus ? Why the objectless visit to
Capernaum mentioned in ii. 12, or the many other details
that are not patient of a symbolical interpretation, which
any reader of the Gospel may collect in abundance for
himself ? The cool stream of common sense which John
208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [en.
Spencer poured on those who found deep religious mysteries
in the Levitical rites would not come amiss to those critics
who in this matter also embrace a cloud instead of Juno.
It may be granted that much which to us would seem
absurd and fanciful might have come to seem quite natural
to a writer saturated with Rabbinic and Alexandrian notions
as to the significance of numbers and names. Yet when
sufficient allowance for this has been made it can hardly
be regarded as probable that a narrative written on these
principles should be so spontaneous and give so slight an
impression of artifice. Thus according to E. A. Abbott
the sick man at Bethesda represents sinful Israel ; he waits
for the troubling of the water thirty-eight years, which
corresponds to Israel s thirty-eight years of wandering ;
the intermittent pool symbolises the intermittent purifica
tion of the Law ; the five porches represent the five senses
of unredeemed humanity (though Schmiedel makes them
represent the five books of Moses). The one hundred
and fifty-three fish indicate the Church as evolved from
the Law and the Spirit. Peter swims over two hundred
cubits, a number that according to Philo represents re
pentance. (Numerous other examples may be seen in
his article Gospels in the Ency. Bib.) Schmiedel
admits symbolical meanings to a certain extent, but says
that the entire contents of the Gospel do not admit of
being derived from ideas alone. He thinks that mistaken
statements in the Gospel have arisen in the course of oral
tradition. It is open to very serious question whether
this can be successfully made good in detailed application.
Examples of this type of explanation may be found in
his article John, Son of Zebedee (Ency. Bib. 2539).
And apart from this, it is a sound principle that the plain
and literal sense should not be abandoned for a symbolical,
and that lifelike touches must be held to prove accurate
knowledge, either directly communicated by an eye
witness in writing, or preserved faithfully in a good oral
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 209
tradition, unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary. .
If the Johannine date for the Crucifixion is correct (see
p. 215), this is important as showing that what looks
like transparent allegory may nevertheless be historical i
fact.
Yet the argument from the presence of lifelike details
does not carry us so far as its supporters often assert.
More reserve should be shown in drawing the inference
that the author of the document containing them must
have been present when the events narrated take place.
Vivid touches or a whole flood of accurate reminiscences do
not prove apostolic authorship. This is perfectly clear f
from the Gospel of Mark. All that the graphic character i
of the narrative proves is that it embodies the tradition of
an eye-witness, not that the eye-witness himself compiled
the narrative. Now, if the Second Gospel cannot be proved
by these features to be the work of Peter, we cannot prove \
the Fourth Gospel by similar argument to be the work of
John. In fact, direct apostolic authorship is not the real
point to be maintained ; it is rather that the Gospel should <
be proved to incorporate a reliable historic tradition.
And all the numerous arguments which are to be found in
such copiousness hi our commentaries and special dis
cussions do not when pressed to the utmost really carry us
further than that. The strongest argument for direct
apostolic authorship is the claim in i. 14. This claim is
corroborated by the internal evidence that has been held
to prove authorship by an eye-witness, but of itself this
does not suffice to establish it. Still it seems sounder to
see hi the details which have been enumerated genuine
historical recollections rather than allegorical ideas or the
outcome of a whole series of misunderstandings.
(4) Thejvriter was an apostle. If he was an eye-witness
he can hardly have been any one but an apostle, 1 for only
1 On the attempt to show that the beloved disciple was net an apostle
see pp. 147 if.
O
210 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
an apostle is likely to have been present at so many different
scenes, in such various places and at such various times.
This is confirmed by the knowledge he exhibits of the
feelings of the disciples, and what they said to each other.
Thus after the cleansing of the Temple we read : And his
disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine
house eateth me up (ii. 17). Again when the disciples
returned from the city they were surprised that Jesus
should be talking with a woman, but did not venture to
question Him ; and when He replied to their offer of food
I have food to eat of which you do not know, they
ask each other whether any one has brought Him food
(iv. 27-33). The writer is aware that the garden in which
Jesus was arrested was one which was known to Judas a?
a meeting-place for Jesus and His disciples (xviii. 1, 2).
He also reveals an intimate acquaintance with the thoughts
and feelings of Jesus. He mentions the reason for His
leaving Judaea (iv. 1), and for withdrawing from the
multitude after He had fed it (vi. 15). He explains that
His question to Philip was for the purpose of trying
him, since He knew Himself what He was going to do
(vi. 6).
(5) ThjB writer., was Jhe apostle John. If he was an
apostle at all, only John can be thought of. Of the disciples
most intimate with Jesus, Peter, James, and John, Peter
is excluded by the way in which the Gospel speaks of
him, James by his early death. This is confirmed by the
fact that the name of John the apostle nowhere occurs,
in spite of the fact that he was one of the three disciples
nearest to Jesus, and that he occupies a prominent position
in the Synoptists, in Acts, and in Paul. The sons of
Zebedee are referred to, but placed in a position where no
one else would have placed them, and the names are not
given (xxi. 2). In view of the particularity with which
the author specifies names, it is most significant that
these names are not mentioned. And there is one minute
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 211
indication which is very striking. The author is careful
about the exact identification of those to whom he refers,
distinguishing them from others of the same name, thus
Simon Peter, Judas Iscariot and Judas not Iscariot, Judas
the son of Simon Iscariot, Nicodemus, the same who came
to Jesus by night, Thomas who is called Didymus. But
he never speaks of John the Baptist as the Synoptic
Gospels do, but simply of John, apparently since he
thinks that being himself the John from whom his name
sake was to be distinguished, no note of distinction is
required.
In looking back over these indirect arguments it may ,
perhaps be granted that they are of different degrees of
cogency. That the author was a Jew may be asserted \
without hesitation, and that he was a native of Palestine,
or at any rate had lived long in Palestine, may be asserted |
with almost equal confidence, the phrase high priest in
that year being altogether insufficient to outweigh the j
minute acquaintance with Palestine exhibited by the
author. Of the other points it must at present suffice to I
say that while taken in themselves they rather strongly
suggest that the author was an eye-witness and the apostle !
John, yet they might perhaps be satisfied by a belief that .
he had access to an exceptionally good tradition, much
in the same way as Mark had. It must be remembered
that the main question is one of historical character
rather than authorship, and this might be secured as in
the case of Mark by faithful reproduction of a good
tradition. No doubt first-hand evidence is better than
evidence at second hand. But it would be premature
to pronounce an opinion till the objections to the Johannine
authorship have been stated and examined. It should be
added, however, that these objections do, as a matter
of fact, touch not only the question of authorship but that
of historical trustworthiness.
212 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
Objections to the Apostolic Authorship.
Unfortunately the question of . authorship is affected
seriously by theologicaj_ considerations. Those who take
a purely humanitarian view of Christ s Person, or disbelieve
in the possibility of miracles, naturally find a difficulty in
admitting that such a work as the Fourth Gospel can have
come from the hand of an apostle. Those for whom the
Christology of the Fourth Gospel is untrue, and who con
sider that Paul started the Church down the fatal slope of
mythology by his doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, will
naturally find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that
one who had personally known Jesus should speak of
Him as the author does in his prologue ; still more, that he
should represent Jesus as speaking of Himself as He does
in the Gospel. On this point it must suffice to quote the
words of one of the ablest and most moderate opponents
of the traditional view. Weizsacker says : It is even a
greater puzzle that the apostle, the beloved disciple of the
Gospel, he who reclined at table next Jesus, should have
come to regard and represent his whole former experience
as a life with the incarnate Logos of God. After adding
that no power of faith or philosophy can be imagined
great enough to substitute this marvellous picture of a
Divine Being for the recollection of the real life, and that
in Paul s case such a thing would be possible since he had
not known Jesus in His earthly life, he proceeds : For
a primitive apostle it is inconceivable. The question is
decided here, and finally here (Apostolic Age, vol. ii. p.
211). Such a consideration can have no weight with those
who believe that the Logos doctrine was true to fact.
They will be much readier to admit that Jesus may have
spoken of Himself in such language as the Fourth Gospel
puts into His mouth. It is necessary to draw attention
to this point, since an avowed or unavowed theological
presupposition has in some cases not a little to do with the
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 213
attitude adopted on critical problems in the strict sense of
the term. A discussion of the point, however, would be
improper here, since it would involve desertion of criticism
for philosophy and theology.
Of purely critical objections by far the most important
are those which rise out of a conipjirison with, the
Sy_noptists. The Johannine narrative is suspected to have
been largely formed under the influence of definite theo
logical preconceptions, or from the exigencies of theological
controversy. This explains the transference of Christ s
ministry from Galilee to Judaea, since it was fitting that
the Messiah should do His work in the capital and not in
the provinces. This also accounts for the transformation
of the story of the baptism, since it was not fitting that the
Incarnate Logos should be represented as receiving His
baptism and the call to His work at the hands of John.
Moreover, John loses the significance he possesses in the
Synoptists, and is reduced merely to the position of a
witness to Jesus. The date of the Crucifixion is altered
so that the death of Jesus may coincide with the slaughter
of the Paschal Lamb. The confession or self-revelation
of Jesus as Messiah is made at the beginning of the ministry,
rather than kept a secret till towards its close. The
developed Christology of the author which originated with
Paul has become the main theme of Christ s own speeches.
The obstinate debates with the Jews of the author s own
day have been carried back to His lifetime. Incidents
which seemed to compromise the divine dignity of the
Incarnate Logos have been removed, such as the agony at
Gethsemane, or the cry of desertion on the Cross. The
miracles here are not simply selected for their symbolism,
but are presented on a more exaggerated scale than in
the Synoptists ; they are less the outcome of compassion
than designed to exhibit the glory of Jesus. The author
carefully guards Jesus against any yielding to the sug
gestions of others ; hence if He does what has been suggested
214 INTEODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
to Him, He first refuses and then acts on His own initiative.
The homely and pithy discourses of the Synoptic Jesus,
lit up by parable and packing the deepest meaning into
lucid and pregnant aphorisms, have given place in John to
mystical and monotonous harangues in which theme and
style and manner are altogether different.
It must, of course, be recognised that there is a good
deal of weight in this characterisation of the Gospel. Yet
it is quite possible to suspect the writer of exaggeration,
of conscious or unconscious transformation, when what
we really have to do with is selection from a peculiar
point of view. And in some of the more crucial points
there is much to be said in favour of the Johannine report.
We may begin with the scene and duration of Christ s
ministry. While the Synoptic Gospels limit the ministry
to Galilee, and bring Jesus to Jerusalem only a few days
before the Crucifixion, and, to take a related point, seem
to allow a year only for its duration, the Fourth Gospel
represents Jesus as several times visiting Jerusalem, and
makes His ministry extend to two years and a half. There
are, however, considerations which corroborate John s
account. It is intrinsically unlikely that Jesus, conscious
of His Messianic vocation, should be content to work simply
in the provinces and make no appeal to the religious capital
of Judaism, and the centre of its constituted authority,
till the last week of His life. And this presumption is
confirmed by the testimony of the Synoptists themselves.
The lament of Jesus, How oft would I have gathered
thee, His words, I sat daily in the Temple, the crowds
that welcomed Him on His triumphal entry, the daughters
of Jerusalem who wept as He was led to be crucified, the
begging of His body by Joseph of Arimathaea, the lending
of the ass on w r hich He entered Jerusalem, the man with
the pitcher of water who had made ready the guest-chamber
for Jesus and His disciples, are all mentioned in the
Synoptists, and they prove that Christ s connexion with
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 215
Jerusalem was far more intimate than a superficial reader
would have been likely to suppose. It is in favour of
John s representation that he connects Christ s visits
with the feasts, since it was at the feasts that He would
most naturally visit Jerusalem. As to the duration of the
ministry nothing can really be urged against John s
narrative. It is a mistake to make the Synoptists our
standard here, for they have no chronology to speak of.
Their account probably demands a longer period than
their chronological statements might seem to suggest,
otherwise the development of events would have to be
unnaturally accelerated. Lastly, both for locality and ,
chronology the Synoptists are not three authorities, but
one only, Matthew and Luke simply deriving from Mark.
The question raised as to the date of the Last Supper .
and the Crucifixion is difficult. John seems to place them
a day earlier than the Synoptists, and thus to make the !
death of Jesus coincide in time with the killing of the
Paschal Lamb. The question is a very complicated one,
and is to some extent associated with the Paschal con
troversy in the second century. The symbolism of John
is thought to have controlled his narrative, and the change
of date to have been due to the wish to represent Jesus as
suffering as the true Paschal Lamb. This view is still taken
by some, but by no means all of those who reject the
Johannine authorship. Schurer, Wendt, Bousset, Harnack,
and apparently Wellhausen think that the date in the
Fourth Gospel is more likely to be correct. And this is
the better view to take. Against what seem to be definite
statements in the Synoptists that Jesus partook of the
Passover on the proper date and was arrested that night,
there are several indications in their own narrative that the
supper was eaten a day before the proper date of the
Passover, and that Jesus was already dead before Passover
Day had begun. These are (a) the resolve of His enemies
not to take Him on the feast day, (6) the illegality of a
216 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
trial on that day, (c) the illegality of wearing arms, which
would have been committed by the guards and one of the
disciples, (d) the fact that Simon of Gyrene was impressed
by the soldiers apparently as he was coming from work,
(e) the purchase of linen by Joseph of Arimathaea and the
preparation of spices by the women, (/) the words of Jesus
in Luke xxii. 15, 16 which imply that His longing to eat the
Passover was not fulfilled. And this victorious confirma
tion of the Johannine date by the Synoptists themselves is
still further strengthened by the consideration that only
in this way can we reasonably account for the abnormal
haste with which the proceedings were carried through.
It was in order that they might be all over before the
Paschal feast actually began. It is also corroborated
by Paul s reference to Christ as our Passover (1 Cor.
v. 7).
A difficulty of the most serious character is raised by
the representation of the teaching of Jesus, both as to its
form and content. In form the Johannine speeches are
abstruse and mystical, long and somewhat monotonous,
and written in a peculiar type of phraseology, which recurs
in the First Epistle, and, what is much more surprising,
in the speeches of John the Baptist. Much may be said
in modification of the sweeping judgment, which the facts
at first sight seem to suggest, that the speeches are one and
all the free composition of the author. As Matthew
Arnold and others have pointed out, when we look more
closely into the speeches in John they are seen to abound
injust the same kind of pithy sayings that we find in the
Synoptists. It has been calculated that nearly a hundred
and fifty words are found in the discourses of Christ which
are never used by the evangelist. Further, if Jesus
spoke Aramaic, we should expect John to employ his
habitual language in translating into Greek. It is often
urged that the Fourth Gospel contains discourses to the
cultivated residents of the capital or the disciples whom
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 217
He had trained, and naturally they differed much from
the more popular discourses addressed to Galilaeans. This
can hardly be admitted. On the one hand, Jesus talks
in this way to the woman of Samaria and in the synagogue
at Capernaum. On the other hand, the Synoptic discourses
delivered in Jerusalem are like those spoken elsewhere.
It is strange that in the Fourth Gospel parables have dis
appeared. Some allegories take their place, e.g. the vine
and its branches. Some of the Synoptic parables might
more fitly be called allegories, e.g. the leaven, or the
mustard seed ; and Luke has several stories of a type not
found in Matthew and Mark, e.g. the Good Samaritan and
the Prodigal Son.
When every explanation has been given, it remains (
true that the probability that Jesus spoke as the
Fourth Gospel represents cannot be made good. In
view of~the marked similarity in style between the ,
speeches of Jesus and the Baptist, the style of the author
himself and that of the First Epistle, there should be no |
hesitation in recognising that th_ form in. .which the dis
courses are cast is due largely to the evangelist himself, \
who has stamped everything with his own idiosyncrasies ;
though here, too, it is easy to overstate the case. A Jewish
writer would naturally adopt direct speech where a Greek
would use indirect, yet one would not mean any more
than the other to be taken as giving a verbatim report,
but to be expressing largely in his own language the gist
of what the speaker said. The subjective element in the
report is probably larger than the average reader would
imagine. That the author invented the discourses cannot j
bejrnaintained, because they contain so much matter like t
that in the Synoptists, and because they were beyond his {
power, Jesus being, as Matthew Arnold well brings out, so ,
much above the heads of His reporters. But it is probable !
that thejrpeeches owe their peculiar form to the evangelist, \
genuine sayings of Christ being woven into a connected I
218 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
whole, which has passed through his own mind and
received the impress of his form of speech.
As to the consent of the speeches there is also a wide
difference. As a general principle it may be said at the
outset that thejarobability is altogether in favour of there
having been a deeper element in the teaching of Jesus,
which finding little response among many, would be
welcomed by a finely sympathetic and receptive mind.
It is no doubt surprising that so much more stress should
be placed by Jesus on His own Person and the true relation
to Himself than in the Synoptists, where the stress is rather
on seeking the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. Yet
we have to remember that the Synoptists themselves contain
numerous sayings of Jesus which, while they do not bear the
stamp of the Johannine vocabulary, express substantially
the Johannine Christology.
The same instinct which rejects the sayings in the
Fourth Gospel tends also to reject such sayings in the
* Synoptics. Yet the authenticity of some of these cannot
be successfully challenged. The saying which places
the Son above the angels is guaranteed as authentic
by the confession of the Son s ignorance, which certainly
could never have been invented. Elsewhere Jesus claims
that a man should surrender everything and sunder
the closest tie that he may follow Him. To help the
suffering or to receive a little child in His name will
be rewarded as if He had been helped or received.
To receive Him is to receive God who sent Him. Those
who confess Him before men will be confessed by Him
before God. Prayer in His name is rewarded by His
presence with those who pray, and the fulfilment of their
desires by God. He who loses his life for Christ s sake shall
find it. If He is David s son He is also David s Lord.
And there is one passage in particular which has quite a
Johannine ring : All things have been delivered unto me
of my Father ; neither doth any one know the Father
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 219
save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal
him (Matt. xi. 27, Luke x. 22). In this Jesus claims to
stand in an altogether unique relation to God. He is the
Son in a sense in which no other is ; it is only the Father
who truly knows Him, He alone truly knows the Father,
nor can any know the Father unless He reveals Him
to them. If Jesus was conscious of occupying this
relation to God, perhaps we ought rather to be surprised
that the Synoptists represent Him as speaking of it so
rarely than that it is so frequent a theme in John. More
over, in two highly important sayings the Synoptists bring
the ground of salvation into the closest relation with
Christ s Person and Death. The Son of man came not
to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life
a ransom for many ; and This is my blood of the covenant
which is shed for many, Matthew adds unto remission
of sins.
It is true that the Synoptists report no definite ,
claim of Jesus to pie-existence, while such claims are
prominent in the Fourth Gospel. But even if we do not ,
base anything on the supposition that the pre-existence
of the Messiah was already a doctrine in some Jewish !
schools it was certainly taught by Paul and the author
of Hebrews, and since as Weizsacker allows we find no
trace of any opposition encountered by this doctrine in ,
primitive apostolic circles, a good case can be made out
for the view that it was really taught by Christ Himself.
Indeed, the dignity ascribed to His Person in the Synoptic
sayings is so lofty that pre-existence might most naturally
be postulated of such a Being. Lastly, it is difficult to
overrate the significance of the fact that the Christology
of Paul created no controversy such as raged fiercely
about his doctrine of the Law.
Another difference between the Fourth Gospel and the
Synoptists relates to the development of the revelation
and recognition of Jesus as Messiah. Here it is said that
220 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
in the earliest tradition Jesus, though certain of His
Messiahship from the outset, did not for a long time advance
the claim to be Messiah ; that the disciples did not at first
suspect Him to be the Messiah, as is shown by the question
Who then is this that even the winds and sea obey Him ?
and by Peter s confession at Caesarea Philippi ; further
that even when the disciples realised it they were for
bidden to make it known, so that only at the end is it
proclaimed to the multitude and to the Sanhedrin ; and
finally that John the Baptist first suspected Him to be
the Messiah when he was in prison. As against this the
Fourth Gospel represents Jesus in the narrative of the
cleansing of the Temple as adopting the Messianic functions
at the outset, the disciples as recognising His Messiahship,
and John the Baptist as recognising it even before they do.
This sketch, which follows Schiirer s discussion, is open
to some criticism. The earliest tradition is not that
of the Synoptists as a whole, but the oldest stratum in
them. This should be recognised, since there are elements
in the Synoptists which look somewhat in the direction
of John. In the next place it is not clear that the
question in Mark iv. 41 necessarily implies that the
disciples could not then have believed Him to be the
Messiah, unless we assume that they expected the Messiah
to be able to control the fury of the sea and storm. More
over in Mark the demoniacs from the outset confess Him
as the Holy One of God, the Son of God, or the Son of the
Most High God. It cannot therefore have been a view
which dawned on the disciples only later. Peter s con
fession, it is true, makes the impression that here we have
his definitely formed conviction expressed for the first
time. And according to the narrative in Matt, xi., Luke
vii., John s question does seem to be one of expectation
rather than despondency, since it is inspired by the news
of Christ s mighty works, which he has heard in prison.
This, however, involves a sceptical attitude to the narra-
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 221
tive in Matt. iii. 14, 15, which, to be sure, is not found
in Mark or Luke. Psychologically there is no serious
difficulty in the usual view that John in prison had a more
despondent outlook than when he was in full career, and
the methods of Jesus may well have seemed too slow and
gentle for one whose fan was in His hand. And the reply
of Jesus, Blessed is he who findeth not occasion of stumbling
in me, gains much greater significance if John had sent to
Him in a moment of despondency.
On the other side, the^earliness of the Messianic de
velopment in.._the Fourth Gospel is perhaps overstated.
TEe cleansing of the Temple need not involve anything
more than might have been accomplished by an Old
Testament Prophet ; it does not necessarily assert a
Messianic claim. It is true that a serious difficulty is
created by the fact that the cleansing is placed by the
Synoptists almost immediately before His death. It is
not likely that there were two cleansings, and the
Synoptic version has in its favour that it precipitates
the crisis, and that it thus seems to be an integral
part of the development as conceived by them. On the
other hand, if we admit numerous visits to Jerusalem,
there is much to be said in favour of John s account which
at first sight appears to be particularly vulnerable. It f
is not probable that Jesus saw this desecration of the
Temple again and again during His ministry and then
acted only at the last. The action bears rather the f
impress of springing out of His first contact with the evil, \
after He had become conscious of His vocation. The ,
Synoptic narrative suggests that matters moved with
astonishing rapidity. Naturally, recognising only one
visit to Jerusalem, the writers were compelled to place the
cleansing there, if they narrated it at all. If the Johannine
narrative implies that Jesus intimated His death and
resurrection in the discussion that ensued, it would no
doubt be natural to see in this the evidence for its original
222 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
connexion with the Passion visit. This, however, is by
no means necessary.
It is no doubt true that we find Andrew, Philip, and
Nathanael confessing Jesus as Messiah or Son of God quite
early, even before His first miracle. Yet we must beware
of reading too much into this. We need to distinguish
clearly between what Messiah meant to them and what it
meant to Jesus. It by no means necessarily implied in
their case a lofty view of His Person or Mission. There
were numerous Messianic movements in this period.
That Jesus revealed Himself to the Samaritan woman is
not so surprising as it might seem, since the risks involved in
a premature announcement were slight in Samaria. The
Baptist s language about Jesus in John is certainly
astonishing. It should be pointed out that the account
given by Schiirer of the presentation in the Fourth Gospel
is not complete. Not so long before His death that
Gospel represents the people as urging Jesus to keep them
no longer in suspense, but to tell them plainly whether He
is the Messiah or not. At an earlier period in chap. vii.
the people are still disputing His real character. It is pro
bably true that the evangelist read back to some extent
the completed revelation into the earlier period, and im
parted a certain precision to the utterances in it which they
did not really possess. After the lapse of many years jeven
an_eye-witness might blur the lines of development and
fail to recall the exact movement in all its sharp precision.
The silence of the Synoptists on the raising of Lazarus
is a real difficulty which may be mitigated, but has never
been satisfactorily explained. It is true that they give
very little Judaean incident, yet Luke knows about Martha
and Mary. It is also true that they relate narratives of
the raising of the dead, and our modern grading of wonders
must not be carried back to them. Yet the fact that the
Jews regarded the spirit of the dead man as hovering about
his body till the third day after death, and as then going to
xvn.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 223
Sheol, indicates that they would have seen in the resurrec
tion of Lazarus when he had been dead four days something
much more striking than in the raising of Jairus s daughter,
or of the young man at Nain. On the other hand, the
confidence with which the omission by the Synoptists is
paraded as completely discrediting the historical character
of the Fourth Gospel * is, in view of their one-sided
character and their attitude to miracles in general, a
violent exaggeration. The story of John bears such clear
marks of historicity that Renan, who entirely rejected the
miracle, but whose historic sense and literary tact com
pelled him to admit a genuine element of history, was
driven to the conclusion that a fraud was palmed off on
the people by Lazarus and his family, Jesus Himself being
a party to it. This needs no discussion, but the theory
is a striking testimony to the impression of truthfulness
made by the narrative.
Apart from the objections derived from a comparison
with the Synoptists, there are others. One is that a
Judaising apostle should have taken so free an attitude
with reference to the Law. Really we know very little of
John s Judaising tendencies. But the destruction of
Jerusalem must have seemed to him a divine judgment
on Judaism, and residence in Asia would conduce to a
more liberal view. It is thought further that a Galilaean
fisherman cannot have written a work at once so artistic
and profound. But the accident of a man s calling in
life may prove nothing as to natural gifts (it was a tinker
who wrote The Pilgrim s Progress], and John had been
trained by Jesus Himself. If he is to be identified with
the beloved disciple and the testimony of the Fourth
Gospel be received that Jesus entertained for him a special
affection, this points to a nature which He felt to be in
1 See, for example, Wernle s sweeping statement : That the three Synop
tists mention not a syllable of this greatest of all the miracles of Jesus, is
enough, quite by itself, to destroy all faith in the Johannine tradition (Die
Quellen des Lebens Jesu (1904), p. 24).
224 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CH -
sympathetic harmony Avith His own to a degree surpassing
that of the others. And the style is not artistic, or that of
a practised writer, nor does the author write as one who
had received a scholastic training. These and similar
objections rest on assumptions rather than facts.
Results.
In looking back on the various lines of evidence dis
cussed, the present writer feels it difficult, to share the
confidence of _thc extremists on on.e side or the other. The
external evidence favours though it does not demand
Johannine authorship. The internal evidence seems to
prove conclusively that the author had access to an
i exceptionally rich treasure of genuine historical reminis
cences, whether stored in his own memory of scenes at which
I he had been present, or derived from an eye-witness.
Accordingly we may reconstruct the circumstances and
situation which gave rise to the Gospel somewhat in the
following way. Th^_ apostle^ John came to Ephesus late
s In the sixties, living there till towards the close of the first
century, and gathering about him a band of disciples to
whom he was in the habit of imparting his reminiscences
of the life of Jesus. He lived in an intellectual atmosphere
wholly different from that familiar to him in Palestine,
and, if not for himself, at least for his disciples, was forced
to take up a definite attitude towards it. Within the
Church the Do^etic _heresy was working havoc, and
without it there was an unfriendly empire and a bitterly
hostile Judaism. Possibly too he may have had to do
with followers of John the Baptist, who pitted their
prophet against the prophet of Nazareth. 1 There was
1 This has been argued with great originality and acuteness, but also with
much violent exegesis, by Baldensperger in his Der Prolog des vierten
Evangdiens, 1898. His views have met with little acceptance, though the
brilliance and suggestiveness of his discussion have been amply recognised.
Pfleiderer and E. F. Scott think he has made out his point for the first three
chapters of the Gospel. On the other hand, see Jiilicher and Loisy, also an
article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. xx., 1901, part i.. by
Professor C. W. Rishell.
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 225
also the Alexandrian philosophy, and penetrating every
thing the subtle influence of Greek thought.
Over against this world which lay in the evil one the
apostle stood firm in the consciousness that he was in *
possession of the absolute truth. For this truth he
fought directly in his Epistle, indirectly in his Gospel.
The latter work had primarily an apologetic interest ;
it was not so much, as he himself tells us, to give in-
formation about Jesus, as to create the belief that !
Jesus was the Son of God, thus bringing his readers to
eternal life. The Synoptic Gospels, in part or wholly, /
were already known to him ; it was not necessary to
go over their ground again, unless it served his pur
pose specially to do so. At the same time he was
able to rectify their limitations. The selection of his
material, however, was dominated in the mam by the
situation with which he was confronted. He seeks to set
Christianity in a favourable light before the empire ;
the kingdom of Jesus is not of this world, and Pilate would
gladly have acquitted Him. Against the Docetists he
insists on the reality of the Incarnation. His Logos becomes
flesh, eats and drinks, sits weary by the well, groans in
spirit, falters at the prospect of the Passion. From His
pierced side comes forth blood and water, His risen body
bears the print of the nails and the wound hi the side.
The Greeks come to Jesus, and the prologue strikes with
the doctrine of the Logos the key for the whole Gospel.
The author s sharpest polemic is directed against the Jews,
who are shown as persistently opposing Jesus, and from
quite early in His ministry planning His death. He plies
them with the argument from the Old Testament, from the
witness of John the Baptist, from the miracles of Jesus.
If they do not receive this accumulated testimony it is
because they are children of the devil and have no true
knowledge of God. If he had to meet the claims made for
the Baptist by his followers, he did so by putting the
P
226 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH.
Baptist in his right place, as not the Light Himself, but
witnessing to the Light. There is, however, no trace of
any tendency to disparage the Baptist ; upon his testimony
to Jesus the evangelist lays the greatest stress.
The apologetic and largely polemical purpose of the
Gospel accounts for much that strikes one as peculiar.
) That the conditions reacted on the evangelist s representa
tion of the life and teaching of Jesus, that subsequent
meditation may have mingled with the report, that the
stages of historical movement have not been distinguished
in all their original sharpness, is no cause for wonder.
But we should make a great mistake if we imagined that
the Gospel was merely a romance of the Logos, freely
invented as a vehicle of ideas. It embodies a large number
of most precious reminiscences, though the interest which
has dictated their preservation was largely theological
and apologetic rather than historical.
In the preceding discussion no account has been taken
of the problem whether the_Gospel is a unity. That it is
so has been and still remains the prevalent opinion of
critics of all classes. In spite of this there have been
several protests of which the most noteworthy must receive
a brief mention. One of the best worked out partition
theories is that of Wendt. This scholar considers that
the apostle John compiled a collection of discourses of
Jesus. The materials are substantially authentic, but the
form and language are largely due to the apostle himself.
This work was subsequently incorporated in our present
Gospel by a writer who added the narrative sections for
which he had some good traditions, but which is on the
whole of secondary historical value. Unfortunately an
examination of this theory would demand a detailed dis
cussion such as it is not possible to give in our space.
On the general distinction between narrative and dis
course it may be said that the latter frequently creates
the greater difficulty for defenders of the authenticity.
xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 227
Moreover, it is questionable if this line of demarcation is
the most natural one for an analytic theory to take.
In a work entitled Expansions and Alterations in the
Fourth Gospel Wellhauscn argued both for transpositions
and later insertions. The view that chap. v. should be
placed after chap. vi. is an old one, and in the present writer s
judgment almost certainly correct, and there are some
minor transpositions of which the same may be said. The
most important question touches chaps, xv.-xvii. It had
been suggested by Pfleiderer that these chapters were a
later addition by the evangelist himself. Wellhausen
considered that they were added by a later writer who
reinstated the idea of the Second Coming which had been
set aside by the author in the original text of chap. xiv.
It is certainly difficult to suppose that they could stand in
their present position, but unless we take with undue
seriousness the divergence from the rest of the Gospel
which Wellhausen detects in them, the difficulty may
readily be solved by transposition of chapters xv. and xvi.
Two long chapters are certainly not m place after the
signal for departure has been given in xiv. 31. It is
therefore likely that chap. xiv. should connect immedi
ately with chap, xvii., and xv. and xvi. be inserted at an
earlier point, perhaps after xiii. 31a. In his later work
on the Gospel of John Wellhausen has advanced to a much
more complicated theory. He finds in our present Gospel
the result of a long literary process, the stages of which
can at present be only imperfectly recovered. In the
development of this theory he has had the advantage of
frequent consultation with E. Schwartz, who has worked
out his own theory of discontinuities in the Fourth
Gospel in a series of articles in the Gottingische Gelehrte
Nachrichten. A discussion of these theories is also impos
sible, and it must suffice to have called attention to the
fact that very eminent scholars have definitely broken with
the traditional view both of critics and apologists that the
228 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
Fourth Gospel is a unity. The_ fundamental objection
to jaartition theories is the homogeneousness of the Gospel
in style and standpoint.
Whether, however, we should attribute the twenty-first
chapter to the author of the Gospel is a question on which
defenders of the unity are divided. Apparently it forms
no part of the original plan, and the Gospel comes to its
natural close with chapter xx. We have, however, no
trace of the circulation of the Gospel without this chapter,
and although there are difficulties in the way of attributing
it to the author of the Gospel, these are perhaps sufficiently
met if we assume that some interval lay between its
composition and that of the preceding chapters.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
NOTE. The abbreviations indicating the series to
which a commentary belongs are appended to the full
titles of the series in the opening list, so that each may
be readily identified. It may be added that important
discussions are often contained in periodicals, both
British and foreign.
INTRODUCTIONS to the New Testament by S. Davidson (3rd
ed.), Bleek (last German edition polemically edited by
Mangold), B. Weiss (E. Tr., 3rd German ed. 1897), Salmon,
Dods, M Clymont, Holtzmann (3rd ed.), Bacon, Jiilicher (E.
Tr. 1904, 6th German ed. 1906), Zahn (3rd ed., translation
announced). Pullan, The Books of the N.T. ; Adeney in A
Biblical Introduction, by Bennett and Adeney; von Soden,
History of Early Christian Literature ; G. Currie Martin, The
Books of the N.T. Wrede, The Origin of the N.T. ; Reuss,
History of the Sacred Scriptures of the N.T. , Clemen,
Entstehung des N.T. ; Sanday, Inspiration; Lightfoot, Essays
on Supernatural Religion, Biblical Essays ; Harnack, Chrono-
logie der altchristlichen Literatur ; Dictionaries of the Bible by
Smith and Hastings, Encyclopaedia Biblica, Standard Bible
Dictionary, Hastings one vol. Bible Dictionary, Murray s one
vol. Bible Dictionary, Hastings Dictionary of Christ and the
Gospels ; Histories of the Apostolic Age by Weizsacker,
M Giffert, Bartlet, Ropes ; also Pfleiderer, Urchristentum (2nd
ed.), E. Tr. Primitive Christianity (in progress), and Wernle s
Beginnings of Christianity. Among commentaries on the whole
of the New Testament, the following may be mentioned : Meyer,
Kommentar iiber das N.T. (E. Tr. contains work of Meyer and
his colleagues ; the later German editions have been completely
re- written by other editors) ; Hand-comrnentar zum N.T. (II. C.) ;
229
230 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
International Critical Commentary (I.C.C.} ; Cambridge Bible
(C.B.) ; Cambridge Greek Testament (C.G.T.) ; Expositor s Greek
Testament (E.G.T.) ; Century Bible (Cent. B.}; Westminster
Commentaries ( West. Com.} International Handbooks to the
N.T. (I. II.); Zahn, Kommentar zum N.T. ; J. Weiss, Die
Serif ten des N.T. (S.N.T.}; Lietzmann, Handbuch zum N.T.
(H.N. 7 .); Moffatt s Historical New Testament (a new translation
of the New Testament with books arranged in presumed chrono
logical order, contains much valuable critical matter).
Of the above the most useful Introductions at present for
the English reader are those by Julicher and Adeney. Zahn s
Introduction is a work of immense erudition, and a very impor
tant statement of the conservative case. The leading statement
of the more advanced critical view in German is Holtzmann s
Introduction. A new edition is badly needed, but its place is
to some extent supplied by the author s commentaries, articles,
and his Neutestamentliche Theologie, a second edition of which
has been long announced.
CHAPTER II
ON THE PAULINE EPISTLES. Godet, Introduction to the
N.T. : The Pauline Epistles; Knowling, The Witness of the
Epistles and The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ ; Clemen,
Die Chronologic der paulinischen Brief e and Die Einheitlichkeit
der paulinischen Brief e; Findlay, The Epistles of Paul the
Apostle ; Shaw, The Pauline Epistles ; B. Scott, The Pauline
Epistles. The Lives of Paul also contain as a rule critical
discussions on the Epistles : Bacon s Story of St. Paul, Clemen s
Paulus, and Weinel s St. Paul are the most noteworthy of recent
works ; of the rest it may suffice to mention those by Cony-
beare and Howson, Lewin, Farrar, Sabatier, Ramsay.
ON THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. Commentaries
byBornemann (in Meyer), P. Schmidt, Schmiedel (H.C.), Findlay
(C.G.T.), Drummond (I.H.), Wohlenberg (in Zahn), Lightfoot
(in Notes on Epistles of St. Paul), Adeney (Cent. B.}, G.
Milligan, Lueken (S.N.T.} ; Askwith, An Introduction to the
Thessalonian JEpistles ; Wrede, Die Echtheit des zweiten Thcs-
salonicher-briefs.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 231
CHAPTER III
Commentaries by Lightfoot, Sieffert (in Meyer), Lipsius
(//.<7.), Beet, Perowne (C.B.\ Ramsay, Adeney (Cent. B.},
Zahn, Dnunmond (/.#.), Rendall (E.G.T.), Bousset (S.N.T.) ;
Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus I. On the locality of
the Galatian Churches, in addition to the commentaries, Ramsay,
Church in the Roman Empire, Studio, Biblica, vol. iv., St. Paul
the Traveller, Cities of St. Paul ; Aslrwith, The Epistle to the
Galatians ; Steinmann, Die Abfassunyszeit des Galaterbriefes,
Der Leserkreis des Galaterbriefes.
CHAPTER IV
Commentaries on both Epistles : Heinrici (in Meyer),
Schmiedel (H.C.), Godet, Beet, Drummond (I.H.), Massie
(Cent. B.), Bachmann (in Zahn), Bousset (S.N.T.), Lietz-
mann (H.N.T.), Heinrici (distinct from comm. in Meyer); Com
mentaries on 1 Cor. by Evans (Speaker), Edwards, Findlaj
(E.G.T.), Lias (C.B.), Goudge (West. Com.), Lightfoot (in
Notes on Epistles of St. Paul) ; on 2 Cor. by Waite (Speaker],
Bernard (E.G.T.), Plummer (C.G.T.). Hausrath, Der Vier-
Capitel-brief des Paulus an die Korinther ; J. H, Kennedy, The
Second and Third Epistles to the Corinthians.
CHAPTER V
Commentaries by B. Weiss (in Meyer), Lipsius (II.C.),
Godet, Oltramare, Gifford (Speaker), Beet, Moule (C.B.),
Lightfoot (in Notes on Epistles of St. Paid), Sanday and
Headlam (I.C.C.), Denney (E.G.T.), Drummond (I.E.), Garvie
(Cent. .), Jiilicher (S.N.T.), Lietzmann (H.N.T.). Hort,
Prolegomena to St. Paid s Epistles to the Romans and the
Ephesians ; Lightfoot, .Biblical Essays, pp. 287-384 (including
an article by Hort).
232 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
CHAPTER VI
Commentaries on Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Phile
mon, by E. Haupt (in Meyer), Moule (C. B.}, O. Cone (/.//.),
G. C. Martin (Cent. B.\ P. Ewald (in Zahn) Beet, Lueken,
(S.N.T.). On Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, by von
Soden (H.C.), Oltramare. On Ephesians and Colossians,
T. K. Abbott (I.C.C.). On Colossians and Philemon,
Lightfoot, Lukyn Williams (C.G.T.). On Philippians and
Philemon, Vincent (I.C.C.). On Ephesians, Macpherson,
Klopper, Salmond (E.G.T.), J. A. Robinson, Westcott, Lightfoot
(in Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, on Eph. i. 1-14). On
Philippians, B. Weiss, Lightfoot, Lipsius (II. C.}, Klopper,
Moule (O.G.T.), H. A. A. Kennedy (E.G.T.). On Colossians,
Klopper, Peake (E.G.T.).
Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe (examined
by von Soden in Jahrb. fur prot. Theol. for 1885); Hort,
Prolegomena to St. Paul s Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians.
CHAPTER VII
Commentaries by Holtzmann, B. Weiss (in Meyer), von
Soden (H.C.), Bernard (C.G.T.), Lilley, O. Cone (I.E.),
Horton (Cent. B.), Kohler (S.N.T.).
CHAPTER VIII
Commentaries by Bleek, Delitzsch, B. Weiss (in Meyer),
von Soden (H.C.), Westcott, A. B. Davidson, O. Cone
(/.#.), Farrar (G.G.T.), Peake (Cent, B.), Hollmann (S.N.T.).
Works on the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews by
Riehm, Me"ne"goz, Bruce, G. Milligan, contain discussions of
the critical problems. Wrede, Das literarische Rdtsel des
Hebrderbriefs ; Harnack s theory in Zeitschrift fur Neutest.
Wissenschaft for 1 900 ; cf . J. Rendel Harris, Side-Lights on New
Testament Research^ Lecture v.
BIBLIOGKAPHY 233
CHAPTER IX
Commentaries by Beyschlag (in Meyer), von Soden (H.C.),
Plumptre (C.B.), Carr (C.G.T.), J. B. Mayor, Knowling(Frf.
Com.), Bennett (Cent. B.\ Hollmann (S.N.T.).
Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentums,
vol. ii. ; Massebieau, L epitre de Jacques est-elle Voeuvre d un
Chretien ?
CHAPTER X
Commentaries by Kiilil (in Meyer), von Soden (II. C.), Bigg
(I.C.C.), O. Cone (/.//.) Plumptre (C.B.}, Bennett (Cent. B.\
Usteri, Gunkel (S.N.T.), Hort (on i. 1 ii. 17).
CHAPTER XI
Commentaries by Kiihl (in Meyer), von Soden (H.C.), Bigg
(I.C.C.), Plumptre (C.B.), Cone (I.H.), Bennett (Cent. B.),
Hollmann (S.N.T.), Mayor.
Spitta, Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas.
CHAPTER XII
On the Four Gospels. Baur, Die Evangelien; Weizsacker,
Untersuchungen uber die evangelischc Geschichte ; Westcott,
Introduction to the Study of the Gospels ; Sanday, The
Gospels in the Second Century, The Life of Christ in Recent
Research ; Cone, Gospel Criticism and Historical Christianity ;
Wright, The Composition of the Four Gospels, Some New
Testament Problems ; Godet, The Collection of the Four Gospels
and the Gospel of St. Matthew ; Wernle, Sources of our Know
ledge of the Life of Christ ; J. A. Robinson, The Study of the
Gospels; Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents; Bur-
kitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission ; Jiilicher, Neue
Linien in der Kritik des evangelischen Uberlieferung. Dis
cussions on the sources in the various scientific Lives of
Jesus.
234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
On the Synoptic Gospels. Commentaries by B. Weiss (in
Meyer), Holtzmann (H.G.), Bruce (E.G.T.), Gary (/.//.), J.
Weiss (S.N.T.), Loisy. B. Weiss, Das Marcusevangelium und
seine synoptischen Parallelen, Das Matthdusevangeliiim und
seine Lucas-parallelen, Die Quellen des Lukas-Evangeliums,
Die Quellen des synoptischen Uberlieferung ; Holtzmann, Die
synoptischen Evangelicn ; Carpenter, The first Three Gospels ;
Hawkins, Horae Synopticae ; Wernle, Die synoptische Frage ;
E. A. Abbott, Clue, The Corrections of Mark; Salmon, The
Human Element in the Gospels ; Burton, Principles of Literary
Criticism and the Synoptic Problem ; Wellhausen, Einleitung
in die drei ersten Evangelien ; Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus
about the Future ; Nicolardot, Les Precedes de Redaction des
trois premiers Evangelistes ; Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus
(on Q). For work at the Synoptic Problem a synopsis is
required in which the parallel sections are printed in columns
side by side. Tischendorf s Synopsis Evangelica embraces the
four Gospels ; Kushbrooke s Synopticon, Wright s A Synopsis of
the Gospels in Greek, Campbell s The First Three Gospels,
Huck s Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien, the first three. Of
these Rushbrooke is most valuable for disclosing at a glance
the parts common to all three of the Synoptists, or to two and
which two, and what is peculiar to each, Huck is the more
convenient for ordinary use.
On the Gospel of Matthew. Commentaries by Morison,
Allen (f.C.C.), Carr (C.G.T.), Slater (Cent. .), Wellhausen,
Zahn, Klostermann (H.N.T.).
On the Gospel of Mark. Commentaries by Gould (T.C.C.),
Maclear (C.G.T.), Salmond (Cent. .), Menzies (The Earliest
Gospel), Swete, Wellhausen, Klostermann (H.N.T.), Bacon (The
Beginnings of Gospel Story}. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimniss
in den Evangelien ; J. Weiss, Das Alteste Evangelium ; Hoff
mann, Das Marcusevangelium und seine Quellen ; Wendling,
Urmarcus, Die Entstehung des Marcusevangeliums ; B. Weiss,
Die Geschichtlichkeit des Markusevangeliums (brief and con
venient summary of Weiss s special theory).
On the Gospel of Luke. Commentaries by Godet, Plummer
(I.C.C.), Farrar (C.G.T.), Adeney (Cent. B.\ Wellhausen,
Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas; Harnack, Luke the Physician;
Ramsay, Luke the Physician.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 235
CHAPTEK XIII
Commentaries by Zeller, De Wette-Overbeck, "Wendt (in
Meyer), Holtzmann (H.C.), Lumby (C.G.T.), Page, Blass,
Knowling (E.G.T.), Rackham (West. Com.), Eartlet (Cent. .),
Knopf (S.N.T.), Forbes (/.//.).
Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte; J. Weiss, Ueber die Absicht
und den literarischen Character der Apostelgeschichte ; Clemen,
Die Apostelgeschichte Chase, The Historical Credibility of the
Acts of the Apostles ; Harnack, Luke the Physician, The Acts of
the Apostles ; Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman
Citizen, Pauline and Other Studies, Luke the Physician.
CHAPTER XIV
On the Johannine Writings as a whole. Commentaries
by Holtzmann-Bauer (H.C.), Forbes (I. II.). Gloag, Intro
duction to the Johannine Writings ; Schmiedel, The Johannine
Writings ; Schwartz, Der Tod der So hne Zebedaei,
CHAPTER XV
Commentaries by Bleek, Bousset (in Meyer), Milligan,
Simcox (C.G.T.), Scott (Cent. R), Swete, J. Weiss (S.N.T.),
Hort (on i.-iii., with Introduction to whole Book). Vischer,
Die Offenbarung Johannis ; Spitta, Die Offenbarung des
Johannes untersucht ; Milligan, Lectures on the Apocalypse,
Discussions on the Apocalypse ; Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos ;
J. Weiss, Die Offenbarung des Johannes ; Wellhausen, Analyse
der Offenbarung Johannis ; Porter, The Messages of the Apoca
lyptic Writers ; Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches.
CHAPTER XVI
Commentaries by Westcott, B. Weiss (in Meyer), Plummer
(C.G.T.), Bennett (Cent. .), Baumgarten (S.N.T.). Findlay,
Fellowship in the Life Eternal ; On 1 John, Rothe, E. Haupt ;
Law, The Tests of Life ; On 3 John, Harnack in Texte und
Untersuchungen, vol. xv.
236 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
CHAPTER XVII
Commentaries by B. Weiss (in Meyer), Godet, Westcott,
Moulton and Milligan, Reynolds, Plummer (C.G.T.), Dods
(E.G.T.), M Clymont (Cent. B.\ Heitmiiller (S.N.T.\ Loisy,
Calmes, Zahn.
Sanday, Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth
Gospel, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel; Lightfoot, Biblical
Essays; Watkins, Modern Criticism and the Fourth Gospel;
O. Holtzmann, Das Johannesevangelium ; Delff, Das vierte
Evangelium ; Wendt, St. John s Gospel ; ReVille, Le Quatrieme
Evangile; Drummond, The Character and Authorship of the
Fourth Gospel ; E. A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, Johannine
Grammar ; Baldensperger, Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums ;
Jackson, The Fourth Gospel; Kreyenbiihl, Das Evangelium
der Wahrheit ; Wellhausen, Erweiterungen und Anderungen
im vierten Evangelium, Das Evangelium Johannis.
INDEX
NOTE. References to the Bibliography are not included.
ABBOT, E., 179.
Abbott, E. A., 97, 179 f., 182, 190 f.,
208.
Abilene, 134.
Abraham, 39, 86.
Achaia, 12, 24, 128.
Acts of Archelaus, 184.
of the Apostles, 5, 25-27, 61-63,
125-135, 143 f., 149, 151.
Adeney, 97.
Aenon, 200.
Agrippa, 134.
Alexandria, 73, 77.
Allen, 115.
Alogi, 166, 185.
Ancyra, 21.
Andrew, 137, 222.
Antichrist, 14, 155, 162 f., 171.
Antioch in Pisidia, 17, 20, 130.
in Syria, 26, 28-30.
Antiochus Epiphanes, 14.
Apocalypse, see Revelation.
Apollo, 158.
Apollos, 79-81, 201.
Apostasy, 12, 14 f., 75 f., 157.
Apostolic Age, 5, 6.
Conference, 25-27, 30.
Fathers, 49, 76.
Aquila, 42-44, 80 f.
Arabia, 24.
Aramaic, 73, 109, 114, 122, 216.
Aristion, 122, 137.
Aristobulus, 44.
Arnold, M., 216 f.
Asia, 23 f., 43, 95, 138-142, 145-147,
167, 174, 177, 183.
Athens, 11, 18, 130.
Augustine, 77.
BABYLON, 94 f., 162.
Babylonia, 154 f., 158 f.
Baldensperger, 224.
Barnabas, 22, 25, 29 f., 77 f., 93, 143,
179.
Bartlet, J. V., 26, 71, 182.
Baruch, 167.
Basil, 54.
Basilides, 184.
Baur, F. C., 2-7, 39, 41, 57 f., 64.
Beast, 153, 157, 159, 162 f.
Beloved Disciple, 140 f., 146-151,
186 f., 191, 223.
Bernard, J. H., 145.
Bethany, 207.
Bethesda, 208.
Beyschlag, 61.
Bithynia, 19, 21, 23, 95.
Bleek, 45, 80, 152.
Blood and water, 187-191, 205, 225.
Bousset, 14, 147 f., 155 f., 182, 215.
Burkitt, 113, 117, 134, 148.
CAESAREA, 48 f., 81, 126.
Caesarea Philippi, 220.
Caiaphas, 198.
Caius, 77, 166, 185.
Caligula, 15, 163.
Cana, 200, 204, 206 f.
237
238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
Canon, 2.
Capernaum, 197, 204, 207, 217-
Carthaginian Calendar, 145.
Cerinthus, 166, 185.
Chase, 17, 96.
Cilicia, 18, 22.
Claudius, 15, 44, 134.
Clemen, 145, 202.
Clement of Alexandria, 90, 99, 121 f. ,
136, 140, 170, 178.
- of Rome, 31 f., 39, 58, 61,
72 f., 77-79, 82 f., 86 f., 90.
Clementine Homilies and Recogni
tions, 3, 5.
Colossae, 48, 50, 52.
Colossians, Epistle to, 45-53, 55-57.
Conybeare, F. C., 122.
Corinth, 11, 16, 18, 22, 32, 35-37, 39,
43, 80.
Corinthians, Epistles to, 3 f., 27, 29,
31-38, 39, 45.
Cornelius, 57.
Corssen, 149 f.
Creighton, 190.
Cyprian, 77.
Cyprus, 18, 22, 127, 143.
DAMASCUS, 24.
Daniel, 109, 152-154, 159.
Day of the Lord, 13.
Deborah, 80.
Dechent, 191.
Delff, 147.
Denney, 44.
Derbe, 17, 24.
De Wette, 55.
Dieterich, 158.
Diouysius, 167.
Diotrephes, 174 f.
Dobschiitz, Von, 148.
Docetism, 149 f., 171, 183, 205, 224 f.
Doinitian. 53, 83, 91, 93, 133, 156,
162 f., 165 f., 169, 172.
Double Tradition, 103, 106 f., 111-113.
Dragon, 160.
Drummond, 137, 179 f.
EBIONISM, 85.
Ehionites, 3.
Egypt, 99, 122, 178.
Emperor Worship, 157.
Enoch, 167.
Epaenetus, 43.
Epaphroditus, 47.
Ephesians, Epistle to, 45-57, 94.
Ephesus, 18, 21, 29, 31, 42-44, 46,
53 f., 139-142, 145 f., 167, 173 f.,
224.
Epiphanius, 185.
Eschatology, 16, 154.
Essenism, 67.
Eusebius, 139, 145, 167, 180 f.
Ewald, H., 152.
P., 54.
FADUS, 130.
Famine Visit, 25-27, 30.
Feast of Dedication, 195.
of Tabernacles, 195 f.
Findlay, 174.
Florinus, 138.
GAIUS, 174.
Galatia, 12, 17-21, 24, 27, 29.
Galatians, Epistle to, 3 f., 17-30, 40,
45.
Galatic Territory, 19-21.
Gallio, 128.
Gamaliel, 130 f.
Gauls, 17, 21.
Gentile Christians, 6, 20, 39-41, 76,
181.
Mission, 8, 85, 129.
Gentiles, 13, 28, 55-57.
Georgios Hamartolos, 142.
Gnosticism, 14, 50 f., 55 f., 58, 66 f.,
100, 171-173, 181, 184.
Gnostics, 76, 150 f., 172, 183.
Godet, 61.
Golgotha, 200.
Grill, 202.
Gunkel, 154 f., 158 f.
INDEX
239
HADRIAN, 182.
Hardy, 90.
Harnack, 44, 64, 70, 80, 86-88, 94,
119, 124, 126 f., 131, 134, 140, 145 f.,
149, 153, 169, 173, 175, 182 f., 186,
201, 215.
Harris, J. R, 80, 173.
Hastings, J., 184.
Hausrath, 15, 17, 35, 69.
Hawkins, 126.
Hebrew, 114, 122 f.
Hebrews, Epistle to the, 39, 72-83,
201, 219.
Hegemouius, 184.
Hegesippus, 64.
Hellenists, 128.
Heracleon, 183 f.
Heraclitus, 201.
Hermas, 31, 76, 86 f., 177.
Hermetic literature, 202 f.
Herod, 25, 144.
Hicks, E. L., 81.
Hilgenfeld, 2, 4, 14, 57, 179.
Hippolytus, 77, 166, 178, 184 f.
Hobart, 127.
Holsten, 2, 35, 57 f.
Holtzmann, H. J., 35, 51 f., 57, 115,
134, 170, 198, 206.
O.,198.
Hort, 61, 67, 71, 166, 169.
Horus, 158.
ICONIUM, 17, 20.
Ignatius, 31, 39, 46, 53, 59, 65, 125,
142, 171 f., 182 f.
Imprisonment, Epistles of the, 45-
59.
Irenaeus, 10, 32, 49, 53, 59 f., 77, 87,
90, 118 f., 122, 124 f., 136, 138 f.,
145, 166, 170, 177 f., 182 f., 185.
JAMES, EPISTLE OP, 39, 84-89, 90.
the Lord s brother, 84 f., 87-89,
144.
the son of Zebedee, 137, 142-144,
210.
Jerome, 77.
Jerusalem, 23, 25-30, 56, 72 f., 79,
82, 104, 107, 122, 128, 131, 145,
147-149, 160, 197, 200, 207.
Destruction of, 11, 82 f., 85,
122, 133, 153, 166, 169, 197, 223.
Siege of, 14, 119, 163 f.
Visits of Christ to, 213-215, 221.
- Paul s visits to, 22-25, 29, 131.
Jewish Christianity, 3.
Christians, 40, 49, 64, 72, 74-76,
84f.,87, 95, 123.
Job, 85.
John, Epistles of, 136, 170-176, 190-3.
Gospel of, 5, 136, 140 f., 146-
151, 166-169, 170, 177-228.
the Apostle, 136-228.
the Baptist, 104, 109, 145 f. ,
211, 213, 216 f., 220-222, 224-226.
the Presbyter, 119, 122, 137 f.,
140 f., 147 f., 156, 167-9, 176, 185 f.
Joseph of Arimathea, 214, 216.
Josephus, 83, 97, ISO f., 133-135.
Judaism, 6, 15, 73-75, 82, 84, 133,
158, 172.
Judaizers, 46, 58.
Judas the Galilaean, 131, 134.
Iscariot, 210 f.
not Iscariot, 211.
Jude, 96-100, 172.
Julicher, 17, 35, 88, 119, 156, 176,
224.
Justin Martyr, 49, 76, 86, 125, 140,
166, 178-180.
KEIM, 137, 179, 198.
Kern, 14.
Kidron, 199.
Kingdom of God, 62.
Krenkel, 134.
Kriiger, 182.
Kiihl, 91.
LAMB, 151, 161, 163, 168.
Laodicea, 55.
Laodiceans, Epistle to, 54.
240 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
Last Supper, 148, 215.
Law, 11, 25, 23, 58, 67, 72, 130.
Roman, 63.
Lawlessness, 13-15.
Lazarus, 204 f., 207, 222 f.
Leontopolls, 73.
Leucian Acts of John, 149-151.
Lietzmann, 35, 44.
Lightfoot, 20, 41 f., 45 f., 120, 129,
137, 146, 179, 181, 199.
Logia, 111-113, 122, 180, 186.
Logos Doctrine, 171, 179 f., 185,
200-203, 212, 225 f.
Loisy, 179, 183, 224.
Liicke, 152.
Luke, 18 f., 26, 62.
Gospel of, 5, 101-124, 179, 181,
222.
Luther, 79.
Liitzelberger, 137.
Lycaonia, 17, 130.
Lycus, 49.
Lysanias, 134 f.
Lystra, 17, 24.
MACEDONIA, 18, 24, 33, 48.
Malchus, 207.
Marcion, 3, 41, 53 f., 64 f., 67.
Canon of, 10, 32, 39, 47, 49, 53,
59f.,76, 124.
Marduk, 158.
Mark, 5, 101-124, 143-145, 167, 181 f.,
186, 209, 211, 220.
Martin, G. C , 89.
Martineau, 170.
Martyrdom of John and James, 142-
145.
Matthew, 101-124, 137, 181 f., 186.
Mayor, 97.
McGiffert, 29 f., 71, 93.
Mead, 202.
Memra, 202 f.
Messiah, 28, 160, 194 f., 213, 219-222.
Messianic Beliefs, 203 f.
Proof texts, 113.
Meyer, 2, 61.
Miletus, 62.
Missionary Journey, first, 17, 24.
Journey, second, 18 f., 23, 27,
29 f.
Journey, third, 27, 29.
Mommsen, 90 f.
Montanists, 78.
Moulton, J. H., 80, 89.
Muratorian Canon, 10, 32, 47, 49, 53,
59 f., 76, 90, 99, 170, 178.
Mysia, 19, 21, 23.
NARCISSUS, 44.
Nathanael, 194, 222.
Neander, 61.
Nero, 14, 62, 91, 153, 156 f., 162 f
165.
Neronian Persecution, 61, 83, 94.
Neumann, 90.
Nicodemus, 147, 204, 207, 211.
North Galatia, 18-20, 24.
Galatian Theory, 17, 20 f 23
27, 29.
Novatian, 77.
OLD LATIN VERSION, 10.
Onesimus, 48.
Oral Theory, 104-109.
Tradition, 106-109, 116.
Origen, 54, 77, 87, 90, 98 f., 166, 170.
PALESTINE, 123, 142, 149.
Paley, 130.
Pamphylia, 23.
Papias, 90, 105-107, 112-114, 119 f ,
122, 137, 139, 141-147, 167, 170,
180, 186.
Parousia, 10, 12, 56.
Parthians, 163, 165.
Paschal Controversy, 139.
Passover, 195, 215 f.
Pastoral Epistles, 60-71.
Patmos, 144, 167.
Paul, 3, 5 f., 10-71, 76-79, 81-83, 84,
i, 91 f., 131 f., 137, 142 f., 216 f.
and Thecla, 150.
INDEX
241
Paulinism, 3, 27 L, 49, 86.
Pavement, 200.
Pergamum, 174.
Person of Christ, 46, 49 f., 58, 149,
171 f.
Peshitta, 87.
Peter, 3, 24 f., 28, 58, 61, 79, 90-100,
118-123, 137, 144, 146, 149, 182,
186, 207-211, 220.
Peter, Apocalypse of, 98 f.
First Epistle of, 39, 53, 90-95.
Second Epistle of, 90, 94, 96-
99.
Petrie, 203.
Pfleiderer, 2, 17. 45. 69, 149 f., 155,
163 f., 170, 180, 182 f., 206, 224,
227.
Pharisees, 129, 195.
Philemon, 4, 45-49.
Philip the Apostle, 137, 140, 194, 222.
one of the Seven, 49, 126, 140.
of Side, 142.
Philippi, 46 f., 127.
Philippians, 4, 45-48, 57-59.
Philo, 200-203, 208.
Phrygia, 17, 20 f.
Phrygian and Galatian Country, 18.
Phrygians, 22.
Phrygo-Galatic Territory, 20.
Pilate, 225.
Pillar Apostles, 6, 143.
Pisidia, 17.
Pliny, 90.
Poimandres, 202.
Polycarp, 31 f., 39, 46, 53, 59, 60,
64, 90, 125, 138 f., 142, 170, 177,
182 f.
Polycrates, 136, 139 f.
Pontus, 95.
Pool of Bethesda, 200.
of Siloam, 200.
Pre-existence, 219.
Prisca, 42-44, 80 f.
Q., Ill, 116-119, 122-124, 133.
Quirinius, 134.
RAHAB, 86.
Ramsay, 17, 20, 23, 30, 44, 81, 90 f.
Reformation, 99.
Reinach, 166.
Reitzenstein, 202.
Renan, 17, 41 f., 223.
Resch, 131.
Resurrection, 105, 117, 129.
Revelation of John, 136 f., 144, 147,
150 f., 152-169, 180.
Reville, 206.
Rishell, 224.
Ritschl, 4.
Robinson, J. A., 145.
Roman Emperor, 15, 62, 159, 162.
Empire, 8, 15, 62, 133, 153, 157,
165.
Romans, Epistle to, 27 f., 39-44, 45,
94.
Rome, 73, 121, 123, 132, 142, 157,
162 f., 177 f.
Church of, 39 f., 43, 74, 76, 78,
119.
SABATIER, 61.
Sadducees, 129.
Salmon, 184.
Salmond, 173.
Samaria, 222.
Samaria, Woman of, 205-207, 210, 217,
222.
Sanday, 35, 61, 132, 156, 179, 182,
191, 203 f.
Sanday and Headlam, 44.
Sarah, 95.
Satan, 172.
Sayings of Jesus, 8, 88 f. See Logia.
Schiele, 80.
Schleiermacher, 61.
Schmiedel, 17, 49, 134, 170, 183,
187 f., 191,194, 198 f., 208.
Scholten, 137.
Schulz, 42.
Schiirer, 17, 121, 132, 134, 199, 215,
220, 222.
Schwartz, 143 f., 176, 181 f., 227.
242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
Schwegler, 2.
Scott, E. F., 224.
Second Coming, 8, 10, 12 f. , 15, 55,
65, 85, 98, 149.
Septuagint, 73, 78, 123.
Sermon on the Mount, 84 118.
Servant of Yahweh, 92.
Seven Churches, 137, 140, 144, 165,
167, 172.
Sheol, 223.
Silas, 79, 93 f., 125.
Simon Magus, 3, 5, 206.
of Gyrene, 216.
Soden, Von, 52, 88, 91, 93, 117, 121,
164.
South Galatia, 18, 21 f., 24, 26.
Galatian Theory, 17 f., 21-23,
27, 29.
Spain, 61.
Spencer, John, 208.
Spitta, 84, 97, 153, 155.
Staehelin, 184.
Steinmann, 17.
Stephen, 129 f., 145.
Stoics, 201.
Strauss, 156.
Stroud, 190.
Swete, 156.
Sychar, 206.
Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel,
205-209, 213, 215.
Synoptic Gospels, 101-124, 146, 151,
153, 179 f., 213-223.
Problem, 101-119.
Syria, 18, 22, 123.
Syriac Calendar, 145.
Version, 10.
TAROUMS, 123, 202.
Tatian s Diatessaron, 178.
Taylor, C., 177.
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 90.
Temple, 14 f., 73, 79, 82, 119, 157,
160, 199, 204.
cleansing of the, 210, 220-
222.
Egyptian, 73.
Temptation, 117.
Tertullian, 54, 77 f., 87, 90, 99, 166,
170, 178.
Theophilus, 49, 125, 178.
Thessalonians, Epistles to the, 4, 10-
16, 27.
Thessalonica, 11, 13, 127.
Theudas, 130 f., 134.
Thomas, 137, 211.
Timothy, 11 f., 23, 30, 34, 60-71, 73,
79 82 125
Titus, 23, 26, 33-36, 60-71, 125 f.
Roman Emperor, 83, 162 f. ,
165.
Trajan, 53, 90 f., 183.
Triple Tradition, 103, 106-111, 114.
Tiibingen School, 2, 4, 6, 12, 31, 49,
136, 168, 194, 205.
Two-Document Hypothesis, 113.
URMARKUS, 114.
VALENTINIANISM, 138.
Valentinians, 179.
Valentinus, 183.
Vespasian, 14, 128, 162 f., 166.
Victor, 139 f.
Vischer, 153, 155.
WE-SECTIONS, 125-128.
Weiss, B., 115, 117.
Weiss, J., 21, 155 f., 163-165.
Weizsacker, 17, 115, 155, 212, 219.
Wellhausen, 115, 119, 121, 134, 143 f.,
156, 170, 215, 227.
Wendt, 17, 115, 134, 191, 193, 197,
203, 215, 226.
Wernle, 179, 183, 223.
Westcott, 179, 188 f.
Western Text, 131.
Wrede, 82, 207.
ZACHARIAH, 119.
Zahn, 17, 44, 132, 146, 191.
Zealots, 119.
Zeller, 2.
Priuttd by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty
at the Edinburgh University Press
