Full text of "Biblical essays"

BIBLICAL ESSAYS

BY THE LATE

J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.,

LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM

PUBLISHED BY
THE TRUSTEES OF THE LIGHTFOOT FUND.

Honfcon
MACMILLAN AND CO. LIMITED

NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1904

All Eights reserved.

First Edition 1893
Second Edition 1904

CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

INTRODUCTOEY NOTE.

A BOUT one-third of the present volume has already seen
-*-*- the light. The opening essay ' On the Internal Evidence
for the Authenticity and Genuineness of St John's Gospel ' was
published in the ' Expositor ' in the early months of 1890, and
has been reprinted since ; the essay ' On the Mission of Titus
to the Corinthians' appeared in the 'Journal of Sacred and
Classical Philology' nearly thirty years ago, while the ninth
essay 'On the Structure and Destination of the Epistle to the
Romans' consists of three famous articles contributed within
the years 1869 and 1871 to the 'Journal of Philology,' two by
Dr Lightfoot and one by Dr Hort. Beginning with a criticism
of M. Kenan's theory that our present Epistle to the Romans
represents no less than four letters addressed to different
Churches, Dr Lightfoot proceeded to formulate a counter-
theory of an original letter (our complete Epistle) addressed
to the Church of Rome, and a shorter recension of a more
general character reissued by the Apostle at a later period and
intended for a wider circle of readers. This theory did not
commend itself to Dr Hort, and his criticism of Dr Lightfoot's
arguments and Dr Lightfoot's reply, which form the second and
third of the articles in question, are published herewith, while
for a restatement of Dr Hort's view the reader is referred to the
' Notes on Selected Readings ' which form an appendix to the
Introduction to the edition of the New Testament edited by
Drs Westcott and Hort 1 . A singular pathos attaches to the

1 The New Testament in the original Greek (1881), vol. 2, Appendix,
pp. 100 sq.

VI INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

republication of these articles in the thought that he who so
recently gave his consent to their insertion in this volume, and
whose counsel was so reverently listened to by his co-trustees,
has been called to his rest, before the volume has passed into
circulation.

And the pathos of the situation is only increased as we turn
to the main part of the volume, to that which appears in print
for the first time. When in 1879 Dr Lightfoot was called
away from Cambridge to undertake the Bishopric of Durham,
apprehension was felt and expressed in many quarters that
the continual claims of diocesan engagements would seriously
impair his literary productiveness. How heroically he struggled
to belie this anticipation is well known. But the marvellous
steadfastness of purpose with which he devoted to literary
work every available moment which could be snatched
from official duties can be fully appreciated by those only who
had the privilege of watching the great bishop's life from day
to day. By sheer strength of will he completed the five
massive volumes on the Apostolic Fathers. But the issue of
commentaries on St Paul's Epistles was checked absolutely.
From time to time rumours were circulated that some par-
ticular commentary was in progress, nay more, in type and
within a measurable distance of publication ; but alas ! these
surmises were entirely devoid of foundation. The Bishop was
heard more than once to declare that, his edition of the Apostolic
Fathers finished, he hoped with what leisure he could secure in
two years to be able to bring out a commentary upon any one
of the Pauline Epistles on which he had lectured when at
Cambridge. But the necessary relief from pressure never
came, and after his death it was found, as had been anticipated
by those who knew his methods, that the notes on the New
Testament had remained untouched since the day when he left
Cambridge for Auckland Castle. There were moreover sad

INTRODUCTORY NOTE. Vll

gaps in the commentaries and in the introductory matter,
sketches of work which had never been filled in, and jottings
which needed the master-mind of the writer to interpret them
adequately. In accordance therefore with a report furnished
to the Trustees by Dr Hort, it was decided to abandon all
attempts to bring out a complete edition of any epistle on the
lines of the published commentaries, and instead to gather into
one volume such of the prolegomena as it was possible to pub-
lish, reserving for another volume selections from commentaries
on the text which appeared to be fullest and most valuable.
The present volume of ' Biblical Essays ' represents the first of
these undertakings. The contents can easily be assigned to
the places which they would have occupied had the Bishop
been able to complete his projected series of commentaries on
all the Pauline Epistles. The second and third essays on
St John's Gospel form part of a subject which, as he tells us
himself, he considered to have ' passed into other and better
hands,' and they would probably never have been published by
Dr Lightfoot himself. The next four essays were intended to
appear as excursuses in the Commentary on the Thessalonians ;
the three which follow would have supplied material for
introductions to the Epistles to the Corinthians, Romans and
Ephesians respectively, while the last two would have found a
place in an edition of the Pastoral Epistles.

To edit the writings of one who is no longer at hand to
explain and to correct must always present grave difficulties;
but when the material to be edited is to appear as the work of
a scholar of the widest reputation for learning and accuracy, to
venture upon the task is little short of presumption. ID the
present instance the difficulty is enhanced by Dr Lightfoot's
method of work, to which the present Bishop of Durham draws
attention in his prefatory note to the posthumous edition of
St Clement of Rome. Possessed of a remarkably retentive

Vlll INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

memory, he preferred to trust to outlines, rather than write
out in full what he intended to deliver in the lecture-room.
Accordingly, in those essays which are described as printed
from lecture-notes, it has been found necessary to frame into
sentences page after page which, in the original notes, exists
only in the briefest summary. It is inevitable therefore, that
in places the Bishop's meaning will have been obscurely ex-
pressed, if not entirely missed. That this inadequacy of
treatment is not more glaring is due to the kindness of those
who, in response to the appeal of the Trustees, have placed
their notes of Dr Lightfoot's professorial lectures at the dis-
posal of the editor. The cordial thanks of the Trustees are
tendered to the Rev. G. F. Browne, Canon of St Paul's, to
W. P. Turnbull, Esq., formerly Fellow of Trinity College and
now one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, to the Rev.
H. F. Gore-Booth, Rector of Sacred Trinity, Salford, for the loan
of their valuable notes ; and to the Rev. W. E. Barnes, Fellow
and Lecturer of St Peter's College, for kind assistance in
looking over the proof-sheets of the third essay.

As some of the lectures were delivered at Cambridge on
more than one occasion, it may be well to state that the date
placed at the end of each essay represents the year of delivery,
after which apparently no fresh material was added in the notes
in writing.

In conclusion, the Trustees desire to thank the officers and
workmen of the University Press for intelligent criticism and
for unfailing courtesy during the time that these sheets have
been passing through the press.

J. R. H.

CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
July 15, 1893.

EXTRACT FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE
JOSEPH BARBER LIGHTFOOT, LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM.

" I bequeath all my personal Estate not hereinbefore other-
" wise disposed of unto [my Executors] upon trust to pay and
" transfer the same unto the Trustees appointed by me under
" and by virtue of a certain Indenture of Settlement creating a
" Trust to be known by the name of ' The Lightfoot Fund for
" the Diocese of Durham ' and bearing even date herewith but
"executed by me immediately before this my Will to be ad-
" ministered and dealt with by them upon the trusts for the
" purposes and in the manner prescribed by such Indenture of
" Settlement."

EXTRACT FROM THE INDENTURE OF SETTLEMENT OF 'THE
LIGHTFOOT FUND FOR THE DIOCESE OF DURHAM.'

" WHEREAS the Bishop is the Author of and is absolutely
" entitled to the Copyright in the several Works mentioned in
" the Schedule hereto, and for the purposes of these presents he
" has assigned or intends forthwith to assign the Copyright in
"all the said Works to the Trustees. Now the Bishop doth
"hereby declare and it is hereby agreed as follows:

" The Trustees (which term shall hereinafter be taken to
"include the Trustees for the time being of these presents)

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I. INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY AND
GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL

Reprinted from the 'Expositor' of January,
February, March, 1890.

II. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY AND
GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL

Printed from Lecture-notes.

III. INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY AND

GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Printed from Lecture-notes.

IV. ST PAUL'S PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY

Printed from Lecture-notes.

V. THE CHRONOLOGY OF ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES
Printed from Lecture-notes.

VI. THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA

Printed from Lecture-notes.

VII. THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA

Printed from Lecture-notes.

PAGES

144

45122

123193
194198

199211

213233

235250

251269

XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGES

VIII. THE MISSION OF TITUS TO THE CORINTHIANS . . 271284

Reprinted from the ' Journal of Sacred and
Classical Philology,' Vol. n. p. 194 sq. (1855).

IX. THE STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE

TO THE ROMANS 285374

M. KENAN'S THEORY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 287 320

Reprinted from the 'Journal of Philology,'
Vol. n. p. 264 sq. (1869).

ON THE END OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. BY

DR HORT 321351

Reprinted from the ' Journal of Philology,'
Vol. m. p. 51 sq. (1871).

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 352374

Reprinted from the f Journal of Philology,'
Vol. m. p. 193 sq. (1871).

X. THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 375396
Printed from Lecture-notes.

XI. THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES . . . 397410
ADDITIONAL NOTE 411418

Printed from Lecture-notes.

XII. ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS . 419 437
Printed from Lecture-notes.

INDICES .... 439 459

INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL.

L. E.

Sprinted from the ' Expositor^ of January, February, March, 1890.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL.

lecture originally formed one of a series connected
with Christian evidences, and delivered in St George's
Hall in 1871. The other lectures were published shortly
afterwards ; but, not having been informed beforehand that
publication was expected, I withheld my own from the volume.
It seemed to me that in the course of a single lecture I could
only touch the fringes of a great subject, and that injustice
would be. done by such imperfect treatment as alone time and
opportunity allowed. Moreover I was then, and for some terms
afterwards, engaged in lecturing on this Gospel at Cambridge,
and I entertained the hope that I might be able to deal with
the subject less inadequately if I gave myself more time.
Happily it passed into other and better hands, and I was
relieved from this care.

A rumour got abroad at the time, and has (I am informed)
been since repeated, that I did not allow the lecture to be
published, because I was dissatisfied with it. I was only
dissatisfied in the sense which I have already explained. It
could not be otherwise than unsatisfactory to bring forward
mere fragmentary evidence of an important conclusion, when
there was abundant proof in the background. The present
publication of the lecture is my answer to this rumour. I give
it after eighteen years exactly in the same form in which it
was originally written, with the exception of a few verbal

GOSPEL - ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

alterations. Looking over it again after this long lapse of
time, I have nothing to withdraw. Additional study has only
strengthened my conviction that this narrative of St John
could not have been written by any one but an eye-witness.
As I have not dealt with the external evidence except for
the sake of supplying a statement of the position of antagonists,
the treatment suffers less than it would otherwise have done
from not being brought down to date. I have mentioned by
way of illustration two respects in which later discoveries had
falsified Baur's contentions. The last eighteen years would
supply several others. I will single out three : (1) The antago-
nists of the Ignatian Epistles are again put on their defence.
The arguments which were adduced against the genuineness of
these epistles will hold no longer. Ignatius has the testimony
of his friend and contemporary Polycarp, and Polycarp has the
testimony of his own personal disciple Irenaeus. The testimony
of Irenseus is denied by no one; the testimony of Polycarp
is only denied because it certifies to the Ignatian letters.
Before we are prepared to snap this chain of evidence rudely,
and to break with an uninterrupted tradition, we require far
stronger reasons than have been hitherto adduced. (2) Justin
Martyr wrote before or about the middle of the second century.
His use of the Fourth Gospel was at one time systematically
denied by the impugners of its apostolic authorship. Now it is
acknowledged almost universally, even by those who do not
allow that this evangelical narrative was written by St John
himself. (3) The Diatessaron of Tatian was written about A.D.
170, and consisted of a 'Harmony of Four Gospels.' Baur and
others contended that at all events St John was not one of the
four. Indeed how could it be ? For it had not been written,
or only recently written, at this time. The Diatessaron itself
has been discovered, and a commentary of Ephrsem Syrus
upon it in Armenian has likewise been unearthed within the
last few years, both showing that it began with the opening
words of St John.

[1889.]

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 5

The fourth of our canonical gospels has been ascribed by
the tradition of the Church to St John the son of Zebedee, the
personal disciple of our Lord, and one of the twelve apostles.
Till within a century (I might almost say, till within a genera-
tion) of the present time, this has been the universal belief
with one single and unimportant exception of all ages, of all
churches, of all sects, of all individuals alike.

This unanimity is the more remarkable in the earlier ages
of the Church, because the language of this gospel has a very
intimate bearing on numberless theological controversies which
started up in the second, third, and fourth centuries of the
Christian era; and it was therefore the direct interest of one
party or other to deny the apostolic authority, if they had any
ground for doing so. This happened not once or twice only,
but many times. It would be difficult to point to a single
heresy promulgated before the close of the fourth century,
which might not find some imaginary points of coincidence or
some real points of conflict some relations whether of antago-
nism or of sympathy with this gospel. This was equally true
of Montanism in the second century, and of Arianism in the
fourth. The Fourth Gospel would necessarily be among the
most important authorities we might fairly say the most
important authority in the settlement of the controversy,
both from the claims which it made as a product of the
beloved apostle himself, and from the striking representations
which it gives of our Lord's teaching. The defender or the
impugner of this or that theological opinion would have had a
direct interest in disproving its genuineness and denying its
authority. Can we question that this would have been done
again and again, if there had been any haze of doubt hanging
over its origin, if the antagonist could have found even a
primd facie ground for an attack ?

And this brings me to speak of that one exception to the
universal tradition to which I have already alluded. Once, and
once only, did the disputants in a theological controversy yield
to the temptation, strong though it must have been. A small,

6 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

unimportant, nameless sect if indeed they were compact
enough to form a sect in the latter half of the second century,
denied that the Gospel and the Apocalypse were written by
St John. These are the two canonical writings which especially
attribute the title of the Word of God, the Logos, to our Lord:
the one, in the opening verses, 'In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God';
the other, in the vision of Him who rides on the white horse,
whose garments are stained with blood, and whose name is
given as the 'Word of God.' To dispose of the doctrine they
discredited the writings. Epiphanius calls them Alogi, 'the
opponents of the Word,' or (as it might be translated, for it is
capable of a double meaning) r the irrational ones/ The name
is avowedly his own invention. Indeed they would scarcely
have acknowledged a title which had this double sense, and
could have been so easily turned against themselves. They
appear only to disappear. Beyond one or two casual allusions,
they are not mentioned ; they have no place in history.

This is just one of those exceptions which strengthen the
rule. What these Alogi did, numberless other sectaries and
heretics would doubtless have done, if there had been any
sufficient ground for the course. But even these Alogi lend no
countenance to the views of modern objectors. Modern critics
play off the Apocalypse against the Gospel, allowing the
genuineness of the former, and using it to impugn the genuine-
ness of the latter. Moreover there is the greatest difference
between the two. The modern antagonist places the composi-
tion of the Fourth Gospel in the middle or the latter half of the
second century; these ancient heretics ascribed it to the early
heresiarch Cerinthus, who lived at the close of the first century,
and was a contemporary of St John. Living themselves in the
latter half of the second century, they knew (as their opponents
would have reminded them, if they had found it convenient to
forget the fact) that the Gospel was not a work of yesterday,
that it had already a long history, and that it went back at all
events to the latest years of the apostolic age; and in their

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 7

theory they were obliged to recognise this fact. I need hardly
say that the doctrine of the Person of Christ put forward in
the Gospel and the Apocalypse is diametrically opposed to
the teaching of Cerinthus, as every modern critic would allow.
I only allude to this fact, to show that these very persons, who
form the single exception to the unanimous tradition of all the
churches and all the sects alike, are our witnesses for the
antiquity of the Gospel (though not for its authenticity), and
therefore are witnesses against the modern impugners of its
genuineness.

With this exception, the early testimony to the authen-
ticity and genuineness of the Gospel is singularly varied.
It is a remarkable and an important fact, that the most
decisive and earliest testimony comes, not from Fathers of
the orthodox Church, but from heretical writers. I cannot
enter upon this question at length, for I did not undertake
this afternoon to speak of the external evidence; and I ask
you to bear in mind, that any inadequate and cursory
treatment necessarily does a great injustice to a subject like
this ; for the ultimate effect of testimony must depend on
its fulness and variety. I only call attention to the fact that
within the last few years most valuable additions have been
made to this external testimony, and these from the opposite
extremes of the heretical scale. At the one extreme we have
Ebionism, which was the offspring of Judaizing tendencies ;
at the other, Gnosticism, which took its rise in Gentile license
of speculation and practice. Ebionism is represented by a
remarkable extant work belonging to the second century,
possibly to the first half of the second century, the Clementine
Homilies. The greater part of this work has long been known,
but until within the last few years the printed text was taken
from a MS. mutilated at the end ; so that of the twenty Homilies
the last half of the nineteenth and the whole of the twentieth
are wanting. These earlier Homilies contained more than one
reference to gospel history which could not well be referred to
any of the three first evangelists, and seemed certainly to have

8 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

been taken from the fourth. Still the reference was not abso-
lutely certain, and the impugners of St John's Gospel availed
themselves of this doubt to deny the reference to this gospel.
At length, in the year 1853, Dressel published for the first
time, from a Vatican MS., the missing conclusion of these
Homilies ; and this was found to contain a reference to the
incidents attending the healing of the man born blind, related
only by St John, and related in a way distinctly characteristic
of St John a reference so distinct, that no one from that time
has attempted to deny or to dispute it.

So much for the testimony of Ebionism of the Judaic
sects of early Christianity. But equally definite, and even
more full, is the testimony which recent discovery has brought
to light on the side of Gnosticism. Many of my hearers will
remember the interest which was excited a few years ago by
the publication of a lost treatise on heresies, which Bunsen
and others ascribed (and, as is now generally allowed, correctly
ascribed) to Hippolytus, in the earlier part of the third century.
This treatise contains large and frequent extracts from previous
Gnostic writers of diverse schools Ophites, Basilideans, Valen-
tinians ; among them, from a work which Hippolytus quotes
as the production of Basilides himself, who flourished about
A.D. 130-140. And in these extracts are abundant quotations
from the Gospel of St John.

I have put these two recent accessions to the external
testimony in favour of the Fourth Gospel side by side, because,
emanating from the most diverse quarters, they have a peculiar
value, as showing the extensive circulation and wide reception
of this gospel at a very early date ; and because also, having
been brought to light soon after its genuineness was for the
first time seriously impugned, they seem providentially destined
to furnish an answer to the objections of recent criticism.

If we ask ourselves why we attribute this or that ancient
writing to the author whose name it bears why, for instance,
we accept this tragedy as a play of Sophocles, or that speech as
an oration of Demosthenes, our answer will be, that it bears

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 9

the name of the author, and (so far as we know) has always
been ascribed to him. In very many cases we know nothing,
or next to nothing, about the history of the writing in question.
In a few instances we are fortunate enough to find a reference
to it, or a quotation from it, in some author who lived a
century or two later. The cases are exceptionally rare when
there is an indisputable allusion in a contemporary, or nearly
contemporary, writer. For the most part, we accept the fact
of the authorship, because it comes to us on the authority
of a MS. or MSS. written several centuries after the presumed
author lived, supported in some cases by quotations in a late
lexicographer, or grammarian, or collection of extracts.

The external testimony in favour of St John's Gospel
reaches back much nearer to the writer's own time, and is
far more extensive than can be produced in the case of most
classical writings of the same antiquity. From the character of
the work also, this testimony gains additional value ; for where
the contents of a book intimately affect the cherished beliefs
and the practical conduct of all who receive it, the universality
of its reception, amidst jarring creeds and conflicting tendencies,
is far more significant than if its contents are indifferent,
making no appeal to the religious convictions, and claiming no
influence over the life. We may be disposed to complain that
the external testimony is not so absolutely and finally conclusive
in itself that no door is open for hesitation, that all must,
despite themselves, accept it, and that any investigation into
the internal evidence is superfluous and vain. But this we
have no right to demand. If it is as great, and more than as
great, as would satisfy us in any other case, this should suffice
us. In all the most important matters which affect our interests
in this world and our hopes hereafter, God has left some place
for diversity of opinion, because He would not remove all
opportunity of self-discipline.

If then the genuineness of this gospel is supported by
greater evidence than in ordinary cases we consider conclusive,
we approach the investigation of its internal character with a

10 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

very strong presumption in its favour. The onus probandi rests
with those who would impugn its genuineness, and nothing
short of the fullest and most decisive marks of spuriousness can
fairly be considered sufficient to counterbalance this evidence.

As I proceed, I hope to make it clear that, allowing their
full weight to all the difficulties (and it would be foolish to
deny the existence of difficulties) in this gospel, still the internal
marks of authenticity and genuineness are so minute, so varied,
so circumstantial, and so unsuspicious, as to create an over-
whelming body of evidence in its favour.

But before entering upon this investigation, it may be
worth while to inquire whether the hypotheses suggested by
those who deny the genuineness of this gospel are themselves
free from all difficulties. For if it be a fact (as I believe it is)
that any alternative which has been proposed introduces greater
perplexities than those which it is intended to remove, we are
bound (irrespective of any positive arguments in its favour) to
fall back 'upon the account which is exposed to fewest objections,
and which at the same time is supported by a continuous and
universal tradition.

We may take our start from Baur's theory, for he was the
first to develop and systematize the attack on the genuineness
of the Fourth Gospel. According to Baur it was written about
the year 1*70. The external testimony however is alone fatal
to this very late epoch ; for, after all wresting of evidence and
post-dating of documents, it is impossible to deny that at this
time the gospel was, not only in existence, but also received far
and wide as a genuine document ; that it was not only quoted
occasionally, but had even been commented upon as the actual
work of St John. Consequently the tendency of later impugners
has been to push the date farther back, and to recede from
the extreme position of this, its most determined and ablest
antagonist. Hilgenfeld, who may be regarded as the successor
of Baur, and the present representative of the Tubingen school
(though it has no longer its headquarters at Tubingen), would
place its composition about the year 150 ; and Tayler, who a

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 11

few years ago (1867) reproduced the argument of Baur and
others in England, is disposed to assign it to about the same
date. With a strange inconsistency he suggests, towards the
close of his book, that its true author may have been John the
presbyter, though John the presbyter is stated by Papias (who
had conversed with this John, and from whom all the informa-
tion we possess respecting him is derived) to have been a
personal disciple of our Lord, and therefore could hardly have
been older than John the apostle, and certaiuly could not have
been living towards the middle of the second century.

This tendency to recede nearer and nearer to the evangelist's
own age shows that the pressure of facts has begun to tell on
the theories of antagonistic criticism, and we may look forward
to the time when it will be held discreditable to the reputation
of any critic for sobriety and judgment to assign to this gospel
any later date than the end of the first century, or the very
beginning of the second.

But meanwhile, let us take the earliest of these dates
(A.D. 150) as less encumbered with difficulties, and therefore
more favourable to the opponents of its genuineness, and ask
whether a gospel written at such a time would probably have
presented the phenomena which we actually find in the fourth
canonical gospel. We may interrogate alike its omissions and
its contents. On this hypothesis, how are we to account for
what it has left unsaid, and for what it has said?

Certainly it must be regarded as a remarkable phenomenon,
that on many ecclesiastical questions which then agitated the
minds of Christians it is wholly silent, while to others it gives
no distinct and authoritative answer. Our Lord's teaching has
indeed its bearing on the controversies of the second century, as
on those of the fourth, or of the twelfth, or of the sixteenth, or
of the nineteenth : but, as in these latter instances, its lessons
are inferential rather than direct, they are elicited by painful
investigation, they are contained implicitly in our Lord's life
and person, they do not lie on the surface, nor do they offer
definite solutions of definite difficulties.

12 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Take, for instance, the dispute concerning the episcopate.
Contrast the absolute silence of this gospel respecting this
institution with the declarations in the Epistles of Ignatius. A
modern defender of the episcopate will appeal to the commission
given to the apostles (John xx. 22, 23). I need not stop here to
inquire to what extent it favours his views. But obviously it
is quite insufficient by itself. It would serve almost equally
well for an apostolically ordained ministry of any kind, for a
presbyteral as for an episcopal succession. Is it possible that a
writer, composing a gospel at the very time when the authority
of this office had been called in question, if a supporter of the
power of the episcopate, would have resisted the temptation
of inserting something which would convey a sanction, if an
opponent, something which would convey a disparagement, of
this office, in our Lord's own name ?

Or, again: take the Gnostic theories of emanations. Any
one who has studied the history of the second century will
know how large a place they occupy in the theological disputes
of the day ; what grotesque and varied forms they assume in
the speculations of different heretical teachers ; what diverse
arguments, some valid, some fanciful, are urged against them
by orthodox writers. Would a forger have hesitated for a
moment to slay this many-headed hydra by one well-aimed
blow ? What can we suppose to have been the object of such a
forger, except to advance certain theological views ? And why
should he have let slip the very opportunity, which (we must
suppose) he was making for himself, of condemning the worst
forms of heresy from our Lord's own lips ? It is true that you
and I think we see (and doubtless think rightly), that the
doctrine of God the Word taught in St John's Gospel is the
real answer to the theological questionings which gave rise to
all these theories about aeons or emanations, and involves im-
plicitly and indirectly the refutation of all such theories. But it
is only by more or less abstruse reasoning that we arrive at this
conclusion. The early Gnostics did not see it so ; they used
St John's Gospel, and retained their theories notwithstanding.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 13

A forger would have taken care to provide a direct refutation
which it was impossible to misunderstand.

Or, again : about the middle of the second century the great
controversy respecting the time of celebrating Easter was
beginning to lift up its head. For the latter half of this
century the feud raged, bursting out ever afresh and disturbing
the peace of the Church again and again, until it was finally
set at rest in the fourth century at the Council of Nicsea. Was
the festival of the Lord's resurrection to be celebrated always
on the same day of the week, the Sunday ? Or was it to be
guided by the time of the Jewish Passover, and thus to take
place on the same day of the month, irrespective of the day of
the week ? Each community, each individual, took a side in
this controversy. Unimportant in itself, it seriously endangered
the existence of the Church. The daring adventurer who did
not hesitate to forge a whole gospel would certainly not be
deterred by any scruple from setting the matter at rest by a
few strokes of the pen. His narrative furnished more than one
favourable opportunity for interposing half a dozen decisive
words in our Lord's name : and yet he abstained.

Thus we might take in succession the distinctive eccle-
siastical controversies of the second century, and show how the
writer of the Fourth Gospel holds aloof from them all : certainly
a strange and almost incredible fact, if this writer lived about
the middle, or even in the latter half, of the century, and, as a
romancer, was not restrained by those obligations of fact which
fetter the truthful historian who is himself a contemporary of
the events recorded !

But if the omissions of the writer are strange and unac-
countable on the assumption of the later date of the Gospel, the
actual contents present still greater difficulties on the same
hypothesis. In the interval between the age when the events
are recorded to have taken place and the age in which the
writer is supposed to have lived, a vast change had come over
the civilized world. In no period had the dislocation of Jewish
history been so complete. Two successive hurricanes had swept

14 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

over the land and nation. The devastation of Titus had been
succeeded by the devastation of Hadrian. What the locust of
the first siege had left the cankerworm of the second had
devoured. National polity, religious worship, social institutions,
all were gone. The city had been razed, the land laid desolate,
the law and the ordinances proscribed, the people swept into
captivity or scattered over the face of the earth. ' Old things
had passed away ; all things had become new.'

Now let us place ourselves in the position of one who wrote
about the middle of the second century, after the later Roman
invasion had swept off the scanty gleanings of the past which
had been spared from the earlier. Let us ask how a romancer
so situated is to make himself acquainted with the incidents,
the localities, the buildings, the institutions, the modes of
thought and feeling, which belonged to this past age and (as
we may almost say) this bygone people. Let it be granted
that here and there he might stumble upon a historical fact,
that in one or two particulars he might reproduce a national
characteristic. More than this would be beyond his reach.
For, it will be borne in mind, he would be placed at a great
disadvantage, compared with a modern writer ; he would have
to reconstruct history without those various appliances, maps
and plates, chronological tables, books of travel, by which the
author of a historical novel is so largely assisted in the present
day.

And even if he had been furnished with all these aids,
would he have known how to use them ? The uncritical
character of the apostolic age is a favourite commonplace with
those who impugn the genuineness of the canonical Scriptures,
or the trustworthiness of the evangelical narratives. I do not
deny that the age (compared with our own) was uncritical,
though very exaggerated language is often used on the subject.
But obviously this argument has a double edge. And the
keener of these two edges lies across the very throat of recent
negative criticism. For it requires a much higher flight of
critical genius to invent an extremely delicate fiction than to

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 15

detect it when invented. The age which could not expose a
coarse forgery was incapable of constructing a subtle historical
romance. This one thing I hope to make clear in the short
time that is allowed me this afternoon. The Fourth Gospel, if
a forgery, shows the most consummate skill on the part of the
forger ; it is (as we should say in modern phrase) thoroughly in
keeping. It is replete with historical and geographical details ;
it is interpenetrated with the Judaic spirit of the times ; its
delineations of character are remarkably subtle ; it is perfectly
natural in the progress of the events ; the allusions to incidents
or localities or modes of thought are introduced in an artless
and unconscious way, being closely interwoven with the texture
of the narrative ; while throughout, the author has exercised a
silence and a self-restraint about his assumed personality which
is without a parallel in ancient forgeries, and which deprives
his work of the only motive that, on the supposition of its
spuriousness, would account for his undertaking it at all.

In all these respects it forms a direct contrast to the known
forgeries of the apostolic or succeeding ages. I will only ask
my hearers who are acquainted with early apocryphal literature
to compare St John's Gospel with two very different and yet
equally characteristic products of the first and second centuries
of the Christian era with the Protevangelium, or Gospel of
the Infancy of Jesus, on the one hand, and with the Clementine
Homilies, on the other : the former, a vulgar daub dashed in by
a coarse hand in bright and startling colours; the other, a
subtle philosophical romance, elaborately drawn by an able and
skilful artist. But both the one and the other are obviously
artificial in all their traits, and utterly alien to the tone of
genuine history.

Such productions as these show what we might expect to
find in a gospel written at the middle or after the middle of the
second century.

If then my description of the Fourth Gospel is not over-
charged (and I will endeavour to substantiate it immediately),
the supposition that this gospel was written at this late epoch

16 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

by a resident at Alexandria or at Ephesus will appear in the
highest degree incredible ; and, whatever difficulties the tra-
ditional belief may involve, they are small indeed compared
with the improbabilities created by the only alternative hypo-
thesis.

I have already proved that the absence of certain topics in
this gospel seems fatal to its late authorship. I shall now
proceed to investigate those phenomena of its actual contents
which force us to the conclusion that it was written by a Jew
contemporary with and cognisant of the facts which he relates,
and more especially those indications which fix the authorship
on the Apostle St John. It is necessary however to premise by
way of caution, that exhaustive treatment is impossible in a
single lecture, and that I can only hope to indicate a line of
investigation which any one may follow out for himself.

First of all then, the writer was a Jew. This might be
inferred with a very high degree of probability from his Greek
style alone. It is not ungrammatical Greek, but it is distinctly
Greek of one long accustomed to think and speak through the
medium of another language. The Greek language is singularly
rich in its capabilities of syntactic construction, and it is also
well furnished with various connecting particles. The two
languages with which a Jew of Palestine would be most
familiar the Hebrew, which was the language of the sacred
Scriptures, and the Aramaic, which was the medium of com-
munication in daily life being closely allied to each other,
stand in direct contrast to the Greek in this respect. There is
comparative poverty of inflexions, and there is an extreme
paucity of connecting and relative particles. Hence in Hebrew
and Aramaic there is little or no syntax, properly so called.

Tested by his style then, the writer was a Jew. Of all
the New Testament writings the Fourth Gospel is the most
distinctly Hebraic in this respect. The Hebrew simplicity
of diction will at once strike the reader. There is an entire
absence of periods, for which the Greek language affords such
facility. The sentences are co-ordinated, not subordinated.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 17

The clauses are strung together, like beads on a string. The
very monotony of arrangement, though singularly impressive,
is wholly unlike the Greek style of the age.

More especially does the influence of the Hebrew appear in
the connecting particles. In this language the single connecting
particle is used equally, whether co-ordination or opposition is
implied ; in other words, it represents ' but ' as well as ' and.'
The Authorized Version does not adequately represent this
fact, for our translators have exercised considerable license in
varying the renderings : ' then/ ' moreover,' ' and/ ' but/ etc.
Now it is a noticeable fact, that in St John's Gospel the
capabilities of the Greek language in this respect are most
commonly neglected ; the writer falls back on the simple ' and '
of Hebrew diction, using it even where we should expect to
find an adversative particle. Thus v. 39, 40, ' Ye search the
Scriptures, for in them ye think that ye have eternal life : and
they are they which testify of He : and ye will not come to
Me'; vii. 19, 'Did not Moses give you the law, and none of
you keepeth the law ? ' where our English version has inserted
an adversative particle to assist the sense, ' and yet ' ; vii. 30,
' Then they sought to take Him : and no man laid hands on
Him/ where the English version substitutes ' but no man ' ;
vii. 33, ' Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I
with you, and I go to Him that sent Me/ where again our
translators attempt to improve the sense by reading ' and then.'
And instances might be multiplied.

The Hebrew character of the diction moreover shows itself
in other ways : by the parallelism of the sentences, by the
repetition of the same words in different clauses, by the order
of the words, by the syntactical constructions, and by individual
expressions. Indeed so completely is this character maintained
throughout, that there is hardly a sentence which might not be
translated literally into Hebrew or Aramaic, without any
violence to the language or to the sense.

I might point also to the interpretation of Aramaic words,
as Cephas, Gabbatha, Golgotha, Messias, Rabboni, Siloam,

L. E. 2

18 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Thomas, as indicating knowledge of this language. On such
isolated phenomena however no great stress can fairly be laid,
because such interpretations do not necessarily require an
extensive acquaintance with the language ; and when the
whole cast and colouring of the diction can be put in evidence,
an individual word here and there is valueless in comparison.

There are however two examples of proper names in this
Gospel on which it may be worth while to remark ; because
the original is obscured in our English Bibles by a false
reading in the Greek text used by our translators, and because
they afford incidentally somewhat strong testimony to the
writer's knowledge both of the language and of contemporary
facts.

The first of these is Iscariot. In the other three gospels
this name is attributed to the traitor apostle Judas alone. In
St John's Gospel also, as represented in the received text and
in our English version, this is the case. But if the more correct
readings be substituted, on the authority of the ancient copies,
we find it sometimes applied to Judas himself (xii. 4, xiii. 2,
xiv. 22), and sometimes to Judas' father Simon (e.g. vi. 71,
c He spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot ' ; xiii. 26, ' He
giveth it to Judas the son of Simon Iscariot'). Now this
shows that the evangelist knew this not to be a proper name
strictly so called, but to describe the native place of the person,
' the man of Kerioth/ and hence to be applicable to the father
and the son alike.

The other instance which I shall give, at first sight presents
a difficulty ; but when further investigated it only adds fresh
testimony to the exact knowledge of the Fourth Evangelist.
In St Matthew, Simon Peter is called Bar-Jona (Matt. xvi. 17);
i.e. son of Jona (or Jonan or Jonas). Accordingly in the
received text of St John also he appears in not less than four
passages (i. 42, xxi. 15-17) as Simon son of Jona (or Jonan or
Jonas). But there can be no reasonable doubt that the correct
reading in all these four passages is ' Simon son of Joannes '
the Hebrew and Aramaic Johanan, the English John and

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 19

that later transcribers have altered it to make it accord with
the form adopted by St Matthew. Here there is an apparent
discrepancy, which however disappears on examination ; for we
find that Jona or Jonan or Jonas is more than once used in the
LXX version of the Old Testament as a contracted form of the
name Johanan, Johannes, or John. Thus the statements of
the two evangelists are reconciled ; and we owe it to the special
knowledge derived from the Fourth Gospel that the full and
correct form is preserved. For, when we have once got this
key to the fact, we can no longer question that John was the
real name of Peter's father, since it throws great light on our
Lord's words in St Matthew. The ordinary name Jonah, which
was borne by the prophet, and which is generally supposed to
be the name of Simon's father, signifies ' a dove ' ; but the
name Johanan or John is ' the grace of God.' Hence the
Baptist is called not Zechariah, as his relatives thought natural,
but John, in accordance with the heavenly message (Luke i. 13),
because he was specially given to his parents by God's grace.
So too the call of St Peter (John i. 42) becomes full of meaning:
' Thou art Simon the son of the grace of God ; thou shalt be
called Cephas ' ; and the final commission given to the same
apostle is doubly significant, when we interpret the thrice
repeated appeal as ' Simon son of God's grace, lovest thou Me ? '
for without this interpretation the studied repetition of his
patronymic seems somewhat meaningless. Bearing this fact in
mind, we turn to the passage of St Matthew (xvi. 17, 18) : ' Jesus
answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona
(son of the grace of God) : for flesh and blood hath not revealed
it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say
unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
My Church.' His name and his surname alike are symbols and
foreshadowings of God's special favour to him in his call and
commission. This is only one of many instances in which the
authenticity of the statements of the Fourth Gospel is confirmed
by the fact that they incidentally explain what is otherwise un-
explained in the narrative of the synoptic evangelists.

20 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Another evidence that the writer was acquainted with the
Hebrew language is furnished by the quotations from the Old
Testament. This evangelist, like St Paul, sometimes cites
from the current Greek version of the Seventy, and sometimes
translates directly from the Hebrew. When a writer, as is the
case in the Epistle to the Hebrews, quotes largely and quotes
uniformly from the LXX version, this is at least an indication
that he was not acquainted with the original ; and hence we
infer that the epistle just mentioned was not written by St
Paul, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, but by some disciple, a
Hellenistic Jew, thoroughly interpenetrated with the apostle's
mind and teaching, but ignorant of the language of his fore-
fathers. If on any occasion the quotations of a writer accord
with the original Hebrew against the LXX version, we have a
right to infer that he was acquainted with the sacred language,
was, in fact, a Hebrew or Aramaic-speaking Jew. Several
decisive examples might be produced, but one must suffice.
In xix. 37 is a quotation from Zechariah xii. 10, which in the
original is, ' They shall look upon Me whom they pierced.'
Accordingly it is given in St John, 'They shall look on Him
whom they pierced ' (o-^rovrat els ov e^/cevTrja-av). But the
LXX rendering is, 'They shall gaze upon Me, because they
insulted ' (eTTtySXe^oz/rat Trpos /JL, dv6* wv KCLT(op f xr)cravTO\
where the LXX translators had a different reading, -npi for
I" 1 !?!, and where their Greek rendering has not a single word
in common with St John's text.

In xii. 40 again, the evangelist quotes Isaiah vi. 10,
'Because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes,
and hardened their heart ; that they should not see with their
eyes,' etc. Now this quotation is far from being verbally
exact ; for in the Hebrew the sentence is imperative, * Make
fat the heart of this people, and make heavy their ears, and
close their eyes, that they should not see with their eyes,' etc.
Yet, on the other hand, it does not contain any of the
characteristic renderings of the LXX ; and this is one distinct
proof that, however loosely quoted, it was derived, not from the

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 21

LXX, but from the original. For the LXX translators, taking
offence, as it would seem, at ascribing the hardening of the
heart to God's own agency, have thrown the sentence into a
passive form : ' The heart of this people was made fat, and with
their ears they heard heavily, and their eyes they closed/ etc.,
so as to remove the difficulty. If therefore the evangelist had
derived the passage from the LXX, it is inconceivable that he
would have reintroduced the active form, thus wantonly reviving
a difficulty, unless he had the original before him.

I will only add one other example. In xiii. 18 occurs a
quotation from Psalm xli. 9 (xl. 10). Here the expression
which in the original signifies literally ' made great ' or ' made
high ' his heel is correctly translated ' lifted up his heel' (eirypev
rrjv Ti-repvav avrov), as in the A.V. of the Psalms. The LXX
version however gives epeyakwev TnepviafjLov, ' he multiplied
(or increased) tripping up with the heel/ or ' treachery/ which
has given rise to the paraphrastic rendering in our Prayer-
Book version, ' laid great wait for me/ Here again it is
obvious that the evangelist's quotation could not have been
derived from the LXX, but must have been rendered either
directly from the Hebrew, or (what for my purpose is equally
decisive) indirectly through some Chaldee Targum.

If therefore we had no other evidence than the language,
we might with confidence affirm that this gospel was not
written either by a Gentile or by a Hellenistic Christian, but
by a Hebrew accustomed to speak the language of his fathers.
This fact alone negatives more than one hypothesis which has
been broached of late years respecting its authorship, for it is
wholly inconsistent with the strictly Gentile origin which most
recent theories assign to it. But, though irreconcilable with
Gentile authorship, it is not wholly inconsistent with the later
date ; for we cannot pronounce it quite impossible that there
should be living in Asia Minor or in Egypt, in the middle
or after the middle of the second century, a Judaic Christian
familiar with the Hebrew or Aramaic language, however rare
such instances may have been.

22 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Having thus established the fact that the writer was
neither a Gentile nor a Hellenist, but a Hebrew of the
Hebrews, we will proceed to inquire further whether he
evinces an acquaintance with the manners and feelings, and
also with the geography and history (more especially the
contemporary history) of Palestine, which so far as our know-
ledge goes (and in dealing with such questions we must not
advance one step beyond our knowledge) would be morally
impossible with even a Hebrew Christian at the supposed date,
long after the political existence of the nation had been
obliterated, and when the disorganization of Jewish society was
complete.

As I am obliged to compress my remarks within the space
of a single lecture, I cannot place the evidence fully before
you ; but my hope is, that I may indicate the lines of investi-
gation which will enable you to answer it more completely for
yourselves. I will only say, that we obtain from the Fourth
Gospel details at once fuller and more minute on all these
points than from the other three. Whether we turn to the
Messianic hopes of the chosen people, with all the attendant
circumstances with which imagination had invested this ex-
pected event, or to the mutual relations of Samaritans, Jews,
Galileans, Romans, and the respective feelings, prejudices,
beliefs, customs of each, or to the topography as well of the
city and the temple as of the rural districts the Lake of
Gennesaret, and the cornfields and mountain ridges of Shechem
or to the contemporary history of the Jewish hierarchy and
the Herodian sovereignty, we are alike struck at every turn
with subtle and unsuspicious traces, betokening the familiarity
with which the writer moves amidst the ever-shifting scenes of
his wonderful narrative.

This minuteness of detail in the Fourth Evangelist is very
commonly overlooked, because our gaze is arrested by still
more important and unique features in this Gospel. The
striking character of our Lord's discourses as recorded in St
John their length and sequence, their simplicity of language,

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 23

their fulness and depth of meaning dazzles the eye of the
critic and blinds him to the historical aspects of the narrative-
Only by concentrating our view on these latter shall we realize
the truth that the evangelist is not floating in the clouds of
airy theological speculations, that though with his eye he peers
into the mysteries of the unseen, his foot is planted on the solid
ground of external fact ; that, in short, the incidents are not
invented as a framework for the doctrine, but that the doctrine
arises naturally out of, and derives its meaning from, the
incidents.

One example will serve at once to illustrate the double
characteristic of this Gospel, the accurate historical narrative of
facts which forms the basis of the Gospel, and the theological
teaching which is built as a superstructure upon this foundation,
and which the evangelist keeps distinctly and persistently in
view in his selection and arrangement of the facts, and also to
introduce the investigation which I purpose instituting.

The narrative and the discourses alike are thoroughly
saturated with the Messianic ideas of the time. The Christ,
as expected by the Jews, is the one central figure round which
all the facts are grouped, the one main topic on which all the
conversations hinge. This is the more remarkable, because the
leading conception in the writer's own mind is not the Messiah,
but the Word, the Logos, not the deliverance of Israel, but
the manifestation of God in the flesh. This main purpose is
flung out at the opening of the Gospel, and it is kept steadily
in view in the selection of materials throughout the work.
But it does not once enter into the mind of the Jews, who are
wholly absorbed in the Messianic idea. Nay, the word Logos
does not once occur even on our Lord's own lips, though the
obvious motive of His teaching is to enforce this higher aspect
of His person, to which they were strangers. And I cannot
but think that this distinct separation is a remarkable testi-
mony to the credibility of the writer, who, however strongly
impressed with his mission as the teacher of a great theological
conception, nevertheless keeps it free from his narrative of facts ;

24 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

though obviously there would be a very strong temptation to
introduce it, a temptation which to a mere forger would be
irresistible.

The Messianic idea, for instance, is turned about on all
sides, and presented in every aspect. On this point we learn
very much more of contemporary Jewish opinion from the
Fourth Gospel than from the other three. At the commence-
ment and at the close of the narrative in the preaching of the
Baptist and in the incidents of the Passion it is equally
prominent. In Galilee (i. 41, 46, 49; vi. 15, 28, 30 sq.), in
Samaria (iv. 25, 29, 42), in Judaea (v. 39, 45 sq. ; vii. 26 sq.,
40-43 ; viii. 30 sq. ; x. 24), it is the one standing theme of
conversation. Among friends, among foes, among neutrals
alike it is mooted and discussed. The person and character
of Jesus are tried by this standard. He is accepted or He is
rejected, as He fulfils or contradicts the received ideal of the
Messiah.

The accessories also of the Messiah's coming, as conceived
by the Jews, are brought out with a completeness beyond the
other gospels. I will only ask you, as an illustration of this,
to consider the discourse on the manna in the sixth chapter.
The key to the meaning of the conversation is the fact that
the Jews expected a miracle similar to the gift of manna in
the wilderness, as an accompaniment of the appearance of the
great deliverer. This expectation throws a flood of light on
the whole discourse. But the fact is not communicated in the
passage itself. There is only a bald, isolated statement, which
apparently is suggested by nothing, and itself fails to suggest
anything: 'Our fathers did eat manna in the wilderness.'
Then comes an aposiopesis. The inference is unexpressed.
The expectation, which explains all, is left to be inferred,
because it would be mentally supplied by men brought up
among the ideas of the time. We ourselves have to get it by
the aid of criticism and research from rabbinical authorities.
But, when we have grasped it, we can unlock the meaning
of the whole chapter.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 25

Connected with Messiah's coming are other conceptions on
which it may be worth while to dwell for a moment. One
of these is the appearance of a mysterious person called ' the
prophet.' This expectation arose out of the announcement in
Deuteronomy xviii. 15, 'The Lord thy God will raise up unto
thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me.' To this
anticipation we have allusions in not less than four places in
St John (i. 21, 25 ; vi. 14 ; vii. 40), in all of which ' the prophet '
is mentioned, though in the three first the distinctness of the
expectation is blurred in the English version by the rendering
'that prophet.' In all these passages the mention of ( the
prophet ' without any explanation is most natural on the lips of
contemporary Jews, whose minds were filled with the Messianic
conceptions of the times ; while such language is extremely
unlikely to have been invented for them more than a century
after the date of the supposed occurrences. But the point
especially to be observed is, that the form which the conception
takes is strictly Jewish, and not Christian. Christian teachers
identified the prophet foretold by Moses with our Lord Himself,
and therefore with the Christ. This application of the prophecy
is made directly in St Peter's speech (Acts iii. 22), and infer-
entially in St Stephen's (Acts vii. 37); and later Christian
teachers followed in their steps. But these Jews in St John's
Gospel conceive ' the Christ ' and ' the prophet ' as two different
persons. If He is not * the Christ,' they adopt the alternative
that He may be 'the prophet' (i. 21, 25); if not 'the prophet,'
then 'the Christ' (vii. 40). It is hardly conceivable to my
mind that a Christian writer, living in or after the middle of
the second century, calling on his imagination for facts, should
have divested himself so absolutely of the Christian idea and
fallen back on the Jewish.

But before I have done with ' the prophet,' there is yet one
more point worthy of notice. After the miracle of feeding the
five thousand, we are told that ' those men who had seen the
miracle that Jesus did said, This is of a truth the prophet that
should come into the world' (vi. 14). The connexion is not

26 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

obvious, and the writer has not explained himself. Here again
the missing link is supplied by the Messianic conception of the
age. The prophet foretold was to be like Moses himself. Hence
it was inferred that there must be a parallel in the works of the
two. Hence a repetition of the gift of the manna the bread
from heaven might be expected. Was not this miracle then
the very fulfilment of their expectation ? Hence we read that
on the day following (after several incidents have intervened,
but with the miracle still fresh on their minds), they seek
Him out, and still try to elicit a definite answer from Him :
' What sign showest Thou then ? Our fathers did eat manna in
the desert.' Thus a casual and indistinct reference in one part
of the chapter is explained by an equally casual and indistinct
reference in another, and light emerges from darkness.

From the Messianic ideas I turn to the Jewish sects and the
Levitical hierarchy.

The Sadducees, with whom we are familiar in other gospels,
are not once mentioned by the Fourth Evangelist. How are we
to account for this fact ? Have we here a discrepancy, or (if not
a discrepancy) at least an incongruity ? Is there in St John's
picture an entire omission of that group which occupies a
prominent place on the canvas of the other evangelists, especially
of St Matthew ?

The common connexion, when describing the adversaries
of our Lord, is ' the Pharisees and Sadducees ' in the synoptic
evangelists, ' the chief priests and the Pharisees ' in St John.
In the comparison of these phrases lies the solution. The high
priests at this time belonged to the sect of the Sadducees. How
this happened we do not know. It may be that their Roman
rulers favoured this party, as being more lukewarm than the
Pharisees in religious matters, and therefore less likely to give
trouble to the civil powers. At all events, the fact appears dis-
tinctly from more than one notice in the narrative of the Acts
(iv. 1, v. 17); and the same is stated in a passage of Josephus
(Ant. xx. 9. 1). Thus a real coincidence arises from an apparent
incongruity.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 27

But Josephus elsewhere (Ant. xviii. 1. 4) makes another
statement respecting the Pharisees, which throws great light on
the narrative of the Fourth Evangelist. He tells us that the
Sadducees were few in number, though of the highest rank ;
and that when they were in office, they were forced, even
against their will, to listen to the Pharisees, because otherwise
they would not be tolerated by the people. Now this is
precisely the order of events in St John. The Pharisees (with
one single exception) always take the initiative ; they are the
active opponents of our Lord, and the chief priests step in to
execute their will.

The single exception is remarkable. Once only we find
chief priests acting alone and acting promptly (xii. 10). They
form a plot for putting Lazarus to death. This was essentially
a Sadducees' question. It was necessary that a living witness
to the great truth, which the high-priestly party denied, should
be got rid of at all hazards. Hence they bestir themselves and
throw off their usual apathy ; just as, turning from the Gospels
to the Acts of the Apostles, they have taken the place of the
Pharisees as the foremost persecutors of the new faith, because
the resurrection from the dead was the cardinal topic of the
preaching of the apostles.

But there is one other notice of the Jewish historian with
which the narrative of the Fourth Evangelist presents a striking
but unsuspicious coincidence. We are somewhat startled with
the outburst of rudeness which marks the chief of the party on
one occasion (xi. 49, 50). ' One of them, Caiaphas, being high
priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, and
ye do not reflect that it is expedient for you that one man
should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not
perish.' Asa comment on this, take the words of Josephus :
' The behaviour of the Sadducees to one another is not a little
rude, and their intercourse with their peers is brusque, as
if addressing strangers ' (B. J. ii. 8. 14).

These coincidences need little comment. I will only add
that the Fourth Evangelist does not himself give us the key to

28 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the incidents, that the references have been gathered from three
different parts of Josephus, that the statements in the evangelist
are not embroideries on his narrative, but are woven into its
very texture ; and that nevertheless all these several notices
dovetail together and create one harmonious whole, which bears
the very impress of strict historical truth.

After reviewing these coincidences, it will appear strange
that from the passage last quoted Baur derived what he
obviously considered to be one of his strongest arguments
against the authenticity of the Gospel. Because the evangelist
three times speaks of Caiaphas as ' high priest that year ' (xi.
49, 51 ; xviii. 13), he argues that the writer supposed the high
priesthood to be an annual office, and therefore could not have
been the Apostle John.

Now unless I have entirely misled you and myself, this is
incredible. You cannot imagine that one who shows an ac-
quaintance, not only with the language, but also with the
customs, feelings, history, topography of the race, even in their
minute details, should yet be ignorant of this most elementary
fact of Jewish institutions. Whether the Gospel is authentic or
whether it is not, such a supposition is equally incredible. If
the writing is a forgery, the forger was certainly highly informed
and extremely subtle ; he must have ransacked divers histories
for his facts ; and yet here he is credited with a degree of
ignorance which a casual glance at a few pages of his Old
Testament or his Josephus would at once have served to
dissipate. Suppose a parallel case. Imagine one, who writing
(we will say) a historical work, shows a subtle appreciation of
political feeling in England, and a minute acquaintance with
English social institutions, and yet falls into the error of
supposing that the premier is elected annually by vote of the
people, or that the lord- mayoralty is a hereditary office tenable
for life.

If therefore this supposition is simply impossible, we must
explain the expression, ' high priest that year,' in some other
way. And the explanation seems to be this. The most im-

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 29

portant duty of the high priest was an annual function, the
sacrifice and intercession for the people on the great day of
atonement. ' Once every year,' says the writer of the Epistle to
the Hebrews (ix. 7), ' the high priest alone entereth into the
second tabernacle (the inner sanctuary), not without blood,
which he offereth for himself and for the errors of the people.'
The year of which the evangelist speaks was the year of all
years ; 'the acceptable year of the Lord/ as it is elsewhere called;
the year in which the great sacrifice, the one atonement, was
made, the atonement which annulled once and for ever the
annual repetitions. It so happened that it was the duty of
Caiaphas, as high priest, to enter the holy of holies, and offer
the atonement for that year. The evangelist sees, if we may
use the phrase without irreverence, a dramatic propriety in the
fact that he of all men should make this declaration. By a
Divine irony he is made unconsciously to declare the truth,
proclaiming Jesus to be the great atoning sacrifice, and himself
to be instrumental in offering the victim. This irony of circum-
stances is illustrated in the case of Pilate, as in the case of
Caiaphas. The latter, the representative of the Jewish hierarchy,
pronounces Jesus the great atoning sacrifice ; the former, the
representative of the civil power, pronounces Him as the
sovereign of the race, ' Behold your King ! ' The malignity of
Caiaphas and the sneer of Pilate alike bear witness to a higher
truth than they themselves consciously apprehend.

From the sects and the hierarchy we may turn to the city
and the temple. Here too we should do well to bear in mind
how largely we owe the distinctive features of the topography
and architecture with which we are familiar to the Fourth
Gospel. Within the sacred precincts themselves the Porch of
Solomon, within the Holy City the pools of Bethsaida 1 and
Siloam, are brought before our eyes by this evangelist alone.
And when we pass outside the walls, he is still our guide.
From him we trace the steps of the Lord and His disciples on

1 ' Bethsaida ' or ' Bethzatha ' should probably be read in S. John v. 2 rather
than ' Bethesda.'

30 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

that fatal night crossing the brook Kedron into the garden ; it
is he who, relating the last triumphal entry into Jerusalem,
specifies ' the branches of the palm trees ' (the other evangelists
use general expressions, ' boughs of the trees/ or the like)
1 the palm trees ' on which he had so often gazed, of which the
sight was still so fresh in his memory, which clothed the
eastern slopes of Olivet, and gave its name to the village of
Bethany, 'the house of dates.' How simple and natural the
definite articles are on the lips of an eye-witness I need not say.
How awkward they sound to later ears, and how little likely
to have been used by a later writer, unfamiliar with the scene
itself, we may infer from the fact that in our own version they
are suppressed, and the evangelist is made to say, 'they took
branches of palm trees.'

Moreover the familiarity of the Fourth Evangelist, not only
with the site and the buildings of the temple, but also with
the history, appears in a striking way from a casual allusion.
After the description of the cleansing of the temple by our Lord,
a description which though brief is given with singular vivid-
ness of detail the Jews ask for some sign, as the credential
which might justify this assumption of authority and right of
chastisement. His answer is, ' Pull down this temple, and in
three days I will build it up.' Their astonishment is expressed
in their reply, 'This temple has been forty-six years in building,
and wilt Thou raise it again in three days ? ' (ii. 19, 20).

Now I think it will be allowed that this mention of time is
quite undesigned. It has no appearance of artifice, it occurs
naturally in the course of conversation, and it is altogether free
from suspicion, as having been introduced to give a historical
colouring to a work of fiction. If so, let us examine its historical
bearing.

For this purpose it is necessary to follow two distinct lines
of chronological research. We have to investigate the history
of the building of the Herodian temple, and we have to ascertain
the dates of our Lord's life.

Now by comparison of several passages in Josephus, and

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 31

by the exercise of historical criticism upon them, we arrive
at the conclusion that Herod commenced his temple about
A.U.C. 735, i.e. B.C. 18. It took many years in building, and was
not finally completed until A.U.C. 817, i.e. A.D. 64. Thus the
works were going on during the whole of the period comprised
in the New Testament history. If we add forty-six years to
the date of its commencement (A.U.C. 735) we are brought down
to A.U.C. 781 or 782, i.e. A.D. 28 or 29.

The chronology of Herod's temple involves one considerable
effort of historical criticism. The chronology of our Lord's life
requires another. Into this question however I need not enter
in detail. It is sufficient to remind you that the common date
of the Christian era is now generally allowed to be a little wide
of the mark, and that our Lord's birth actually took place three
or four years before this era. The point to be observed here is,
that St Luke places the baptism of our Lord in or about the
fifteenth year of Tiberius, which comprised the interval between
the autumn of 781 and the autumn of 782. Now the occurrence
related by St John took place, as we may infer from his narra-
tive, in the first passover after the baptism ; that is, according
to St Luke's chronology probably at the passover of 782.

Thus we are brought to the same date by following two
lines of chronology; and we arrive at the fact that forty-six
years there or thereabouts had actually elapsed since the com-
mencement of Herod's building to this point in our Lord's
ministry. I am anxious not to speak with too great precision,
because the facts do not allow it. The exact number might
have been forty-five or forty -seven years, for fragments of years
may be reckoned in or not in our calculation, and the data are
not sufficiently exact to determine the date to a nicety. But,
after all allowance made for this margin of uncertainty, the
coincidence is sufficiently striking.

And now let us suppose the Gospel to have been written in
the middle of the second century, and ask ourselves what strong
improbabilities this hypothesis involves.

The writer must first have made himself acquainted with

32 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

a number of facts connected with the temple of Herod. He
must not only have known that the temple was commenced in
a particular year, but also that it was still incomplete at the
time of our Lord's ministry. So far as we know, he could only
have got these facts from Josephus. Even Josephus however
does not state the actual date of the commencement of the
temple. It requires some patient research to arrive at this
date by a comparison of several passages. We have therefore to
suppose, first, that the forger of the Fourth Gospel went through
an elaborate critical investigation for the sake of ascertaining
the date. But, secondly, he must have made himself acquainted
with the chronology of the gospel history. At all events, he
must have ascertained the date of the commencement of our
Lord's ministry. The most favourable supposition is, that he
had before him the Gospel of St Luke, though he nowhere else
betrays the slightest acquaintance with this gospel. Here he
would find the date which he wanted, reckoned by the years of
the Roman emperors. Thirdly, after arriving at these two
results by separate processes, he must combine them ; thus
connecting the chronology of the Jewish kings with the
chronology of the Roman emperors, the chronology of the
temple erection with the chronology of our Lord's life.

When he has taken all these pains, and worked up the
subject so elaborately, he drops in the notice which has given
him so much trouble in an incidental and unobtrusive way.
It has no direct bearing on his history; it does not subserve
the purpose of his theology. It leads to nothing, proves
nothing. Certainly the art of concealing art was never exer-
cised in a more masterly way than here. And yet this was an
age which perpetrated the most crude and bungling forgeries,
and is denounced by modern criticism for its utter incapacity
of criticism.

Nor, when we travel beyond the city and its suburbs, does
the writer's knowledge desert him. One instance must suffice ;
but it is, if I mistake not, so convincing, that it may well serve
in place of many.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 33

The country of the Samaritans lay between Judaea and
Galilee, so that a person journeying from the one region to
the other, unless he were prepared to make a detour, must
necessarily pass through it. This was the case with our Lord
and His Apostles, as related in the fourth chapter. The high-
road from Jerusalem passes through some very remarkable
scenery. The mountain ridges of Ebal and Gerizim run parallel
to each other from east to west, not many hundred feet apart,
thus inclosing a narrow valley between them. Eastward this
valley opens out into a plain, a rare phenomenon in this
country ' one mass of corn unbroken by a boundary or hedge/
as it is described by one who has seen it. Up the valley
westward, shut in between these mountain barriers, lies the
modern town of Nablus, the ancient Shechem. The road does
not enter the valley, but traverses the plain, running at right
angles to the gorge, and thus touching the eastern bases of the
mountain ridges as they fall down into the level ground. Here
at the mouth of the valley is a deep well, even now descending
' to a depth of seventy feet or more,' and formerly, before it had
been partially filled with accumulated rubbish, we may well
believe deeper still. In the words of Dean Stanley :

" Of all the special localities of our Lord's life in Palestine, this is
almost the only one absolutely undisputed. By the edge of this well, in
the touching language of the ancient hymn, 'quaerens me sedisti lassus.'
Here on the great road through which ' He must needs go ' when ' He left
Judaea, and departed into Galilee,' He halted, as travellers still halt, in the
noon or evening of the spring day by the side of the well. Up that
passage through the valley His disciples * went away into the city,' which
He did not enter. Down the same gorge came the woman to draw water,
according to the unchanged custom of the East. . . . Above them, as
they talked, rose ' this mountain ' of Gerizim, crowned by the temple, of
which vestiges still remain, where the fathers of the Samaritan sect ' said
men ought to worship.' . . . And round about them, as He and she
thus sate or stood by the well, spread far and wide the noble plain of
waving corn. It was still winter, or early spring, ' four months yet to the
harvest,' and the bright golden ears of those fields had not yet * whitened '
their unbroken expanse of verdure. But as he gazed upon them, they
served to suggest the glorious vision of the distant harvest of the Gentile
world, which with each successive turn of the conversation unfolded itself

L. E. 3

34 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

more and more distinctly before Him, as He sate (so we gather from the
narrative) absorbed in the opening prospect, silent amidst His silent and
astonished disciples."

The scrupulous accuracy of the geographical and archaeo-
logical details in St John's account of the conversation with
the Samaritan woman will have appeared already from this
quotation. I will only ask you to consider for a moment how
naturally they occur in the course of the narrative, so naturally
and so incidentally that without the researches of modern
travellers the allusions would be entirely lost to us. I think
that this consideration will leave but one alternative. Either
you have here written, as we are constantly reminded, in an
uncritical age and among an uncritical people, the most masterly
piece of romance-writing which the genius and learning of man
ever penned in any age ; or you have (what universal tradition
represents it to be) a genuine work of an eye-witness and
companion of our Lord. Which of these two suppositions does
less violence to historical probability I will leave to yourselves
to determine.

Follow then the narrative in detail. An unknown Traveller
is sitting at the well. His garb, or His features, or His desti-
nation, show Him to be a Jew. A woman of the country comes
to draw water from the well, and He asks her to give Him to
drink. She is surprised that He, a Jew, is willing to talk so
freely to her, a Samaritan. And here I would remark that the
explanation which follows, ' For the Jews have no dealings
with ' (or rather, * do not associate with ') ' the Samaritans,' is
the evangelist's own, a fact obscured by the ordinary mode of
printing in our English Bibles. Hitherto, though the scene
is very natural and very real, there is nothing which a fairly
clever artist might not have invented. But from this point
onwards follow in rapid succession various historical and geo-
graphical allusions, various hints of individual character in the
woman, various aspects of Divine teaching on our Lord's part,
all closely interwoven together, each suggesting and suggested
by another, in such a manner as to preclude any hypothesis of

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 35

romance or forgery. ' Thou wouldest have asked, and I would
have given thee living water.' * Sir, Thou hast nothing to
draw with, and the well is deep. . . . Art Thou greater
than our father Jacob ? ' And so the conversation proceeds, one
point suggesting the next in the most natural way. Take, for
instance, the reference to Gerizim. ' Sir, I perceive that Thou
art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain.'
Observe that there is no mention in the context of any mountain
in the neighbourhood ; that even here, where it is mentioned,
its name is not given : but suddenly the woman, partly to
divert the inconvenient tenour of the conversation, partly to
satisfy herself on one important point of difference between
the Samaritans and the Jews, avails herself of the newly found
prophet's presence, and, pointing to the over-hanging heights
of Gerizim, puts the question to Him. The mention of the
sacred mountain, like the mention of the depths of the well,
draws forth a new spiritual lesson. ' Not in this mountain, nor
yet at Jerusalem. . . . God is a spirit/ The woman saith,
' When Messias cometh, He will tell us all things.' Jesus saith,
' I that speak unto thee am He.'

At this point the disciples approach from the valley, with
the provisions which they had purchased in the city, and rejoin
their Master. They are surprised to find Him so engaged.
Here again an error in the English version obscures the sense.
Their marvel was, not that He talked with the woman, but that
He talked with a woman. It was a rabbinical maxim, ' Let no
man talk with a woman in the street (in public), no, not with
his own wife.' The narrowness of His disciples was shocked
that He, their own rabbi, should be so wanting to Himself as
to disregard this recognised precept of morality. The narrator
assumes the knowledge with which he himself was so familiar.

So the conversation with the woman closes. With natural
eagerness she leaves her pitcher, and hurries back to the city
with her news. With natural exaggeration she reports there
that the stranger has told her all things that ever she did.

A conversation with the disciples follows, which is hardly

36 THE GOSPEL ACCOKDING TO ST JOHN.

less remarkable, but from which I must be content to select
one illustration only. I think that it must be allowed, that the
reference to the harvest is wholly free from suspicion, as regards
the manner of its introduction. It is unpremeditated, for it
cannot be severed from the previous part of the conversation,
out of which it arises. It is unobtrusive, for the passage itself
makes no attempt to explain the local allusion (which without
the experience of modern travellers would escape notice):
'There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest.
Behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the
fields ; for they are white already to harvest.' And yet, when
we once realize the scene, when in imagination our eye ranges
over that vast expanse of growing corn so unusual in Palestine,
however familiar in corn-growing England we are at once
struck with the truthfulness and the significance of this allusive
parable.

I have thus endeavoured to show, by taking a few instances,
the accuracy of the writer's knowledge in all that relates to
the history, the geography, the institutions, the thoughts and
feelings of the Jews. If however we had found accuracy, and
nothing more, we might indeed have reasonably inferred that
the narrative was written by a Jew of the mother-country,
who lived in a very early age, before time and circumstance
had obliterated the traces of Palestine, as it existed in the first
century ; but we could not safely have gone beyond this. But
unless I have entirely deceived myself, the manner in which
this accurate knowledge betrays itself justifies the further
conclusion that we have before us the genuine narrative of
an eye-witness, who records the events just as they occurred
in natural sequence.

I have discussed the accuracy of the external allusions. Let
me now apply another test. The representation of character is
perhaps the most satisfactory criterion of a true narrative, as
applied to an age before romance-writing had been studied as
an art.

We are all familiar with the principal characters in the

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 37

Gospel history : Peter, John, Philip, Thomas, Pilate, the sisters
Mary and Martha, and several others which I might mention ;
each standing before us with an individuality, which seems to
place him or her within the range of our own personal know-
ledge. Have we ever asked ourselves to which evangelist above
the rest we owe this personal acquaintance with the actors in
this great drama ?

When the question is once asked, the answer cannot be
doubtful. It is true indeed that we should have known
St Peter without the narrative of the Fourth Evangelist,
though he adds several minute points, which give additional
life to the portrait. It is true that Pilate is introduced to us
in the other Gospels, though without St John we should not
have been able to read his heart and character, his proud
Roman indifference and his cynical scorn. But, on the other
hand, take the case of Thomas. Of this Apostle nothing is
recorded in the other Evangelists, and yet he stands out before
us, not as a mere lay figure, on whose stiff, mechanical form the
artist may hang a moral precept or a doctrinal lesson by way of
drapery, but as a real, living, speaking man, at once doubtful
and eager, at once hesitating and devoted sceptical, riot
because his nature is cold and unsympathetic, but because
his intellect moves more cautiously than his heart, because the
momentous issues which belief involves bid him pause before
he closes with it ; at one moment endeavouring to divert his
Master's purpose of going up to Jerusalem, where certain
destruction awaits Him : at the next, ready to share the perils
with Him, ' Let us also go with Him ' ; at one moment resisting
the testimony of direct eye-witnesses and faithful friends to his
Master's resurrection : at the next, overwhelmed by the evidence
of his senses, and expressing the depth of his conviction in the
earnest confession ' My Lord and my God/

I must satisfy myself with one other example. The character
of the sisters Martha and Mary presents a striking contrast.
They are mentioned once only in the other Gospels, in the
familiar passage of St Luke, where they appear respectively as

38 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the practical, bustling housewife, who is busied about many
things, and the devout, contemplative, absorbed disciple, who
chooses the one thing needful. In St John also this contrast
reappears ; but the characteristics of the two sisters are brought
out in a very subtle way. In St Luke the contrast is summed
up, as it were, in one definite incident ; in St John it is de-
veloped gradually in the course of a continuous narrative. And
there is also another difference. In St Luke the contrast is
direct and trenchant, a contrast (one might almost say) of light
and darkness. But in St John the characters are shaded off, as
it were, into each other. Both alike are beloved by our Lord,
both alike send to Him for help, both alike express their faith
in His power, both alike show deep sorrow for their lost brother.
And yet, notwithstanding this, the difference of character is
perceptible throughout the narrative. It is Martha who, with
her restless activity, goes out to meet Jesus, while Mary remains
in the house weeping. It is Martha who holds a conversation
with Jesus, argues with Him, remonstrates with Him, and in
the very crisis of their grief shows her practical common sense
in deprecating the removal of the stone. It is Mary who goes
forth silently to meet Him, silently and tearfully, so that the
bystanders suppose her to be going to weep at her brother's
tomb ; who, when she sees Jesus, falls down at His feet ; who,
uttering the same words of faith in His power as Martha, does
not qualify them with the same reservation ; who infects all the
bystanders with the intensity of her sorrow, and crushes the
human spirit of our Lord Himself with sympathetic grief.

And when we turn to the second occasion in which the two
sisters are introduced by St John, the contrast is still the same.
Martha is busied in the homely duties of hospitality towards
Jesus and her other guests ; but Mary brings her choicest and
most precious gift to bestow upon Him, at the same time
showing the depth of her humility and the abandonment of her
devotion by wiping His feet with her hair.

In all this narrative the Evangelist does not once direct
attention to the contrast between the two sisters. He simply

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 39

relates the events of which he was an eye-witness without a
comment. But the two were real, living persons, and therefore
the difference of character between them develops itself in
action.

I have shown hitherto that, whatever touchstone we apply,
the Fourth Gospel vindicates itself as a trustworthy narrative,
which could only have proceeded from a contemporary and an
eye-witness. But nothing has hitherto been adduced which
leads to the identification of the author as the Apostle St John.
Though sufficient has been said to vindicate the authenticity,
the genuineness is yet untouched.

It is said by those who deny its apostolic origin, that the
unknown author, living in the middle of the second century,
and wishing to gain a hearing for a modified gospel suited
to the wants of his age, dropped his own personality and
shielded himself under the name of St John the son of
Zebedee.

Is this a true representation of the fact ? Is it not an
entire though unconscious misrepresentation ? John is not
once mentioned by name throughout the twenty-one chapters
of this Gospel. James and John, the sons of Zebedee, occupy a
prominent place in all the other Evangelists. In this Fourth
Gospel alone neither brother's name occurs. The writer does
once, it is true, speak of the ' sons of Zebedee ' ; but in this
passage, which occurs in the last chapter (xxi. 2), there is not
even the faintest hint of any connexion between the writer
himself and this pair of brothers. He mentions them in the
third person, as he might mention any character whom he had
occasion to introduce.

Now is not this wholly unlike the proceeding of a forger
who was simulating a false personality ? Would it not be
utterly irrational under these circumstances to make no
provision for the identification of the author, but to leave
everything to the chapter of accidents ? No discredit, indeed,
is thrown on the genuineness of a document by the fact that

40 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the author's name appears on the forefront. This is the case
with the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides ; it is the case
also with the Epistles of Paul and Peter and James, and with
the Apocalypse of John. But, on the supposition of forgery, it
was a matter of vital moment that the work should be accepted
as the genuine production of its pretended author. The two
instances of early Christian forgeries which I brought forward
in an earlier part of this lecture will suffice as illustrations.
The Gospel of the Infancy closes with a distinct declaration
that it was written by James. The Clementine Homilies affirm
the pretended authorship in the opening words, 'I Clement,
being a Roman citizen.' Even if our supposed forger could
have exercised this unusual self-restraint in suppressing the
simulated author's name, would he not have made it clear by
some allusion to his brother James, or to his father Zebedee, or
to his mother Salome ? The policy which he has adopted is as
suicidal as it is unexpected.

How then do we ascertain that it was written by John the
son of Zebedee ? I answer, first of all, that it is traditionally
ascribed to him, as the Phcedo is ascribed to Plato, or the
Antigone to Sophocles; and, secondly, that from a careful
examination of indirect allusions and casual notices, from a
comparison of things said and things unsaid, we arrive at the
same result by a process independent of external tradition.
But a forger could not have been satisfied with trusting to
either of these methods. External tradition was quite beyond
the reach of his control. In this particular case, as we shall see,
the critical investigation requisite is so subtle, and its subject-
matter lies so far below the surface, that a forger, even
supposing him capable of constructing the narrative, would
have defeated his own purpose by making such demands on his
readers.

For let us follow out this investigation. In the opening
chapter of the Gospel there is mention of a certain disciple
whose name is not given (i. 35, 37, 40). This anonymous
person (for it is a natural, though not a certain inference, that

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 41

the same is meant throughout) reappears again in the closing
scene before and after the passion, where he is distinguished as
'the disciple whom Jesus loved.' At length, but not till the
concluding verses of the Gospel, we are told that this anony-
mous disciple is himself the writer : ' This is the disciple which
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things.'

In accordance with this statement we find that those
particular scenes in which this anonymous disciple is recorded
as taking a part are related with peculiar minuteness and
vividness of detail. Such is the case, for instance, with the
notices of the Baptist and of the call of the earliest disciples.
Such again is the case with the conversation at the last supper,
with the scene over the fire in the hall of Caiaphas's house,
with certain other incidents connected with the crucifixion, and
with the scene on the Lake of Galilee after the resurrection.

Who then is this anonymous disciple ? On this point the
Gospel furnishes no information. We arrive at the identifica-
tion, partly by a process of exhaustion, partly by attention to
some casual incidents and expressions.

Comparing the accounts in the other Gospels, it seems safe
to assume that he was one of the inner circle of disciples. This
inner circle comprised the two pairs of brothers, Peter and
Andrew, James and John if indeed Andrew deserves a place
here. Now he cannot have been Andrew, because Andrew
appears in company with him in the opening chapter ; nor can
he have been Peter, because we find him repeatedly associated
with Peter in the closing scenes. Again, James seems to be
excluded; for James fell an early martyr, and external and
internal evidence alike point to a later date for this Gospel.
Thus by a process of exhaustion we are brought to identify him
with John the son of Zebedee.

With this identification all the particulars agree.

First. He is called among the earliest disciples ; and from
his connexion with Andrew (i. 40, 44) it may be inferred that
he was a native of Bethsaida in the neighbourhood.

Secondly. At the close of his Master's life, and after his

42 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Master's resurrection, we find him especially associated with
Simon Peter. This position exactly suits John, who in the
earliest days of the Church takes his place by the side of Peter
in the championship of faith.

Thirdly. Unless the beloved disciple be John the son of
Zebedee, this person who occupies so prominent a place in the
account of the other Evangelists, and who stood in the fore-
most rank in the estimation of the early Church as a pillar
Apostle, does not once appear in the Fourth Gospel, except in
the one passage where ' the sons of Zebedee ' are mentioned
and summarily dismissed in a mere enumeration of names.
Such a result is hardly credible.

Lastly. Whereas in the other Evangelists John the Baptist
is very frequently distinguished by the addition of this surname,
and always so distinguished where there is any possibility of
confusing him with the son of Zebedee, in this Gospel alone the
forerunner is never once called John the Baptist. To others
some distinguishing epithet seemed needed. To the son of
Zebedee there was only one famous John : and therefore when
he had occasion to mention him, he naturally spoke of him as
John simply, without any addition. Is it conceivable, I would
ask, that any forger would have lost sight of himself so com-
pletely, and used natural language of John the son of Zebedee
with such success, as to observe this very minute and unob-
trusive indication of personality ?

I have addressed myself more directly to the theory of the
Tubingen school, either as propounded by Baur, or as modified
by later critics, which denies at once the historical character of
this Gospel and its apostolic authorship, and places it in the
middle or latter half of the second century. But there is an
intermediate position between rejecting its worth as a historic
record and accepting St John as its author, and this position
has been taken up by some. They suppose it to have been
composed by some disciple or disciples of St John from remi-
niscences of their master's teaching, and thus they are prepared

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 1. 43

to allow that it contains some historical matter which is valu-
able. You will have seen however that most of the arguments
adduced, though not all, are equally fatal to this hypothesis as
the other. The process by which, after establishing its authen-
ticity, we succeeded in identifying its author is, if I mistake
not, alone sufficient to overthrow this solution. Indeed this
theory is exposed to a double set of objections, and it has
nothing to recommend it.

I have already taken up more time than I had intended, and
yet I feel that very much has been left unsaid. But I venture
to hope that certain lines of investigation have been indicated,
which, if carefully and soberly followed out, can only lead to
one result. Whatever consequences may follow from it, we are
compelled on critical grounds to accept this Fourth Gospel as
the genuine work of John the son of Zebedee.

Some among my hearers perhaps may be disappointed that
I have not touched on some well-known difficulties, though
these have been grossly exaggerated. Some have to be satis-
factorily explained ; of others probable, or at least possible,
solutions have been given ; while others still remain on which
we are obliged to suspend judgment until some new light of
history is vouchsafed. It is not from too much light, but from
too little light, that the historical credibility of this Gospel has
suffered. Each new discovery made, each old fact elucidated,
sets at rest some disputed question. If the main fact of the
genuineness be established, the special difficulties can well
afford to wait.

One word more, and I conclude. I have treated this as a
purely critical question, carefully eschewing any appeal to
Christian instincts. As a critical question I wish to take a
verdict upon it. But as I could not have you think that I am
blind to the theological issues directly or indirectly connected
with it, I will close with this brief confession of faith. I believe
from my heart that the truth which this Gospel more especially
enshrines the truth that Jesus Christ is the very Word

44 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Incarnate, the manifestation of the Father to mankind is the
one lesson which, duly apprehended, will do more than all our
feeble efforts to purify and elevate human life here by im-
parting to it hope and light and strength, the one study which
alone can fitly prepare us for a joyful immortality hereafter.

[1871.]

II.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL.

Printed from Lecture-notes.

II.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL,

PT1HE genuineness of St John's Gospel is the centre of the
position of those who uphold the historical truth of the
record of our Lord Jesus Christ given us in the New Testament.
Hence the attacks of the opponents of revealed religion are
concentrated upon it. So long however as it holds its ground,
these assaults must inevitably prove ineffective. The assailants
are of two kinds : (1) those who deny the miraculous element in
Christianity Rationalists, (2) those who deny the distinctive
character of Christian doctrine Unitarians. The Gospel con-
fronts both. It relates the most stupendous miracle in the
history of our Lord (short of the Incarnation and the Resurrec-
tion), the raising of Lazarus. Again, it enunciates in the most
express terms the Divinity, the Deity, of our Lord. And yet at
the same time it professes to have been written by the one man,
of all others, who had the greatest opportunities of knowing
the truth. The testimony of St Paul might conceivably be
set aside, as of one who was not an eye-witness. But here we
have, not an eicrpw^a 1 , not a personal disciple merely, not one
of the twelve only, but the one of the twelve the Apostle who
leaned on his Master's bosom, who stood by his Master's cross,
who entered his Master's empty grave. If therefore the claim
of this Gospel to be the work of John the son of Zebedee be
true, if in other words the Fourth Gospel be genuine, the most

1 1 Cor. xv. 8.

48 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

formidable, not to say an insuperable, obstacle stands in the
way of both classes of antagonists. Hence the persistence and
the ingenuity of the attacks ; and hence also the necessity of a
thoroughness in the defence. No apology therefore is needed,
if the subject should seem dry and uninviting.

And details too are necessary. For the nature of the proof
is cumulative. Some points which I shall have to urge may
seem weak. The allusions to the Gospel in many cases are
uncertain or anonymous. But they must be taken pro tanto.
To borrow a mechanical simile, evidence for the authenticity of
a document is not like a chain, where the strength of the whole
is the strength of its weakest link. It is like the supports of a
building, where the strength is in the aggregate. One pillar
may be weak, or may fall ; but the superstructure will still
remain, for each instance is independent of the others.

Consequently, considerable mental effort is necessary in
order to keep in view all the elements of a cumulative proof.
We are apt to concentrate our attention on that which is last,
or that which is exceptional. If then the last argument stated
is weak, or if anywhere there is one argument exceptionally
weak, we may leap to the conclusion that the whole is weak.
This is manifestly a false mode of arguing, and we must con-
stantly be on our guard against its subtle influence.

Hence the necessity of keeping the whole in view. We
shall be occupied during the present term with the external
evidence. But the external evidence is not all. And in sum-
ming up in our own minds the results which we shall obtain,
we must not forget what lies beyond what will occupy us
probably next term the reinforcement of the internal evidence.
For the present however we shall confine ourselves to the
former. And we cannot help being struck at the outset by
the inadequacy of treatment which the question has met with
in the prolegomena of the majority of commentators. An
allusion to Theophilus, to Irenseus, to Eusebius, an apology,
somewhat lame, for the silence of Papias, and the whole
subject is briefly and summarily dismissed. Now the injury

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 49

done to the cause of revealed truth by this method of treat-
ment is very serious, and has resulted in an undue disparage-
ment of the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel. On this
point I cannot do better than quote so temperate and judicious
a writer as Mr Sanday, who, in his introduction to his work on
the Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel,
when stating his reasons for confining himself to the internal
evidence, writes as follows:

' Several reasons seem to make this limitation of treatment desir-
able. The subject of the external evidence has been pretty well fought
out. The opposing parties are probably as near to an agreement as
they ever will be. It will hardly be an unfair statement of the case
for those who reject the Johannean authorship of the Gospel to say
that the external evidence is compatible with that supposition. And
on the other hand, we may equally say for those who accept the
Johannean authorship, that the external evidence would not be suf-
ficient alone to prove it. As it at present stands, the controversy
may be regarded as drawn ; and it is not likely that the position of
parties will be materially altered' (p. 3).

Now I hope to show that there is no deficiency of testimony
(considering the nature of the subject), that on the contrary
there is a vast body of evidence of various kinds, which cannot
be set aside ; that the result is a very powerful argument in
favour of the genuineness ; and that therefore, when we enter
upon the question of internal evidence, we shall enter upon it
with a very strong weight of evidence in support of St John's
authorship, which can only be counterbalanced by powerful
considerations on the other side.

But, before commencing the investigation, let us first see
what is the nature of the antagonism with which we have to
deal. The history of the controversy may be seen in Bleek 1 .
Briefly stated, the position of affairs is this. The universal
reception of the Gospel as the work of St John (with the
exception of an obscure sect 2 ) up to the close of the last
century has been assailed since the early years of the present

1 Bleek Beitrdge zur Evangelien- 2 The Alogi, on whom see below,
Kritik (1846). pp. 115 sq.

L. E. 4

50 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

century by a series of writers, who unite in denying the
Johannine authorship, and place the date somewhere in the
middle or latter half of the second century.

I give the names of the principal exponents of the new
view, with the dates which they respectively assign for the
authorship :

BRETSCHNEIDER Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Joannis Apo-
stoli indole et origine Leipzig 1820. He expressed himself vaguely as to the
date, but apparently placed it at the beginning or middle of the second
century. After two years, in the preface to his Handbuch der Dogmatik
1822, he withdrew his conclusions, and declared his conviction that the
Johannine authorship was finally established.

LUTZELBERGER Die kirchliche Tradition ilber den Apostel Johannes und
seine Schriften in Hirer Grundlosiglceit nachgewiesen Leipzig 1840. He con-
siders that the Gospel was written near Edessa, about 135-140.

BAUR first expressed his views on the Johannine question in the
Theologische Jahrbucher Tubingen 1844. He fixes the date somewhere
about 160-170, and this is the view of the older Tubingen School.

HILGENFELD Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem
Lehrbegriff (1849). He considers that the Fourth Gospel took its rise
in the middle of the second century owing to the prevalence of the
Valentinian Gnosis.

SCHOLTEN, professor at Leyden, and head of the modern Dutch
negative school, in his work entitled Het Evangelie naar Johannes
(1864-6) places the writing of the Fourth Gospel in 150, but considers
that it was interpolated subsequently. In a later work De oudste getui-
genissen (1867) he throws the date back later still to 170.

TAYLER, J. J. An attempt to ascertain the character of the Fourth
Gospel, especially in its relation to the Three First London 1867. In
reading this work we cannot fail to be struck with its evident sincerity ;
at the same time it exhibits singular deficiency in the enumeration of
facts, and looseness in the treatment of them. Tayler's conclusion is that
the Fourth Gospel was written after 135 and before 163 (p. 151). And yet
(p. 155) he suggests that 'John the Presbyter' is the author of the book
John the Presbyter, of whom we only know that he was a personal
disciple of our Lord.

KEIM Geschichte Jesu von Nazara (1867) ascribes the Fourth Gospel to
the reign of Trajan, A.D. 98-117.

RENAN in the first edition of his Vie de Je'sus (1863) considers that our
Fourth Gospel is based upon the genuine work of St John, but edited by his
disciples at the end of the first century. M. Renan's view has fluctuated
in subsequent editions of his book.

In reviewing this list of writers, we cannot fail to be struck

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 51

with two facts: (1) the variety of their opinions; (2) their
gradual retrogression from the extreme position taken up at
first. The pressure of facts has compelled them to abandon
one position after another, and to approximate more and more
closely to the traditional view.

I. THE CHURCHES OF ASIA MINOR.

Unless we are prepared to reject without a hearing all the
traditions of Christianity, we cannot refuse to believe that the
latest years of the Apostle St John were spent in the Roman
province of Asia and chiefly in Ephesus its capital. This
tradition is singularly full, consistent and well-authenticated 1 .
Here he gathered disciples about him, organized churches,
appointed bishops and presbyters. A whole chorus of voices
unite in bearing testimony to its truth. One who passed his
earlier life in these parts and had heard his aged master, a
disciple of St John himself, recount his personal reminiscences
of the great Apostle 2 ; another, who held this very see of
Ephesus and writing less than a century after the Apostle's
death was linked with the past by a chain of relatives all
bishops in the Christian Church 3 ; a third who also flourished
about the close of the century and numbered among his
teachers an old man from this very district 4 are the principal,
because the most distinct, witnesses to a fact which is implied
in several other notices of earlier or contemporary writers.

As to the time at which St John left his original home and
settled in this new abode no direct account is preserved; but
a very probable conjecture may be hazarded. The impending

1 Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39 ; sources of these quotations Gaul,

Iren. ii. 22. 5, Fragm. 2 (p. 822 Stieren) Asia Minor, Alexandria, Rome, Car-

etc.; Polycrates in Eus. H. E. v. 24; thage, Syria is worth noticing.

Apollonius in Eus. H. E. v. 18 ; Clem. 2 Irenaeus.

Alex. Quis div. salv. 42 (p. 958); cf. 3 Polycrates.

Can. Mur. (p. 17 ed. Tregelles), Tertull. 4 Clement of Alexandria. One of his

adv. Marc. iv. 5, Praescr. Haer. 32, teachers was an Ionian Greek (Strom.

Ancient Syriac Documents pp. 32, 34 i. 1. 11 p. 322) ; see below, p. 92.
(ed. Cureton). The variety of the

52 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

fall of the Holy City was the signal for the dispersion of the
followers of Christ. About this same time the three other
great Apostles, St Peter, St Paul and St James, died a martyr's
death ; and on St John, the last surviving of the four great
pillars of the Church, devolved the work of developing the
theology of the Gospel and completing the organization of the
Church. It was not unnatural that at such a crisis he should
fix his residence in the centre of a large and growing Christian
community, which had been planted by the Apostle of the
Gentiles, and watered by the Apostle of the Circumcision 1 .
The missionary labours of St Paul and St Peter in Asia Minor
were confirmed and extended by the prolonged residence of
their younger contemporary. At all events such evidence as
we possess is favourable to this view of the date of St John's
settlement at Ephesus. Assuming that the Apocalypse is the
work of the beloved Apostle 2 , and accepting the view which
assigns it to the close of Nero's reign or thereabouts, we find
him now for the first time in the immediate neighbourhood
of Asia Minor and in direct communication with Ephesus and
the neighbouring Churches.

St John however was not alone. Whether drawn thither
by the attraction of his presence or acting in pursuance of some
common agreement, the few surviving personal disciples of the
Lord would seem to have chosen Asia Minor as their permanent
abode, or at all events as their recognised headquarters. Here
at least we meet with the friend of St John's youth and perhaps
his fellow-townsman, Andrew of Bethsaida 3 , who with him had
first listened to John the Baptist and with him also had been
the earliest to recognise Jesus as the Christ 4 . Here too we

1 On the relation of the Apostles to indeed use it against the Gospel, it
the Ephesian Church see Theod. Mops. may be urged.

praef. in epist. ad Ephesos. 3 See the account in Anc. Syr.

2 If the Apocalypse be conceded, the Documents, p. 25.

testimony is decisive. And as oppo- 4 Can. Mur. (revelatum Andreae ex

nents with very few exceptions (Scholten apostolis), p. 17 ed. Tregelles, Anc.

is one) allow the genuineness, and Syr. Doc. pp. 32, 34.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 53

encounter Philip the Evangelist 1 with his daughters, and
perhaps also Philip of Bethsaida, the Apostle 2 . Here also
was settled the Apostle's namesake, John the Presbyter, also
a personal disciple of Jesus, and one Aristion, not otherwise
known to us 3 , who likewise had heard the Lord. And possibly
also other Apostles whose traditions Papias recorded, Matthew
and Thomas and James, may have had some connexion, tem-
porary or permanent, with this district.

Thus surrounded by the surviving disciples of the Lord, by
bishops and presbyters of his own appointment, and by the
pupils who gathered about him and looked to him for instruc-
tion, St John was the focus of a large and active society of
believers 4 . In this respect he holds a unique position among
the great teachers of the new faith. St Peter and St Paul
converted disciples and organized congregations ; St John alone
was the centre of a school. His life prolonged till the close of
the century, when the Church was firmly rooted and widely
extended, combined with his fixed abode in the centre of an
established community to give a certain definiteness to his
personal influence which would be wanting to the wider labours
of these strictly missionary preachers. Hence the notices of
St John have a more solid basis and claim greater attention
than stories relating to the other Apostles.

This fact is significant for the preservation of a tradition,
especially one so important as that of the authorship of the
Gospel. But there is another point, which increases the
value of the tradition itself, viz., the longevity of the principal
witnesses. Of St John himself we are told that he ' lived to the
times of Trajan 5 .' His pupil Poly carp, who suffered martyrdom

1 Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39; (condiscipulis et episcopis suis) ; Epiph.
Polycrates in Eus. H. E. iii. 31, v. 24; li. 6 (pp. 427, 8).

Gains in Eus. H. E. iii. 31 ; cf. Clem. 5 Iren. ii. 22. 5. The date of Tra-

Alex. in Eus. H. E. iii. 30. jan's accession is A.D. 98. According to

2 See my Colossians, p. 45 sq. the ChroniconPaschaleSt John survived

3 Papias, 1. c. till A.D. 104 ; see Clinton Fast . Rom. i.

4 Iren. ii. 22. 5 ; Clem. Alex. Quis p. 87.
div. salv. 42 (p. 958), Can. Mur. I. c.

54 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

A.D. 155 or 156 1 , speaks of himself at the time of his death as
having ' served Christ fourscore and six years 2 .' The expression
in the original may leave some doubt whether these eighty-six
years should be reckoned from his birth or from his conversion,
though the former would be the more natural interpretation.
But in any case he must have been born not later than A.D. 70.
And as Polycarp was the disciple of St John, so Irenseus was
the disciple of Polycarp. Again, of Pothinus bishop of Lyons
we are told 3 that he was more than ninety years old when he
suffered in the persecution of the Churches of Vienne and
Lyons (A.D. 177). The date of his birth therefore cannot be
later than A.D. 87. A later tradition 4 makes him a native of
Asia Minor ; and this would be a highly probable supposition,
even if unsupported by direct evidence. But whether an
Asiatic Greek or not, he must have been a lad when St John
died. And Irenaeus was the successor of Pothinus in the see of
Lyons. Thus one link only, and that a double one, connects
the life of the traditional author of the Fourth Gospel with
Irenaeus who preserves the tradition in writing ; and two long
lives, St John and Polycarp, link the personal ministry of our
Lord with the latter half of the second century 5 .

Of the traditions of this school, Irenseus, who had been

1 [On the question of the date of stances in the text are thoroughly
Polycarp's martyrdom see Apostolic substantiated, and can easily be paral-
Fathers (Part 11.), vol. i. pp. 646 sq. leled. Thus three Lord Chancellors
(ed. 2).] since the Eeforrn Bill (Brougham,

2 Mart. Polyc. 9 dydo^Kovra Kal l Lyndhurst and St Leonards) have lived
%TT\ 2x w SouXetfow ctury [see the note on to be 90. The longevity of the most dis-
the passage in Apostolic Fathers (Part tinguished German professors has been
ii.), vol. in. p. 379 (ed. 2)]; cf. Iren. iii. remarkable. Boeckh died at eighty-one,
3. 4 <?7ri7roXi> yap irap^etve Kal iravv Humboldt at eighty-nine, Eanke [and
777paX^os.../ia/>TU/>^<ras ^Xfle rov fiiov. Dollinger] at [ninety]. For the great age

3 Eus. H. E. v. 1. of the Jewish rabbi Hillel seeEtheridge

4 See the references in Tillemont Jerus. and Tiber, p. 33. The simple life
Hemoires n. p. 343. of the early Christians had probably a

5 There was doubtless a tendency great deal to do with this ; see Southey
to exaggeration in this matter, e.g. in Lifeof Wesley n.pp. 273 sq., 284(1858),
Christian Essene sources, where the and compare Josephus B. J. ii. 8. 10,
age of Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, who states that the Essenes often
is given as 120 years. But the in- lived virtp eKarbv try.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 55

educated in Asia Minor, though his later life was spent in
Gaul, is the principal witness. He was a pupil of St John's
personal disciple Polycarp, whom he mentions more than once.
He set great store on these traditions as representing most
truly the primitive teaching of the Church, and appeals to them
again and again with confidence. On one occasion, writing to
Florinus, whom he had known in youth as a fellow-pupil of
Polycarp, but who in after years had taken up heretical views,
he urges that these are not the doctrines delivered to him, by
the Elders, who were before them, who also associated with the
Apostles, and he appeals to his reminiscences of their common
master in this language :

' I distinctly remember (8iafj.vrjp.ovcva>) the incidents of that time
better than events of recent occurrence ; for the lessons received in
childhood, growing with the growth of the soul, become identified
with it; so that I can describe the very place in which the blessed
Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his
comings in, and his manner of life (rbv x a P aicr *IP a T v ^ t/ou ) an d his
personal appearance, and the discourses which he held before the
people ; and how he would describe his intercourse with John and
with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their
words. And what were the accounts he had heard from them about
the Lord, and about His miracles, and about His teaching, how
Polycarp, as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of
the Word (T&V UVTOTTT^V TTJS <0rjs TOV Adyou) used to give an account
harmonizing on all points with the Scriptures (navra o-vptycova rals
ypa<pals). To these (discourses) I used to listen at the time with
attention by God's mercy which was bestowed upon me, noting them
down, not on paper, but in my heart ; and by the grace of God, I
constantly ruminate upon them faithfully (yvrjo-iws) V

As regards this whole extract it will suffice to notice
(1) the opportunities of the witness, (2) the thoroughness of
the evidence (Trdvra o-v/j,<f>Q)va rat? ypatials). In more than
one passage also of his great work he refers to the ' Church of
Ephesus 2 / or to the Elders who associated with John in Asia.

It was not the object of Irenaeus to defend the authorship
of the Fourth Gospel, for his Valentinian antagonists not only

1 Bus. H. E. v. 20. 2 Iren. v. 33. 4.

56 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

accepted it as genuine, but even set an exclusive value on it ;
and therefore any testimony to its authorship from the earlier
school of Asia Minor which may be gathered from his writings
is incidental. But any such testimony must have the highest
value.

1. It can hardly be doubted that THE ELDERS whom
Irenaeus quotes, and quotes for the most part anonymously,
belonged to this school. Of Polycarp and Papias, of whom the
former 'is mentioned several times by him and the latter once
casually, this is certain. I shall endeavour immediately to
discriminate the several persons whom he thus quotes by the
topics on which they write or speak ; but, before doing so, one
reference to such anonymous authority deserves attention, where
Irenaeus refers not to individual opinion, but to the collective
testimony of all the Elders who associated with St John 1 . It
relates to a question of chronology. His Valentinian adversaries
laid great stress on the number ' thirty.' Their celestial hier-
archy comprised thirty aeons, and they appealed to the thirty
years' duration of our Lord's life. This computation of the
Gospel chronology they derived from the notices in St Luke,
interpreted by themselves 2 . At the commencement of His
ministry, they contended, He was entering upon His thirtieth
year, and His ministry itself lasted a twelvemonth, the
'acceptable year of the Lord' foretold by the Prophet.
Irenaeus in reply expresses his 'great astonishment' that
persons professing to understand the deep things of God
should have overlooked the commonest facts of the Gospel
narrative, and points to the three passovers recorded in
St John's Gospel during the term of our Lord's life ( 3).
Independently of the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus
has an a priori reason why the Saviour must have lived more
than thirty years. He came to sanctify every time of life,
infancy, childhood, youth, declining age. It was therefore

1 Iren. ii. 22. tinians, whom Irenams here opposes,

2 On the chronology of the Valen- see Epiph. Haer. li. 20 (p. 450).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 57

necessary that He should have passed the turn of middle
life. ' From thirty to forty/ he argues, ' a man is reckoned
young, but from his fortieth and fiftieth year he is already
declining into older age, which was the case with our Lord
when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders who
associated with John the disciple of the Lord testify that
John delivered his account. For he remained with them
(TrepiefjLeivev avTois) till the times of Trajan. Some of them
saw not only John but other disciples also, and heard these very-
things from their own lips (ab ipsis), and bear testimony to
such an account (de huiusmodi relatione)' ( 4). Irenseus goes
on to argue that the same may be inferred from the language
of our Lord's Jewish opponents, who asked, ' Thou art not yet
fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham ? ' (John viii. 57).
This, he contends, is properly said to one who had already lived
more than forty years, but had not yet reached his fiftieth year,
though not far off his fiftieth year ( 6).

On this passage three points are to be remarked. (1) The
Valentinian chronology was derived from an obvious, though
not a necessary, interpretation of the synoptic narrative, more
especially of St Luke 1 , while, on the other hand, the Asiatic
reckoning, which Irenaeus maintains, was, or might have been,
founded on the Fourth Gospel, whereas it could not possibly
have been suggested or elicited from the first three indepen-
dently of the fourth, whether reconcilable with them or not 2 .
(2) Irenaeus does not commit the Elders of the Asiatic School
to his own interpretation of the passage quoted from St John's
Gospel, nor to his own view that our Lord was close upon fifty
years old. He only asserts that the Gospel and the testimony
of all the Elders together support the view that our Lord was

1 St Luke iii. 1, 23 ; iv. 19. ing to subject and treatment. But

2 St John is our authority for the still, though the Synoptic Gospels are
chronology of our Lord's ministry. consistent with a more lengthened
In the Synoptic Gospels it is highly ministry, they do not suggest it, and
probable that the sequence of events thus the argument given above, that a
is not strictly chronological, but that knowledge by the Elders of the Fourth
in places incidents are grouped accord- Gospel may be assumed, is justified.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

past middle life; and the vagueness of his language at this
point may suggest the inference that he had their testimony
distinctly on his side as against the Valentinian chronology, but
that it did not go beyond this 1 . (3) So far as the chronology of
the Asiatic School is known from other sources, the statement
of Irenseus is confirmed ; for the Asiatic reckoning was dis-
tinctly based on the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. This is
the case with the duration of our Lord's ministry 2 as given by
Melito, and the time of the Crucifixion as given by Claudius
Apollinaris, to both which writers I shall have to refer hereafter 3 .
From this general notice of the Asiatic Elders I turn to the
opinions of individuals belonging to this school, as reported by
Irenseus. As these opinions are given anonymously and scat-
tered throughout his work, we can only separate one authority
from another by considering the subject-matter and treatment.

1 The argument from John viii. 57
is clearly Irenasus' own, and is not
justified by the passage itself. And
this suggests the probability that much
besides is his. We cannot safely as-
sume that the a priori argument is
taken from the Elders, or that the term
of years was extended by them beyond
forty. Irenasus classes together evan-
gelium et omnes seniores. It is a legiti-
mate assumption that the testimony
of the Elders went as far as the evan-
gelium and no further.

2 It may be interesting to consider
what was the term of our Lord's
life. The chief data are as follows :
(a) Matt. ii. 16, 22 the death of Herod,
which occurred March B.C. 4, see Clin-
ton Fast. Hell, sub anno. Thus the
Nativity might have taken place in
the year B.C. 5 or B.C. 6. (b) Luke
iii. 1, 23 our Lord's Baptism, and the
commencement of His ministry, stated
to have been ' in the fifteenth year of
the reign of Tiberius Caesar' when
our Lord was 'about thirty years
old (uxrei tr&v Tptd/covra).' As Sept.

A.D. 28 was the beginning of the fift-
eenth year of Tiberius, our Lord would
be 32 or 33 years old, which does not
conflict with St Luke's statement,
(c) Matt, xxvii. 2 the Passion under
Pontius Pilate. We learn from Jo-
sephus Ant. xvm. 4. 3 that Pilate was
sent to Rome by Vitellius to answer
charges made against him, and that
before he arrived Tiberius had died,
and Caius (Caligula) had succeeded.
Now Tiberius died March A.D. 37.
Therefore the passover of the Passion
might have been as late as Easter
A.D. 36, but could not be later. Thus it
is possible that our Lord did live to be
over forty years of age; for we have
no right to assume that St John gives
all the passovers which occurred during
the ministry. On the whole, however,
a ministry of not more than three or
four years seems the more probable
view.

3 See below, p. 72 sq. For the refer-
ences to Melito and Claudius Apolli-
naris see Routh Reliq. Sacr. i. pp. 121,
124, 160.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 59

This criterion of course may be fallacious ; and allowance must
be made for the possibility of separating one authority into two
or more, or again of counting two or more authorities as one.
But the argument will not be materially affected by allowance
made for errors which may occur on either side. Judging then
by the subject-matter, I find that the following authorities are
referred to :

(1) A person quoted with great respect as 'one better than
us' [o Kpeia-crwv rjjjbwv (i. praef. 2 sq., i. 13. 3), superior nobis (iii.
17. 4)], in another as 'the divine old man and herald of the
truth, the old man beloved of God ' (i. 15. 6). Anyone who will
compare these references together cannot hesitate, I think, to
see that they allude to one and the same person. He is a
writer, as may be inferred both from the manner and from the
subject of the references. His style is epigrammatic and
telling, full of quaint metaphors and pointed sayings, and on
one occasion he runs off into iambic verse which is more
vigorous than rhythmical. The work which Irenseus quotes is
directed against heresies of the magico-gnostic school, and
more especially against Marcus.

(2) An ' Elder of a bygone generation' (de antiquis presbyter),
a 'primitive character' (iv. 31. 1), an 'elder and disciple of the
Apostles ' (iv. 32. 1), or, as he is elsewhere more precisely de-
scribed, ' an elder who had heard from those who had seen the
Apostles and from those who had learnt ' [ab his qui didicerunt
i.e. from personal disciples of the Lord (iv. 27. 1)]. Irenaaus
quotes at some length the opinion of this presbyter. From the
form of quotation it appears that he is relating oral discourses
(perhaps from his own lecture-notes), and not any written
treatise of this elder (audivi a quodam presbytero. Huiusmodi
quoque disputabat). The subject of these discourses is the
relation of the two covenants, and the Elder defends the Old
Testament Saints, describing the office of the patriarchs as
witnesses of Christ.

60 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

(3) A single saying is quoted as from ' one of the ancients '
(quidam ex veteribus ait), apparently from a written treatise,
that God cursed not Adam but the earth in (or through) his
works (iii. 23. 3).

(4) Irenaeus, in explaining the expression ' sons of God/
' sons of the devil/ refers to a distinction made by one of these
Elders. * A son, as also one before us said (dixit, or c has said/ etyrj
or i[pij/c6v), is understood in two senses : one is a son according
to nature, because he is born a son, another is reputed a son
according to what he has been made, though there is a differ-
ence between the one who is born such, and the one who is
made such ' (iv. 41. 2).

(5) Irenseus twice refers to some writing or writings, in
which the opinions of ' the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles/
on eschatological subjects are given. In one passage it is
declared that the Old Testament Saints have been transferred
to Paradise and there await the coming of the Lord (v. 5. 1).
The second, which is of considerable importance, runs as
follows :

As the Elders say, then also shall they which have been deemed
worthy of the abode in heaven go thither, while others shall enjoy
' the delight of paradise,' and others again shall possess the brightness
of the city (i.e. the New Jerusalem) ; for in every place the Saviour
shall be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. (They
say) moreover that this is the meaning of the distinction between the
habitation of them that bring forth a hundred-fold, and them that
bring forth sixty-fold, and them that bring forth thirty-fold ; of whom
the first shall be taken up into the heavens, and the second shall
dwell in paradise, and the third shall inherit the city ; and that there-
fore our Lord has said, ' In My Father's abode are many mansions '
(St John xiv. 2) ; for all things are of God, Who giveth to all their
appropriate dwelling, according as His Word saith that allotment is
made unto all by the Father, according as each man is, or shall be,
worthy. And this is the banquetiug-table, at which those are seated
who are called to the marriage and take part in the feast. The Elders,
the disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the arrangement and
disposal of them that are saved, and that they advance by such stages,
and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 61

Father, the Son at length yielding His work to the Father, as it is
said also by the Apostle, 'For He must reign until He putteth all
enemies under His feet, etc.' (v. 36. 1, 2) l .

Of these five Elders (assuming them to be distinct persons)
no coincidence with St John's Gospel can be traced in notices of
the first and third. Of the first, indeed, though he is appealed
to four times, only epigrammatic sentences against his heretical
antagonists are adduced, and these naturally do not give room
for any quotations from either the Old Testament or the New.
The third is represented by a single short sentence relating to
Adam's transgression, which from its brevity admits of no such
reference. The remaining three, the second, fourth and fifth,
all present more or less distinct coincidences with St John's
Gospel. Of the second Irenseus reports that he was wont to
say that the patriarchs and prophets gave thanks and gloried
in our salvation, where there is an obscure parallel to our Lord's
words in the Fourth Gospel, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to
see My day, and he saw it and was glad ' (John viii. 56). The
fourth is adduced to explain an expression especially character-
istic of St John ' sons of the devil 2 .' It is not certain indeed
from the language of Irenseus that this Elder actually used this
expression ; but it is at least more probable than not that the
distinction, which Irenseus quotes, was quoted by this father
i.e. to explain the words ' sons of the devil/ I shall presently
suggest a probable source from which this reference is taken 3 .
And, lastly, the fifth Elder distinctly quotes and explains a
saying of our Lord peculiar to the Fourth Gospel (xiv. 2). I
shall have something to say shortly about the name of this Elder
also 4 . At present it is sufficient to remark two things: first,

1 The references in Irenaeus to the which may represent either tyy or

five Elders are as follows : (1) Iren. i. etpriKev) ; (5) v. 5. 1, v. 36. 1, 2

praef. 2, i. 13. 3, i. 15. 6, iii. 17. 4 (written : \tyov<riv, Xtyovw).

(written: etp^rat, ^77, elirAv, dixit)', 2 See John viii. 44, 1 Joh. iii. 8,

(2) iv. 27. 1 sq., iv. 30. 1 sq., iv. 31. 1, 10; cf. Acts xiii. 10. The expression

iv. 32. 1, v. 17. 4 (oral : audivi, dice- is peculiar to St John among the

bat, reftciebat nos et dicebat, dispu- Evangelists.

tabat, #77); (3) iii. 23. 3 (written: 3 See below, p. 68.

ait); (4) iv. 41. 2 (doubtful: dixit, 4 See below, p. 67 sq.

62 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the form of the sentence shows that the quotation is given as
part of the Elder's own saying, and not of an after-comment of
Irenaeus ; and, secondly, as Irenaeus uses the present tense ' the
elders say' and yet the persons referred to belonged to a past
generation and were no longer living when he wrote, he must
be quoting from some written record, and therefore we cannot
suppose that he has unconsciously fused his own after-thought
with the original saying.

These references are anonymous. But Irenaeus likewise
mentions by name two of these Asiatic Elders who had conversed
with Apostles or personal disciples of the Lord, and of whom
something is also known from other sources, Polycarp and
Papias.

2. Of POLYCARP and his reminiscences of St John, as
recounted by his own pupil Irenaeus, I have already spoken 1 .
It is worth while to observe in passing that in the single
sentence in which he describes the conversation of Polycarp,
he represents him as retailing lessons which he professed to
have learnt ' from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word (napa
TWV avroTTTtov 7% &>?79 TOV Aoyov 2 )' an expression characteristic
of the writings of St John and suggesting that Irenaeus' recollec-
tions of Polycarp were intimately connected with those writings.
Of the many letters which Polycarp himself wrote, as Irenaeus
(in Eus. H. E. v. 20) tells us, ' either to the neighbouring
Churches to confirm them, or to individual brethren, to ad-
monish or encourage them,' only one remains. The extant
Epistle to the Philippians was written after the death of

1 See above, p. 54 sq. ^WT/S. Possibly there is an accidental

2 See above, p. 55. We might be transposition in the text of Irenseus
tempted to translate the passage 'from and we should read TOV A6yov rrjs fays,
the eyewitnesses of the Word of Life ' cf. Ign. Polyc. 5 els TI^V rrjs vapicos
(cf. 1 Joh. i. 1), but the Greek order TOV Kvpiov (v. Z. TOV KvpLov 7-775 crap/cos).
makes this impossible. Moreover the But it matters little for our immediate
expression avToirT^ TOV A.6yov occurs purpose. The personal use of 6 A.6yos
in Luke i. 2. On the other hand the is Johannine in either case. The
rendering 'from the eyewitnesses of Syriac translator has 'those who saw
the life (the earthly career) of the with their eyes the living Word.'
Word ' would require TOV piov for TTJS

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 63

Ignatius, but so soon after that Polycarp had not yet heard
the particulars. It may therefore be placed about the year
A.D. 110. The Epistle is not long and contains very few direct
references to the New Testament writings ; but numerous
passages, more or less exactly quoted, are embedded in it. For
the most part they are taken from the Epistles, as more suited
to the hortatory and didactic character of the letter, and the
references to the Gospels are very few. With the Fourth
Gospel no distinct coincidence is found ; but Polycarp was
evidently well acquainted with the First Epistle of St John,
for he writes ( 7) : * Every one that confesseth not that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh, is Antichrist 1 ; and whosoever
confesseth not the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil 1
(1 Job. iv. 3, compare 2 Job. 7, and shortly after ( 8)), ' but
He endured all for our sakes, that we might live through Him '
(1 Job. iv. 9). It will be shown hereafter that this First Epistle
was in all likelihood written at the same time with and attached
to the Gospel. At present I will assume that it proceeds from
the same author. There is a presumption therefore that the
Gospel also was known to this writer. At all events, the
quotations show that the writer of the Gospel flourished before
Polycarp wrote. And he is cited by this father, in the same way
in which our canonical writings, more especially the Epistles of
St Paul and St Peter, are cited.

3. PAPIAS of Hierapolis was a contemporary and a friend
of Polycarp. Whether he was a personal disciple of the Apostle
St John, as asserted by Irenseus, or only of a namesake of the
Apostle, the presbyter John, as Eusebius supposes, I will not
stop to enquire 2 . It is certain that he lived on the confines of

1 ira.3 yap 6s &v fjLrj ofj.o\oy-g 'Irjvovv 33. 4). On the other hand Eusebius,
Xpia-Tov ev vapid eX-rjXvdevai dcTi'x/H<rr65 who mentions this statement of Iren-
<TTI ( 7). [On the genuineness of aeus, remarks; 'Yet Papias himself,
Polycarp's Epistle see Apostolic Fathers in the preface to his discourses cer-
(Part ii.), i. p. 578 sq. (ed. 2).] tainly does not declare that he himself

2 Ireneeus speaks of Papias as 'a was a hearer and an eyewitness of
hearer of John' ('ludvvov d/covcrnjs v. the holy Apostles, but he shows, by

64 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the apostolic age, that he was acquainted with the daughters
of Philip, and that he conversed with two personal disciples of
the Lord, Aristion and John. He wrote an ' Exposition of our
Lord's Oracles' in five books, which he illustrated by oral
traditions. Its date is somewhat uncertain, but on the whole
it would appear to have been written in his old age, towards
the middle of the second century, not before 130 to 140. Of
this work only the most meagre fragments remain; but it is
distinctly stated by Eusebius, that he ' made use of testimonies
from the First (Trporepas) Epistle of John ' (H. E. iii. 39) 1 . We
cannot indeed assume from this notice that he mentioned the
Apostle by name as the author, or that the quotations were
given as quotations (for Eusebius uses this same expression of
the quotations from St Peter in Polycarp, where St Peter is
not so mentioned and the passages are indirectly quoted) ; but
it is a fair inference from the procedure of Eusebius elsewhere
that the passages were obvious quotations (otherwise he would
not have noticed them), and that the coincidence was not so
slight as to be accidental, but clearer than the quotation from
St John in Polycarp's epistle, which Eusebius does not mention.
In carrying over the evidence from the Epistle to the Gospel,
the same remark will apply, as in Polycarp's case.

But great stress has been laid on the silence of Eusebius,
as though it were inconsistent with the supposition that Papias
was acquainted with the Gospel. The historian quotes a few
lines from Papias, preserving some traditions respecting the
Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark which he related on the
authority of John the presbyter, but says nothing about the
Fourth Gospel. And the negative argument appears stronger,

the language which he uses, that he mation which were closed to Eusebius.

received the matters of the faith from Still Eusebius may have been right,

those who were his friends ' (H. E. iii. [See Essays on Supernatural Religion,

39). It is, however, not stated by p. 142 sq.]

Irenffius that he derived his knowledge l K^xpT rat & avrbs /JLapTvplau ajrb 7-775

from this preface, and from his fre- 'Iwdvvov Trportpas ^TnffTo\rjs, H. E. iii.

quent intercourse with Polycarp Iren- 39.
ceus doubtless had sources of infor-

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 65

when it is remembered that Eusebius elsewhere 1 declares his
intention of extracting from early writers such notices as bear
on the formation of the Canon.

Before accepting this hasty conclusion however, we must
answer two preliminary questions, the one following from the
other: (1) What is the practice of Eusebius elsewhere ? Does
he, or does he not, fulfil to the letter the intention thus expressed
relative to the Canon ? (2) If he does not, what principle of
selection, if any, does he follow here or elsewhere in omitting
or recording such notices ?

To the first of these questions the answer is decisive. The
Epistle of Clement besides many embedded quotations from
St Peter, St James, and St Paul, and a few from the Gospels
and Acts, refers by name to St Paul's First Epistle to the
Corinthians. Yet Eusebius says nothing of all this. He
mentions only its coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews
(H. E. iii. 38). The Epistle of Polycarp again, besides the
references to the Gospels mentioned above, is replete with the
most obvious quotations from St Paul, and in two passages refers
to his Epistles by name ( 3, 11). But Eusebius omits all
mention of these and simply says 'he employs some testimonies
from the First Epistle of Peter,' not mentioning even the coin-
cidences with St John's first Epistle (IT. E. iv. 14). His account
of Irenseus is equally defective. Excepting one or two of the
Catholic Epistles, Irenaeus, as is well known, quotes by name
all the canonical books of the New Testament, and most of
them repeatedly; yet Eusebius, after giving one passage con-
taining an account of the origin of the four Gospels, and another
referring to the Apocalypse, adds 'he makes mention also of
the First Epistle of John, adducing very many testimonies from
it, and in like manner of the First Epistle of Peter ' (H. E. v. 8).
If Irenaeus had been known to us only from the account of
Eusebius, it would doubtless have been inferred of him (as
even cautious writers have drawn this inference respecting

1 Eus. H. E. iii. 3.
L. E. 5

66 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Papias), that he ignored or repudiated the Acts of the Apostles
and all St Paul's Epistles.

It will then be seen that the mere silence of Eusebius
justifies no such inference. And, when we come to enquire
the grounds on which he has omitted or recorded notices,
I think it is impossible altogether to acquit him of a certain
carelessness or caprice. Yet, so far as he is guided by any
principle, it appears to be this. The four Gospels, the Acts of
the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of St Paul were universally
allowed as canonical. He therefore records no references to,
or quotations from, these, except such as contain some interest-
ing tradition respecting their origin or history, as e.g. in Papias
the account of the Hebrew original of St Matthew or the
Petrine authority of St Mark. On the other hand the authority
of the Apocalypse and of the Epistle to the Hebrews was
doubted ; and the limits of the Catholic Epistles also (e.g. how
many Epistles of St John or St Peter should be received) were
an open question. On these points therefore he is more full ;
and, though the First Epistle of St John and the First Epistle
of St Peter were not themselves questioned, yet their relation to
the others leads him to note where they are quoted as authori-
tative 1 . There is no reason therefore to suppose that, though
Papias might have quoted the Gospel of St John a score of
times, Eusebius would have cared to note the fact, unless the
notices contained some interesting particulars respecting its
origin and history.

And in his account of Papias there is less completeness
than usual in repeating the traditions of his author. The five
books of the Expositions were largely interspersed with such
traditions, which it would have been tedious to reproduce in
full. The millennarian views of Papias were repulsive to
Eusebius ; and the historian's impatience is very evident when
he is dealing with this author. He mentions the fact that

1 But even this rule he fails to yet in his account of Papias Eusebius
observe strictly, e.g. we know that does not mention the Apocalypse at
Papias commented on the Apocalypse, all.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 67

Papias records * other narratives of the aforesaid Aristion of our
Lord's discourses, and also traditions of the Elder John ' which
he does not repeat, and he contents himself with 'referring
(avaTre/jL-tyai) the studious readers (rot"? <f)i,\ofj,a66i<i) ' to the
book itself, professing to give what the exigencies of the case
demand and nothing more (avayKaia)?) on this head (H. E. iii.
39) 1 .

But there is also positive evidence very strong, though not
absolutely conclusive, that Papias did quote from this Gospel.
I have already mentioned the reference in the Asiatic Elder
cited by Irenaeus to our Lord saying 'In My Father's house are
many mansions.' If anyone will take the pains to read with
care from the thirty-third to the thirty-sixth chapter of the
fifth book of Irena3us continuously, he can hardly fail (I think)
to arrive at the conclusion that the Elder in question is none
other than Papias. In the thirty-third chapter he gives a
passage from Papias, and in the thirty-fifth comes this passage
from 'the Elders,' with which we are immediately concerned.
That they are taken from the same book, appears in the highest
degree probable from the following considerations. (1) Both
passages treat of the future kingdom of Christ, and both regard
it from the same point of view, as a visible and external king-
dom, in which the enjoyments are enjoyments of the senses.
(2) The subject is continuous, the matter which intervenes
between the two quotations extending over some pages but all
having reference to the same topic. (3) The authority in the
first quotation is 'the Elders who saw John the disciple of the
Lord' (33 3); in the second 'the Elders' (36 1) simply, and

1 But why should he mention St it. Early references to a Gospel which
Matthew and St Mark, without St was universally acknowledged had no
John? The answer is probably as interest for anyone, unless they con-
follows. Papias related curious facts tained some curious or important fact,
of the two former. These are retailed. If we are at a loss to say why Eusebius
If Papias simply quoted the Gospel of singled out 1 Peter and 1 John in the
St John (whether he mentioned John's case of Papias, we are equally at a
name or not), or if he only related loss to say why he should single out
what was known to everyone, there is 1 Peter in the case of Polycarp, except
no reason why Eusebius should state on the theory given above.

68 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

at the end 'the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles' (36 2).
At the close of the first quotation Irenseus adds, 'But these
things Papias also... testifies in writing in the fourth of his
books, for there are five books composed by him.' Papias
therefore reports the statements of these Elders as we know
from Eusebius that he did on several occasions, and there is no
difficulty about the authority in the first passage. But in the
second passage Irenseus fails to explain whom he meant by
' the Elders/ unless they are the same who have been mentioned
shortly before. Only on this supposition is the reference plain.
(4) I have pointed out before 1 that the manner of quotation
obliges us to suppose that Irenseus refers to a written document,
and not a mere oral tradition. This limits the possibilities of
the case : for (so far as we know) Polycarp and Papias are the
only writers who could satisfy the description. (5) The tenour
of the passage accords entirely with the known subject of
Papias' work, as described by its title * Expositions of Oracles of
the Lord.' We have here one of these explanations 2 .

It seems fairly probable too, that not only our fifth Elder,
but the fourth also, must be identified with Papias. His ex-
planation of 'sonship' would be framed to explain our Lord's
words addressed to the Jews : 'ye are of your father the devil/
Gnostic dualists would interpret these words to mean that the
old covenant was directly opposed to the new, and was the
work of the evil principle. To meet this argument the Elder
makes the distinction between sons by nature and sons by
habit. In the latter sense only the Jews were sons of the
devil. The explanation at all events is a close parallel to an
extant fragment of Papias, where he explains that 'those who
practised a godly innocence were called children' by the early
Christians 3 .

1 See above, p. 61 sq. title of Papias' work.

2 It is curious that Eusebius (H. E. 3 TOVS Kara Oebv aKaiciav dcr/cowra.*
v. 8), describing the work of the Elder TrcuSas e'/rd.Aow, ws /cat Ha-rrlas 77X0?
whom Irenseus quotes, calls it uncon- /3t/3My Trp^ry ru>v Kvpiaxuif tt-tjyfio-ewv.
sciously 6^777770-615 Beluv ypa^uv, an The extract is preserved in Maximus
expression almost identical with the Confessor's scholia to the work of

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2.

Lastly ; in the few lines which Eusebius quotes from the
preface of Papias, it is worth observing, first, that the names
which he places at the head of the list of authorities are those
of the Apostles known to us from the Fourth Gospel and from
this alone, Andrew, Philip, Thomas 1 : and secondly, that he
speaks of 'the truth itself 2 ,' meaning our Lord, in accordance
with the characteristic phraseology of this Gospel 3 .

But indeed, though the evidence is late and confused, we
are not without direct testimony that Papias was acquainted
with this Gospel. 'The Gospel of John was revealed (manifes-
tatum) and given to the Churches/ says an old Latin argument
to this Gospel 4 , ' by John while he still remained in the body
as one named Papias, of Hierapolis, a beloved disciple of John,
related in his five books (or in his fifth book) of Expositions 5 /

Dionysius Areopagiticus de eccl. hier-
arch. c. 2, and is given in South
Reliq. Sac. i. p. 8, Fragm. 2.

1 Ti 'Avdptas r) TL Utrpos tlirev ?} rl
4>iXt7T7roj ?? rl Qwfj.as (Papias in Eus.
H. E. iii. 29). Andrew, Peter and
Philip are mentioned together in St
John's Gospel as belonging to the
same place (John i. 44). Of Philip
nothing is recorded except in the
Fourth Gospel. The last remark ap-
plies also to Thomas.

2 ciTr' avT-fjs TTJS aXydcias Eus. I. c.;
cf. John v. 33, viii. 32, xiv. 6.

3 The story of the woman taken in
adultery (John vii. 53-viii. 11) may
also be an extract from Papias' work.
It is certain that it is an interpolation
where it stands. It is wanting in all
Greek MSS. before the sixth century;
it was originally absent from all the
oldest versions Latin, Syriac, Egyp-
tian, Gothic: it is not referred to, as
part of St John's Gospel, before the
latter half of the fourth century. It
is expressed in language quite foreign
to St John's style, and it interrupts
the tenour of his narrative. Eusebius

tells us that Papias 'relates also an-
other story concerning a woman ac-
cused of many sins before the Lord '
and adds that it is ' contained in the
Gospel according to the Hebrews.' It
may very well be an illustration given
by Papias of our Lord's saying in John
viii. 15 'I judge no man.' [See Essays
on Supernatural Religion, p. 203.]

4 The argument is contained in a
Vatican MS. of the ninth century first
published by Cardinal Thomasius (Op.
i. p. 344).

5 The MS. has in exotericis, id est,
in extremis quinque libris. Overbeck
in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol. x. p. 68 sq. (1867), contends
that some one had forged five ad-
ditional works in the name of Papias,
and had entitled them Exoterica, at-
taching them to the genuine books.
Hilgenfeld adopts this view. But it is
simpler to suppose that exegeticis
should be read for exotericis, and
externis (a gloss on exotericis) for
extremis. The passage then presents
no difficulties. [See Essays on Super-
natural Religion, p. 210 sq.]

70 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

If the corruption of the context and the uncertainty of the
source of the statement forbid us to lay much stress upon it,
we are nevertheless not justified in setting it aside as wholly
valueless.

4. About the year 165 Poly carp suffered martyrdom at
a very advanced age. An account of the death of Polycarp is
extant in a LETTER OF THE CHRISTIANS AT SMYRNA addressed
to a neighbouring Church at the time. In this document the
brethren draw a parallel between the sufferings of their
martyred friend and the Passion of the Lord, which is suggested
to them by some remarkable coincidences. * Nearly all the
incidents which happened before his death/ it is said at the
outset, ' came to pass, that the Lord from heaven might exhibit
to us a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel ; for Polycarp
remained that he might be betrayed, just as the Lord did ' ( 1).
This account is the earliest instance of the type of hagiology
which sees the sufferings of Christ visibly reflected and imaged
in detail in the servants of Christ, of which in the middle
ages the lives of the great monastic founders St Francis and
St Dominic, of Anselm and of Becket, are an example, and
which has been unconsciously reproduced in more or less
distinct lineaments in the biographies of the Wesleyan heroes in
very recent times. This idea of literal conformity to the suffer-
ings of Christ runs through the letter. Some of the coincidences
are really striking, but in other cases the parallelism is more
or less artificial. The name of the convicting magistrate is
Herod ( 6); the time of the martyrdom is the passover,' the great
sabbath ' ( 21) ; Polycarp's conviction is obtained by a confession
elicited by torture from a youth in his employ, and thus he is
' betrayed by them of his own household' ( 6); he is put upon an
ass and so carried before the magistrate, and of course this is
a parallel to the triumphal entry at Jerusalem ( 8) ; his pursuers
come on horseback and in arms as 'against a robber' ( 7);
when he is apprehended, he prays ' The will of God be done'
( 7), and so forth.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 71

Most of these incidents have their parallels in the circum-
stances of the Passion as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, or
recorded by these in common with St John. This is natural; for
they refer mainly to external incidents, in which the Synoptic
account is rich. But there are one or two exceptions. Thus
we are told, at the crisis of Polycarp's trial, that a voice came
from heaven, 'Be strong and play the man, Poly carp 1 . And the
speaker no one saw, but the voice those of our company that
were present heard' ( 9). This corresponds to the voice which
St John records as speaking from heaven to our Lord, and as
imperfectly apprehended by the bystanders (John xii. 28, 29).

In 5, 12 a change of circumstances brings with it
the fulfilment of his prophecy as to the manner of his death
(cf. John xii. 33, xviii. 32). Again we are told, when the fire
would not consume the body of the Saint, his persecutors
' ordered an executioner (confector) to go up to him and thrust
a dagger into him. And when he had done this, there came
forth a dove and 2 a quantity of blood, so that it extinguished the
fire ; and all the multitude marvelled that there was so great
a difference between the unbelievers and the elect' ( 16). The
parallel to the incident recorded in St John's account (xix. 34) of
the crucifixion alone is obvious ; and just as the Evangelist lays
stress on his own presence as an eyewitness of the scenes (xix. 35)
so also have these hagiologers done; 'we saw a great marvel,' they
say, ' we to whom it was given to see ; and we were preserved that
we might relate it to the rest' ( 15). And, lastly, as St John
emphasizes the fact that everything was fulfilled in the death of
Jesus (xix. 28, 30), so also they declare of Polycarp that ' every
word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been, and shall be,
accomplished' ( 16). To these facts it should be added that
the dying prayer of Polycarp contains one or two coincidences
with the characteristic phraseology of the Fourth Gospel, such

1 The expression itself is probably question whether the words
from Deut. xxxi. 7, 23, Josh. i. 6, 7, 9. /cat are genuine or not.

2 The parallel is not affected by the

72 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

as 'the resurrection of life/ 'the true God' ( 14; cf. John
v. 29, xvii. 3) 1 .

5. Of all the Asiatic school, exclusive of its great Gallic
representative, MELITO of Sardis appears to have been the
ablest. He possessed some slight knowledge at least of Oriental
tongues ; he had travelled to the East to obtain certain informa-
tion about the Old Testament Canon ; he was at once learned,
thoughtful and eloquent. He moreover won deep respect by
his ascetic earnestness. His writings were very various,
embracing alike questions of speculative theology, of scriptural
exegesis, of practical duty, of ecclesiastical order.

Those works, of whose date any record is preserved, appear
to have been written between the years 165175. When
Polycrates of Ephesus wrote in the last decade of the century
he was no longer living ; and it may perhaps be inferred, from
the language there used of him 2 , that his death was not very
recent 3 . These facts will fix his epoch approximately. Though
he is not likely to have conversed with St John or other
personal disciples of the Lord, he belonged to the generation
immediately following, and must have had large opportunities of
intercourse with men like Polycarp and Papias; for he was
a flourishing and apparently an influential and prolific writer
about the time of their death.

Of his numerous works only a few fragments remain ; but
these are quite sufficient to attest the influence of the Fourth
Gospel on his teaching and language. It has been already
mentioned 4 , that the chronology of the Saviour's life, adopted

1 Perhaps too the closing words of in Le Bas and Waddington's Voyage
% 16 ere\eiw077 /cat reXetw^?j<rerai are a Archfologique etc.). Again we are in-
reminiscence of the rer(?\e<rTcu of St formed that he addressed his Apo-
John xix. 30. logy to M. Antoninus (A.D. 161-180).

2 See Polycrates in Eus. H. E. v. 24. From an extant fragment we learn

3 His treatise ' On the Paschal Fes- that L. Verus, the colleague of M.
tival,' he himself tells us, was written Antoninus, was no longer living: this
while Sergius Paulus was proconsul of places the date after the spring of
Asia (A.D. 164-166; see Waddington A.D. 169.

Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques, p. 731 4 See above, p. 56 sq.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 73

in the Asiatic School, was derived from this Gospel. Of this
fact Melito is an illustration. Of our Lord he thus writes :
' Being at the same time both perfect God and perfect Man.
He convinced us of His two natures, of His Godhead through
His miracles in the three years after His baptism, and of His
manhood in the thirty years which passed before His baptism 1 .'
If the thirty years before the baptism are taken from St Luke,
the three years after the baptism cannot be derived from any
other canonical Gospel but St John.

The largest extant fragment is taken from his Apology to
M. Antoninus. In a treatise of this kind direct quotation is not
usual ; and accordingly we find no passage of either the Old or
the New Testament cited in Melito's work. But the language
and ideas are throughout coloured by the influence of the
Fourth Gospel. 'Neither can any sight see Him, nor any thought
comprehend Him, nor any word express Him' (p. xxxix.) 2 .
' Behold a light is given to us all, that in it we may see. They
dare to make an image of God, Whom they have not seen'
(p. xl.). ' What is God ? He that is Truth, and His Word is
Truth' (p. Ixv. ; cf. John xvii. 17). 'What then is Truth?' (cf.
John xviii. 38). ' If then a man adoreth that which is made
by hands, he adoreth not the Truth nor the Word of
Truth. But I have many things to say concerning this matter'
(p. xlv. ; cf. John viii. 26, xvi. 12). 'Wherefore I give thee
counsel, that thou know thyself and know God ' (p. xlvii. ;
cf. John xvii. 3). ' Worship Him with thy whole heart ;
then will He grant thee to know His will ' (p. xlvii. ; cf.
John vii. 17). ' To know God is Truth ' (p. xlix.). ' To know
the true God ' (ib. ; cf. John xvii. 3). ' The word of Truth
reproacheth thee ' (p. L). ' If thou canst not know God, at
least think that He is ' (p. li.). ' It is impossible for a mutable
creature to see the immutable ' (p. lii. ; cf. John i. 18, 1 John
iv. 12). ' Then shall they who know not God, vanish away'
(p. Hi.). ' According as thou shalt have known God here, so

1 Quoted by Anastatius of Sinai (Migne P. G. xxxix. p. 228 sq.).

2 The references are to Pitra's Spicileg. Solesm. i.

74 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

will He know thee there' (p. liii.). 'We worship the only
God, Who is before all and above all ; and we worship also
His Christ, being God the Word from eternity' (p. Ivi.).

In like manner in one of the homiletic fragments which
remain 1 , he speaks of our Lord as the ' Word of God and
begotten before the light, the Creator with the Father the
fashioner of man; all things in all, the Son in the Father,
God in God, King unto all eternity 2 ' (p. lix.) ; and in another,
using the images of St John he says : ' He appeared as a lamb,
but He abode as a shepherd. He wanted food, in so far as He
was man, yet He ceaseth not, in so far as He is God, to give
food wherewith He feedeth the world 3 ' (p. Iviii.).

6. CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS was a contemporary of Melito ;
the two being coupled together by Eusebius, Jerome and
others. He was a successor, if not the immediate successor,
of Papias, as bishop of Hierapolis. The ascertainable dates of
his life are: (1) He presented an apology to M. Antoninus,
who died in A.D. 180. (2) He mentioned the incident of the
thundering legion, which occurred A.D. 174. (3) Eusebius in
his Chronicle seems to place his accession to the episcopate
A.D. 171 4 . (4) He is no longer living in the last decade of the
century, when Serapion 5 alludes to him (Eus. H. E. v. 19).

1 The fragment is extant in a Syriac Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp.
version ; it is given in Pitra's Spicileg. 232 sq., 236 sq.]

Solesm. ii. p. lix. sq., in Cureton's 3 Cf. John i. 36, x. 1 sq. The so-

Spicileg. Syr. p. 53 sq., and in Otto called Clavis of Melito may contain a

Corp. Apol. Christ, p. 420. residuum of genuine matter, but as the

2 There is an Armenian extract amount of this is not ascertainable
(Spicileg. Solesm. i. p. 4), which gives with any degree of certainty, its evi-
this passage with some alterations and dence must be left out of the question,
a different commencement, assigning * See Clinton Fast. Bom. i. p. 167.
it to Irenaaus. There is also a Syriac 5 Eusebius Chron. and Jerome place
abridgment of the Armenian. It is the accession of Serapion to the epi-
probable that Irenaeus introduced this scopate in the eleventh year of Corn-
passage from Melito either anonym- modus, i.e. A.D. 190 or 191 (Clinton,
ously or otherwise, into one of his i. p. 187), and he died apparently about
writings. Another Armenian fragment A.D. 203 (Clem. Alex, in Eus. H. E.
(Spicileg. Solesm. i. p. 1) gives as vi. 11), though Eusebius himself says
Irenasus what is really an extract A.D. 212. See Clinton i. p. 211.
from Papias quoted by Irenasus. [See

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS - 2. 75

Of several works known to have been written by this father,
the scanty fragments which remain occupy something less than
half an octavo page. They contain however two or three unde-
niable references to the narrative of the Fourth Gospel. Thus
Claudius speaks of our Lord as ' pierced in His holy side/ and
' pouring forth from His side the two purifying elements, water
and blood, word and spirit' (Routh Reliq. Sac. I. p. 160, cf.
John xix. 34). Thus too, he says, that the 14th was the true
Passover of the Lord, the day on which He suffered, finding
fault with those Avho maintain He ate the Paschal lamb with
His disciples on the 14th and was crucified on the 15th, on the
ground that ' according to their view the Gospels appear to be
at variance.' Thus he himself takes the Fourth Gospel as the
chronological standard, and interprets the others by it ; and
here again, as in the case of Melito, we have a confirmation of
the statement of Irenaeus, that the reckoning of the Asiatic
School was founded thereupon or accorded therewith. It is
only necessary to add that his allusions to the Gospels seem to
imply that they had long been received as authoritative, but
that the discussions on the Paschal question had at length
awakened criticism, and started difficulties in harmonizing
them which hitherto had not been perceived.

7. POLYCRATES of Ephesus closes the list of authorities
belonging to the Asiatic School. In the last decade of the
second century he writes to Victor, Bishop of Rome (A.D. 190-
202), on the Paschal question ; and having occasion to mention
the practice of St John describes him in the language of the
Fourth Gospel, as the disciple that ' reclined on the bosom of
the Lord 1 / Nothing like this occurs in the other Gospels. It
must be borne in mind also that Poly crates states that seven of

1 6 eTi-i TO ffTrjdos TOV Kvpiov avawevuv 6 /ccti eiri rb <TTij0o$ avrov

(Polycrates in Eus. H. E. v. 24), the where this resemblance is important,

very expression which occurs in John when coupled with the fact that Iren-

xiii. 25 ava-n-evuv eiceivos tiri TO <TTrj6os seus and Polycrates were allied on the

TOV 'IijcroO (the correct reading) : comp. question of the Paschal controversy.
Iren. iii. 1 'ludwys 6 ^ta^rrjs TOV Kvpiov

76 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

his relatives before him had been bishops ; that he carefully
observes their traditions ; and that he has ' gone diligently
through every holy scripture ' (Polycrates in Eus. H. E. v. 24).

8. But to complete the evidence, before passing away from
the Asiatic Church to her Gallic colony, let me direct attention
to one fact. MONTANISM, which took its rise about or soon
after the middle of the second century, was strictly an offspring
of the Christianity of Asia Minor. As might have been ex-
pected, the two main props on which it relied for support were
the two great writings ascribed to the Apostle St John. As its
picture of the earthly metropolis of Christ's kingdom, the New
Jerusalem, was drawn from the Apocalypse, so also the pro-
phetic mission of its founder was held to be the realisation of
the promise recorded in the Fourth Gospel of the Paraclete,
Who should lead the faithful into all truth.

On this subject I shall have more to say when I come to
discuss the extreme view, into which the more extravagant
opponents of Montanism were driven, of rejecting the writings
of St John wholly 1 .

II. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL.

Intimately connected with the Churches of Asia Minor were
the Christian brotherhoods established in the south of Gaul.
The close alliance existing between these communities as early
as the middle of the second century of the Christian era is a
striking testimony to the power of the new faith in cementing
the bonds of union between far-distant peoples. As, centuries
before, the districts of Gaul lying on the seashore and along
the banks of the Rhone had been civilised by colonists from the
Greek peoples of Asia Minor, so now it would appear that these
regions were indebted to the same country for the higher know-
ledge of the Gospel. However this may be, the intercourse
between the two Churches during the second century was close

1 See below, pp. 115 sqq.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 77

and uninterrupted. More than one instance is recorded in
which they corresponded with each other on matters of com-
mon or individual interest. On one occasion the Christians of
Yienne and Lyons write to their brethren in Phrygia and Asia,
giving them an account of the last hours of the martyrs who
had suffered under M. Aurelius, and among these are mentioned
at least two who were Asiatics by birth, Alexander, a physician
from Phrygia ( 13), and Attalus of Pergamum ( 17). On
another, the Gallican brotherhoods write to the same com-
munities to express their opinion on the recent heresies of
Montanus, Alcibiades, Theodotus, and others, an opinion which
Eusebius describes as ' circumspect and most orthodox ' (Eus.
H. E. v. 3). This opinion was appended, he tells us, to a
collection of letters written severally by the martyrs from their
prisons, and addressed to the brethren in Phrygia and Asia
(Eus. I. c.).

Though all these documents were known to Eusebius,
he has only preserved fragments (though very considerable
fragments) of the first mentioned (H. E. v. 1). Its date is fixed
as A.D. 177. In this letter the Gospel of St John is once
distinctly quoted ( 4), 'So was fulfilled the saying of our Lord,
" The time shall come, in which every one that killeth you shall
think to do service to God" (John xvi. 2)' : while elsewhere its
language is indirectly borrowed. Thus one of the martyrs is
described as 'having the Comforter in himself, the Spirit,
which he showed in the fulness (TrXypcb/jLaTos) of love, having
been well-pleased to lay down even his own life in defence of
the brethren ( 3 ; cf. John xiv. 26, xv. 13) : for he was and is
indeed a genuine disciple of Christ, following the Lamb
whithersoever He goeth ' (ib. ; Rev. xiv. 4) ; and another as
being ' sprinkled and strengthened from the heavenly fountain
of the water of life, that goeth forth from the body (vijSvos) of
Christ ' ( 22 ; cf. John iv. 14, vii. 38).

The persecution which was fatal to these martyrs placed
IREN^EUS in the vacant see of Lyons. His testimony is im-
portant, not only because a close connexion existed between

78 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

the Churches of Gaul and Asia generally, but because he was
himself by birth and education an Asiatic. It is important
also for another reason. He was directly connected with the
Apostolic age by two remarkable instances of longevity 1 .
Polycarp, his early instructor in his Asiatic home, declared
himself to have been 'eighty-six years in the Lord' at the time
of his martyrdom. Pothinus, his immediate predecessor in the
see of Lyons, his late abode, was close upon ninety when he
too died under the hands of the persecutor. Polycarp was a
disciple of St John, and is said to have been placed by him in
the see of Smyrna. Pothinus was a growing boy when the
Apostle died, and it seems probable (though of this there is no
direct evidence) that he, like his successor at Lyons, was of
Asiatic birth and parentage. Irenes us, as we have seen, lays
great stress on the teaching of the former, which he professes
to follow implicitly; and we may suppose with much probability
that among the anonymous presbyters whose authority he
quotes as having associated with the Apostles and their imme-
diate successors the latter held a prominent place. We are
therefore greatly interested in enquiring what language Irenseus
holds with respect to the Fourth Gospel.

The answer is decisive. He not only mentions or quotes
it many times, as the work of the beloved disciple, but gives
many particulars respecting it. He states in one place that it
was written at Ephesus (iii. 1. 1), in another that its object was
to counteract the heresies of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians
(iii. 11. 1). He uses it freely 2 , not only to establish his own
position, but also to confute his Gnostic opponents. To them
and to him alike, as to the universal Church, it is a recognised
authority. In short, a Fourth Gospel is to Irenasus not only a
historical fact, but a foreordained necessity. He ransacks heaven
and earth for reasons why the evangelical record should thus be
foursquared. In analogies from the physical world, in types
from Old Testament prophecy, in the successive developments

1 See above, p. 53 sq.

2 He quotes it between seventy and eighty times.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 79

of God's revelation to men, he finds evidence that this number
alone is consonant with the Divine order of things (iii. 11. 8).

The extant work of Irenseus on heresies, from which these
references are taken, was written during the episcopate of
Eleutherus 1 , who held the see of Rome from about A.D. 175 to
A.D. 190. The exact date is of little or no importance. The
point to be kept in view is this ; that in youth he had lived in
familiar intercourse with Polycarp, and had heard his aged
master speak again and again of the Apostle St John, that he
professed to have a very vivid remembrance of those early
days 2 , and that on every occasion he appealed to the traditions
of the Asiatic School as authoritative in matters of Christian
faith and history.

Of his honesty and good faith I think no reasonable doubt
can be entertained. Eager partisanship may occasionally have
blinded his judgment as to the value of the evidence before
him. Close and searching criticism was not the characteristic
either of his age or of his class. A tradition may here and
there have been confused or exaggerated in the course of
transmission; a metaphor translated into a fact; a categorical
statement substituted for an individual opinion ; an early date
replaced by a later or conversely. Let all reasonable allowance
be made for these possibilities. The fact still remains, that
he firmly believed himself, and received as the tradition
of St John's personal disciples, that the Fourth Gospel was
written by none other than the beloved Apostle himself. On
this point he does not betray a shadow of a misgiving.

On reviewing the evidence of the Asiatic school, which thus
culminates in Irenseus, we cannot fail to be struck with the
solidarity of the body through which it is transmitted. Polycarp

1 Eleutherus is mentioned as still Epiphanius, our authority for Theo-
living (Iren. iii. 3, 3). On the other dotion's date, is guilty of such start-
hand, a reference occurs to Theo- ling confusions in the passage (depond.
dotion's version of the LXX. (iii. 21, 1), et mens. 16, 17) that his trustworthiness
and Theodotion's version is stated not is much discredited. [See Essays on
to have been published until the reign Supernatural Religion, p. 260.]
of Commodus (A.D. 182-190). But 2 See above, p. 55.

80 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

and Papias, Melito and Claudius Apollinaris, Polycrates and
Irenseus, the martyrs of Asia and the martyrs of Gaul,
are not isolated individuals, nor is church-membership their
only bond of union; but within the Church itself they
belong to a more or less compact community, of which the
members are in constant mutual intercourse, and consult and
advise each other on very diverse matters of interest.

This fact is a strong safeguard for the continuity of trans-
mission where a tradition so important is concerned: but in the
case before us the disputes of the age and country afford an
additional security. As soon as we bring the original theory
of the Tubingen school, which dated the Fourth Gospel about
A.D. 170, or even the modified hypothesis of some recent
antagonists, which places it close upon the middle of the
second century, face to face with these controversies, we at
once see what enormous improbabilities are involved in either
supposition. The forgery (for professing, as it evidently does,
to emanate from the beloved disciple, the Fourth Gospel must
be called by this hard name, unless it be genuine), the forgery
is almost contemporary with, or even subsequent to, the rise of
Montanism and the first outburst of the Quartodeciman con-
troversy. It has a very direct bearing on Montanism, for it
supplies a basis for the prophetic theory of this sect ; and yet
it is received by Catholics and Montanists alike. It raises
questions connected with the celebration of Easter (though
it does not touch the main subject of dispute) ; and yet it is
accepted without misgiving equally by the Quartodecimans
and their opponents. Yet, if the hypothesis were true, that it
first saw the light during the lifetime of the very generation
which was most actively engaged in both these controversies,
must we not believe that its authenticity would have been
most fiercely contested, and that the clearest traces of this
contest would have been stamped on the extant literature
of the period?

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 81

III. THE CHURCH or ANTIOCH.

1, From the Churches of Asia Minor and their Gallic
colonies it is natural to turn to the neighbouring and allied
Church of Antioch ; and here the apostolical father IGNATIUS
first claims attention. His testimony is the more important,
because he is historically connected with the two principal
Churches in which the influence of St John prevailed, Ephesus
and Smyrna. The genuine Epistles of Ignatius were written
A.D. 110, very few years after the probable date of St John's
Gospel. They are brief, abrupt and epigrammatic, being
chiefly occupied with personal explanations and instructions.
An aged disciple on his way to martyrdom writes a few hurried
lines to the Christian congregations with whom he has been
brought into contact on his journey. Though they reflect the
teaching, and in many places echo the language, of the New
Testament especially of St Paul the letters contain only two
direct quotations, as such, from Holy Scripture 1 .

Under these circumstances it is sufficient if we are able to
trace the influence of the Fourth Gospel in individual thoughts.
and phrases. Nor are such traces wanting. When in his
Epistle to the Philadelphians Ignatius writes ( 7), ' The
Spirit is not deceived, being from God ; for it knoweth whence
it cometh and whither it goeth (ol&ev jap Trodev ep^erau /cal

1 Magn. 12, Eph. 5. In Eph. 5, (of our Lord's baptism; cf. Matt. iii.
' virepr)<f)dvoLS o Qeos OLVTL- 15), Smyrn. 6 d xwpwp %o>petTW (cf.

i, the quotation may have been Matt. xix. 12), Polyc. 2 0/j6ju^os yivov

taken direct from Prov. iii. 34, but the d?s 6 6<pis ev ira<nv /cat dxtpaios etVaei us

substitution of d Qeos for d Kvptos in- y -repio-repd (cf. Matt. x. 16) ; (2) with

clines me to suppose that Ignatius got the Pauline Epistles : Eph. 10 edpaioi TT?

it through 1 Pet. v. 5 or James iv. 6. 7Ti<rret (cf. Col. i. 23), 16. 16 oi oiico-

The same substitution is found in (f>06poi paffiXeLav Qeov ov K\r)povo/j.ri<rovcnv

Clem. Rom. 30. The following are (cf . 1 Cor. vi. 9) ; and ib. 18 irov ao<j>6s',

the most striking coincidences in the TTOU O-U^TTJTTJS ; (cf. 1 Cor. i. 20), Rom. 5

Ignatian Epistles (1) with the Gospel d\X' ov irapa TOVTO 5e8iKaiwfj.cn (cf. 1 Cor.

narrative : Eph. 14 Qavepbv TO oevopov iv. 4), Polyc. 5 dyairdv ras (ru/i/3/oi/5, ws

OTTO TOU Kapirov avrov (cf. Matt. xii. 33), 6 Kvpios TTJV eKK\i)ffia.v (cf. Eph. v. 29).
Smyrn. 1 iva ir\iipii)6fi irdcra. oiKaioo'iji'r)

L. E. 6

82 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

TTOV vircvyei), and it searcheth out the hidden things/ we
recognise at once our Lord's description of the Spirit in His
conversation with Nicodemus as related in John iii. 8. Other
reminiscences, not so obvious but equally real, of Johannine
language are traceable elsewhere. Thus the sentence, ' The
prince of this world is abolished' (Trail. 4) is an echo, almost a
repetition, of our Lord's language (John xii. 31, xvi. 11). Again,
the contrast of the 'corruptible food' with the 'bread of God,
which is the flesh of Christ and the draught of His blood' (Rom.
7), is an adaptation of the characteristic discourse related in the
sixth chapter of the same Gospel. So too in other passages he
echoes the same expressions, ' the flesh of the Lord,' ' the blood
of Jesus Christ' (Trail. 8; cf. Philad. 4), 'the bread of God'
(Eph. 5). And elsewhere the coincidences with St John are
equally patent; 'we ought so to receive him (the bishop), as
Him that sent him' (Eph. 6; cf. John xiii. 20); 'where the
shepherd is, there follow ye, as sheep, for many fair-seeming
wolves make captive those that run the race of God' (Philad. 2;
cf. John x. 4, 12) ; 'to Him alone (Christ) are committed the
hidden things of God, He Himself being the door of the Father'
(Philad. 9 ; cf. John x. 7) ; ' Jesus Christ, His Son, Who is His
Word, coming forth from silence, Who in all things pleased Him
that sent Him' (Magn. 8 ; cf. John vi. 38) 1 .

2. Following the succession of the Antiochene bishops we

1 The silence of Ignatius respecting made in the previous section to other

St John has been urged on the other Apostles with whom the Ephesian

side, especially in Rom. 4 (oi>x ws Church was in harmony. Moreover,

Utrpos Kai IlauXos StarcWo/Acu v/juv), Ignatius singles out St Paul on ac-

where, it is contended, the introduc- count of the parallel to himself. The

tion of the names of St Petei and Ephesian converts had sheltered St

St Paul makes the omission of St Paul as he passed through; and now

John's name more remarkable. But Ignatius is passing through Ephesus

there is a good reason for this omis- on his way to martyrdom. Besides

sion. Ignatius is addressing the Ko- these two passages no Apostle is

man Church, and therefore appeals to mentioned by name in the Ignatian

the two Apostles to whose precepts Epistles, except St Peter in Smyrn. 3,

that Church had listened. Again in where there is a reference to an inci-

Eph. 12, where St Paul is again men- dent in our Lord's life,
tioned, reference has been already

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 83

arrive at THEOPHILUS the sixth bishop according to Eusebius
(H. E. iv. 20), the seventh according to Jerome (Ep. ad Algas.
quaest. 6), who commences his list of Antiochene bishops with
St Peter. In his extant Apologia ad Autolycum, an un-
doubtedly genuine work, Theophilus quotes the beginning of
the Fourth Gospel and mentions St John as its author. The
passage runs as follows : ' whence the Holy Scriptures and all
the inspired men (TrvevpaTofyopoi) teach us, one of whom, John,
says, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God," showing that at the first God was alone, and the Word in
Him. Then he says, " And the Word was God. All things were
made through Him, and without Him was not anything made" '
(ad Autol. ii. 22). This direct and precise reference is the
more conspicuous, because it is the solitary instance in which
Theophilus quotes directly and by name any book of the New
Testament. To this undoubted quotation should be added the
following coincidences. ' How can one fail to notice the pangs
which women suffer in child-bearing, and after that they forget
their trouble?' (ad Autol ii. 23; cf. John xvi. 21); ' A corn of
wheat, or of the other seeds, when it is cast into the earth, first
dieth and is dissolved, then it riseth and becometh an ear
(o-ra^u?)' (ad Autol. i. 13). Here the language of Theophilus
combines expressions in John xii. 24 and 1 Cor. xv. 36, 37.
Lastly, in ad Autol. i. 14 occurs the following expression, ' Do
not therefore disbelieve, but believe,' a reminiscence of John
xx. 27, * Be not faithless, but believing.'

The date of these notices may be fixed with tolerable
accuracy. Eusebius in his Chronicon gives A.D. 177 as the year
of Theophilus's death. But it is almost certain that he has
antedated the event by six or more years at the lowest compu-
tation. For in his Apology Theophilus mentions the death of
M. Aurelius, and he carries his chronological calculations down
to this epoch (iii. 28). These calculations indeed are confessedly
taken from Chryseros ' the nomenclator' (ii. 27), a freedman
of Aurelius, who stopped at this point; but as the object of
Theophilus is to calculate the age of the world at the time

84 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

when he writes, it is a tolerably safe conclusion that the third
book, in which these calculations occur, must date not long
after the death of the Stoic emperor, i.e. not long after
A.D. 180. The three books were written and despatched
separately, so that the first and second, in which the quota-
tions are found, may be placed a little earlier than the
third book.

Besides the direct evidence which the Apologia ad Autoly-
cum supplies to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Theophilus
is in another way an indirect witness to the wide acceptance
of four Gospels in the Canon of the New Testament. Jerome
speaks in more than one passage of a work of Theophilus, now
lost, which he calls his ' commentaries 1 .' In one reference indeed
he appears to throw doubt upon the authenticity of this work.
Speaking of Theophilus in Vir. Illustr. 25 he says, * I have read
commentaries written in his name on the Gospel and on the
Proverbs of Solomon, which in my opinion do not appear to
agree with the elegance and style of the volumes mentioned
above' (i.e. the ad Autolycum and other works). But elsewhere
he quotes the work without the slightest misgiving. In the
preface to his own commentary on St Matthew's Gospel (in
Matth. praef. Op. vn. p. 7) he confesses 'to have read many
years before the commentaries on Matthew... of Theophilus,
bishop of the city of Antioch.' In his epistle to Algasia (Ep.
cxxi. Op. I. p. 866), written in A.D. 407, he throws further light
upon the character of this lost writing. He speaks of it as a
harmony of the four Gospels and as a lasting monument of the
writer's genius (Theophilus... qui quattuor Evangelistarum in

1 The four books of commentarii, Epist. Iviii. 5), and in Jerome (i. 4,
extant in Latin and ascribed to Theo- p. 280 ; cf. Jerome Comm. in Matt.
philus, cannot represent the genuine i. Op. vn. p. 12) ; and the work is
work alluded to by Jerome. The theo- evidently not a translation from the
logy is evidently post-Nicene ; passages Greek, but originally written in Latin,
are found nearly word for word in see e.g. i. p. 283 apex ( = Kcpaia) autern
S. Ambrose (i. 120, p. 295, ed. Otto; quatuor literas habens per evangelium
cf. Ambrose Comm. in Luc. iii. 2), in quadruples testamentum indicat no-
Cyprian (i. 153, p. 301 ; cf. Cyprian vum.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 85

unum opus dicta compingens ingenii sui nobis monumenta
dimisit). It is needless to point out the importance and
significance of a harmony of the four Gospels constructed in
the second century, in its relation to the genuineness of
St John's Gospel, and to the Diatessaron of Tatian.

IV. THE CHURCHES OF PALESTINE.

Contemporaneously with the Ignatian Epistles and the
treatise of Theophilus, we have the evidence of writers in
the neighbouring region of Palestine.

1. The date of the writings of JUSTIN MARTYR is of some
importance. The two Apologies were written in the reign of
Antoninus Pius, i.e. between July, 138, and March, 161. If we
can trust the present text, the first (the longer) Apology was
composed before M. Aurelius became Caesar, i.e. before A.D. 140.
Against this early date, however, it is urged (1) that L. Verus,
who is there styled epaarrjs TraiSeias, was only ten years old
at this time ; (2) that Justin (ApoL i. 46) speaks of our Lord
as born 150 years before, (3) that Marcion is mentioned as
already influential (ApoL i. 26). I do not think that much
stress can be laid on these arguments. The expression epaarijs
TratSeta? was a very fit one to apply to an imperial boy, who
was, or was presumed to be, studious and intelligent, and to
whom owing to his youth no other compliment could be paid.
As regards the question of the chronology of our Lord's life,
if Justin followed the ordinary computation (which is probably
the case), he would place the Crucifixion in A.D. 29 ; and,
allowing about thirty-three years for the interval between the
Nativity and the Crucifixion, Justin's 150 years would bring
the date of the work to A.D. 146. The third objection, the
allusion to Marcion, is more difficult to meet, but the dates of
his life are very uncertain. Happily, however, we can escape
these difficulties altogether. By a very plausible emendation
(see Hort in the Journal of Philology, in. pp. 163, 165, 1857),
which reads /cai KaiaapL for Kcucrapi KCLI in the opening words

86 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

of the Apology 1 , M. Aurelius has already become Caesar before
the date of the work. If we accept this conjecture, the
passage itself affords no posterior limit except the martyrdom
of Justin, and the death of Antoninus Pius in A.D. 161. The
second Apology is a sort of appendix or postscript to the first,
written at the same time or soon after.

The Dialogue with Trypho was written after the longer
Apology, to which it contains a clear allusion 2 , and therefore
probably after both Apologies. It is represented as held at
Ephesus, where Justin had stayed (Eus. H. E. iv. 18). Justin's
testimony therefore becomes in some sense the testimony of
the Asiatic school. The time of the dialogue is stated to be
during the war of Barcochba 3 A.D. 132-135, i.e. when Polycarp
and Papias were scarcely advanced beyond middle age, and
while Melito and Apollinaris were yet young men. From the
allusion to the first Apology given above, it is evident that if we
accept the later date for the Apology, the dialogue cannot have
been published until several years after it actually took place.

Eusebius and others after him place Justin's martyrdom in
the reign of M. Aurelius, and the Paschal Chronicle fixes it at
A.D. 165*. On the other hand, Epiphanius 5 apparently and others

1 The Apology opens as follows : Dindorf ) makes Justin thirty years at
AvTOKpdTopi Tiry AlXbp 'ASpiavy 'AVTW- the time of his martyrdom, which he
vivy Eu<rej3et Se/Saor^ Katcrapi Kal OUT?- places e?ri ' PUO-TIKOU yyefJibvos Kal 'Adpi-

0tXo<r60y Kal AovKly t<iXo- avov /ScunX^ws. The name Kusticus is

Kaiffapos <f>t<rei ut Kal Ei}(re/3oCs too common at this period to give us

, epao-rfj iraitidas, K.T.\. Over much assistance, and the text of Epi-

and above the question of date in- phanius is so corrupt that we may

volved, it is unnatural to describe without hesitation read 'AvTuvivov for

Antoninus' title in a descending scale 'Adpiavov in this passage, especially as

from Imperator to Caesar. a few lines lower down Epiphanius

2 ou5 yap airb TOV ytvovs TOV tftov... speaks of Tatian as setting up his
TWOS (ppovTida TTOIOV/JLCVOS, eyypd^us heretical school about the twelfth year
Kaio-apt irpo<rofju\<av elirov 7rXai>a<r0cu of Antoninus (irepl rb SudeKarov ?TOS
avrovs /c.r.X. Dial. 120. "'Avrwvivov TOV ev<rej3ovs Kcu<rapos). He

3 (pvyuv Tbv vvv yevb^vov Tr6\e/jiov had already described Tatian as a
Dial. 1. contemporary of Justin (o-waK/xci^ei

4 Eus. H. E. iv. 15; Chron. Pasch. 'TovcmVy) who lapsed into heresy after
p. 481 sq. (ed. Bonn). Justin's death.

5 Epiphanius (391 A; n. p. 411 ed.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 87

place it in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and, as far as we can
judge, before A.D. 150. If we adopt with Hort A.D. 149 as the
date (I. c. p. 180), and leave time for the Dialogue, we may place
the extant works of our author between A.D. 145-149.

We now turn to the evidence which Justin affords as to the
Fourth Gospel. He does not quote it by name, but he shows
more than one striking coincidence with its language. Thus
speaking of the sacrament of baptism he says (Apol. I. 61), ' For
Christ also said, " Unless ye be born again (dvayevvrjOrJTe), ye
cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven," for that it is quite
impossible for those that are once born to enter into their
mother's womb is manifest to all' (cf. John iii. 3-5). If any
doubt could be entertained whence this saying was derived, it
will appear from a passage in the chapter immediately pre-
ceding ( 60) that the Fourth Gospel was present to his mind.
Applying the incident of the brazen serpent as an image of the
Crucifixion, he reports Moses as erecting the serpent and saying,
' If ye look on this image (ra> TVTTW rourw), and believe, ye
shall be saved in Him.' This is a very wide departure from
the account in Numbers (xxi. 79), where there is nothing
about a type or about the necessity of belief; but the writer
obviously had in his mind John iii. 14, 15, ' as Moses lifted up
the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man
be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him... should have
eternal life 1 .' Again, in the sixth chapter of the same Apology,
Justin says: 'The prophetic spirit we reverence and worship,
honouring (it) in reason and in truth,' where we are reminded of
John iv. 24. Speaking of the holy eucharist, ' We have been (or
were) taught (eStSa^^ez'),' he writes ( 66), ' that the bread and
wine are both the flesh and the blood of that Jesus Who became
flesh,' an expression founded upon John vi. 54. ' For,' he adds,
* the Apostles, in the memoirs left by them, which are called
Gospels, have recorded that it was so enjoined on them' etc.
This passage alone however would be far from conclusive. It
can only be taken to strengthen a position already established.
1 Compare the treatment of this incident in Dial. 94.

88 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

One other coincidence from the same work will suffice. Speak-
ing of the prophecy in Isaiah of the miraculous conception of
the Messiah, Justin remarks that God by the Spirit of prophecy
foretold what was incredible, ' so that, when it came to pass, it
might not be disbelieved, but might be believed from its having
been foretold' (Apol. i. 33), where we are at once reminded of
John xiv. 29.

Turning now to the Dialogue with Trypho we find numerous
expressions, which cannot well be explained except on the
supposition that Justin had the Fourth Gospel before him.
Our Lord is described as 'the only spotless and righteous
light, that was sent from God to men' (Dial. 17 ; cf. John i. 9) ;
He is the ' only-begotten of the Father of the universe, His
Word and Power sprung in a special way (1810)9) from Him, as
we have learnt from the memoirs (&>? aTro ra>v aTrofjbvrjpovev-
fjiarcav efjLaOofJLev)' (Dial. 105 ; cf. John i. 14). An allusion to
the imagery of Genesis xlix. 11 is explained of Christ because
'His blood sprung not of man's seed, but of the will of God'
(Dial. 63 ; cf. John i. 13). We are informed (Dial 69) that
the Jews ' dared to call Him a magician and a deceiver of the
people (\aoTT\dvov)' where the last word seems to have been
suggested by John vii. 12 ' Nay, but He deceiveth the people
(Tr\ava TOV o%Xoi/).' Speaking of himself and of his brother
Christians, Justin says, ' We are called, and are, the true
children of God, who keep His commandments' (Dial. 123;
cf. John i. 12, 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2) ; 'to us it is given both to hear,
and to be with, and to be saved through this Christ, and to
know all the things of the Father' (Dial. 121 ; cf. John xiv. 7) ;
f w 7 ho are instructed in all the truth' (Dial. 39; cf. John xvi.
13). 'He that knoweth not Him (i.e. Christ), knoweth not
the counsel of God, and he that insulteth and hateth Him,
manifestly hateth and insulteth Him that sent Him ; and if
any man believeth not on Him, he believeth not the preaching
of the prophets, who announced the glad tidings of Him, and
preached them unto all' (Dial. 136, a reminiscence of John
v. 23, 45, 46). Again, in the description of John the Baptist

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 89

given in Dial. 88, an account which is chiefly taken from the
Synoptic Gospels, unmistakeable proofs are given of Justin's
acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel also. Thus the repudia-
tion of the Baptist's own claim to the Messiahship is closely
associated with the announcement of the presence of the ' one
stronger/ whose shoes John proclaims himself unworthy to
bear, in a way which presupposes Justin's knowledge of
John i. 19-27. Lastly, in Dial. 57 occurs an expression which
reminds us very forcibly of John vi. 31, 'Of the manna, on
which your fathers were nourished in the wilderness, the scrip-
ture saith, that they ate angels' food.'

A work of Justin earlier than any extant is his treatise
against Marcion. A few lines of this lost work are preserved in
Irenseus (iv. 6. 2). The passage is very short, not more than
half a dozen lines, and does not give much scope for quotations
from the New Testament, but in it occurs an expression
suggested by St John, 'The only-begotten Son came to us,
gathering up His own creation in Himself.' The latter part of
the clause is based on Ephes. i. 10, the former on John i. 18.

2. We now turn from the master to the scholar, from
Justin Martyr to TATIAN. The facts of Tatian's life are soon
told. An Assyrian by birth, as he himself distinctly says, and
a heathen, he exercised the profession of a sophist, in which
capacity he travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned
towards Christianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed
him greatly. He was converted, and became a disciple of Justin
Martyr, doubtless at Rome, and after the death of his master
appears to have remained some time in the metropolis teaching.
Subsequently he left Rome, and seems to have spent the
remainder of his life in the East, more especially in Syria and
the neighbouring countries. After Justin's death how soon
after we do not know his opinions underwent a change. He
separated himself from the Church, and espoused views closely
allied to those of the Encratites. When Irenseus wrote his
first book, Tatian was no longer living, as may be inferred from
the language of this father (Iren. i. 28. 1); and this book must

90 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

have been written before A.D. 190, and may have been written
as early as A.D. 178 1 . On the whole, we shall perhaps not be
far wrong if we place the period of his literary activity at about
A.D. 155-170 2 .

Of several writings of Tatian mentioned by the ancients,
only one has come down to us 3 , his Address to the Greeks,
a work composed before Tatian's separation from the Church,
apparently not long after the death of Justin.

This Oratio ad Graecos is an Apology, addressed to Gentiles.
We do not therefore expect to find in it quotations from the
sacred books, with which Gentile readers would as a matter of
course have no acquaintance, and to which they would attribute
no authority. But the following passages place beyond the
reach of any reasonable doubt what was at least an a priori
presumption, that the pupil of Justin knew and accepted the
Fourth Gospel, to which his master's extant writings have
been shown to give testimony.

4. ' God is a Spirit (cf. John iv. 24).'

13. 'And this then is the saying (TO elpti/jLevov), "The
darkness comprehendeth not (ov rear aXapfi civet) the light"
(cf. John i. 5).'

19. 'Follow ye the only God. All things have been
made by Him, and apart from Him hath been made no thing
(cf. John i. 3).'

These passages are conclusive, for they are characteristic
passages of the Fourth Gospel. There are other coincidences
with Johannine language, such as 5 'God was in the begin-
ning/ which, taken by themselves, cannot be pressed, but in the

1 See above, p. 79. Clement of Alex- 1888 by Ciasca of Tatian's Diatessaron
andria Strom, i. 1. 11 (p. 322) men- in an Arabic version has set at rest for
tions an 'Assyrian ' as one of his earlier ever the question whether or no Tatian
teachers, and the identification of this knew the Fourth Gospel. The Dia-
Assyrian with Tatian is highly pro- tessaron is, as its name implies, a
bable; see below, p. 92. Harmony of the Four Gospels; and

2 [On the whole subject of Tatian as Dr Lightfoot had surmised, consists
see Essays on Supernatural Religion, of our four canonical Gospels, and
p. 272 sq.] commences with the opening words of

3 [The discovery and publication in St John's Gospel.]

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 91

light of the extracts given above are probably derived from the
same source.

V. THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA.

1. In all probability, the Epistle of Barnabas is to be con-
sidered the earliest piece of extant Christian literature, outside
the Canon, which emanates from Alexandria. Whoever is its
author and it is noticeable that he nowhere claims to be the
Apostle Barnabas in his general style and his interpretation of
the Old Testament, he represents Alexandrian thought. He
gives us moreover a picture of feuds between Jews and Chris-
tians, which is in keeping with what we know from other
sources of the character of the population of that great city.
For reasons which cannot be entered into here, but which bear
upon the interpretation of a passage in 4, I am inclined to
place the date of the Epistle in the reign of Vespasian, after
that emperor's association with himself of his sons Titus and
Domitian in the supreme power (A.D. 70-79). In this case, it
was written before the Fourth Gospel ; we must therefore look
elsewhere for the evidence of which we are in search. We
shall find, if I mistake not, that the earliest quotations from
the Fourth Gospel (and these very important) which proceed
from Alexandria, are contained in the works of Gnostic writers,
as Basilides, Valentinus etc.; and these will be considered later
on 1 . At present we will confine ourselves to orthodox writings.
With one possible exception there is no orthodox literature
extant which comes from the Alexandrian Church between the
Epistle of Barnabas and the writings of Clement of Alexandria.
That exception is the latter part ( 11, 12) of the EPISTLE TO
DIOGNETUS. In our solitary authority for this Epistle, the
Strassburg MS., now no longer extant, the beginning of one
treatise and the conclusion of another have been accidentally
attached together so as to form in appearance one work. The
writer of the latter part is clearly an Alexandrian, and indulges

1 See below, p. 104 sq.

92 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

in the allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament which are
characteristic of that school. He calls himself 'a disciple of the
Apostles and a teacher of the Gentiles.' The whole tone of
thought of the fragment is second-century. These indications
appear to point to Pantsenus, the master of Clement, and the
Apostle of the Indies (c. A.D. 180-210), as the author of the
treatise. The account given of him in Eusebius (H. E. v. 10)
would seem to imply that his journey to India 1 preceded his
appointment as head of the Catechetical school of Alexandria ;
and Anastatius of Sinai speaks of him as one of those early
exegetes, who understood all the narrative of the Hexaemeron
as referring to Christ and the Church, a view which harmonizes
in a remarkable degree with the allegorical interpretation of
the garden of Eden preserved in this fragment.

The influence of St John is very manifest in this treatise,
though there is no direct quotation from his Gospel. The
Word who is called 'the Life' (17 faij 12; cf. John i. 4),
'who was from the beginning' (o air p%% 11 ; cf. John i. 2),
' through whom the Father is glorified ' (Si ov Harrjp So^d^erai
12; cf. John xiii. 31, xiv. 13), 'has revealed Himself to His
disciples (ol? l^avepwaev o Aoyo? fyaveis 11; cf. John ii. 11).
These and other coincidences with the Fourth Gospel, occurring
in a fragment which occupies less than two octavo pages, are
sufficient to indicate that the writer's mind was imbued with
Johannine teaching and phraseology.

2. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA in his Stromateis* (i. 1. 11)
describes one of his instructors in Greece as ' the Ionian ' (o

1 Jerome Vir. III. 36, Ep. 70 (p. 428) enumerates his teachers as follows,
states that he was sent to India by giving the country in which he was
Demetrius (bishop of Alexandria A.D. their pupil, (1) in Greece, 'the Ionian,'
189-231). ButEusebius(Z.c.) represents (2) in Magna Grcecia, (a) one from
him as head of the catechetical school Ccelo-Syria, (b) another from Egypt,
ten years before the accession of Deme- (3) in the East, (a) one from Assyria,
trius. We must conclude that Jerome (b) another, in Palestine, a Hebrew,
places the visit to India too late. (4) in Alexandria, the last and greatest

2 The Stromateis was written A.D. i.e. Pantaenus. I am inclined to iden-
194 or 195 under Severus. Clement's tify ' the Ionian ' with Melito.

other extant works are earlier. He

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 93

eVl TT}? 'EXXa'So? o 'Iwviicos}, and places him first on the list of
his teachers, as though he were the earliest.

Thus he is connected with Asia Minor, and probably with
the school of St John. Consequently his testimony is of great
importance for our purpose. To Clement we owe several
traditions of St John 1 . He speaks 2 of a certain statement as
' not occurring in the four Gospels handed down to us (eV rofc
Trapabe&oiievoLS rjfjblv reTrapaiv evo/yyeXtW?) but only in the
Gospel according to the Egyptians,' thus showing that in his
time the number of the Gospels was definitely fixed at four.
In another passage 3 he appeals to the tradition of the presbyters
of a former generation (irapaSoa-is TWV dveicadev Trpeafivrepwv)
as to the order in which the Gospels were written, saying that
after the other Gospels had been written, 'John, last of all,
observing that the external (bodily) facts (TO, craj/zom/ea) had
been set forth in the existing Gospels, at the urgent request of
his friends and by the divine guidance of the Spirit, composed
a spiritual Gospel (Trvev/jLari/cov Troifjcrai, evayyeXiov).' The
value of this tradition may be great or it may be small ; but
his whole language bears testimony to the fact that the Gospel
of St John had long been recognised as authoritative, and that
traditions had grown up about it 4 .

3. ORIGEN was born in A.D. 185, and began to teach at
eighteen. Of him it is sufficient to say that he wrote a com-
mentary on St John's Gospel, and that he betrays no knowledge
that the authenticity of the Gospel had ever been called in
question 5 .

1 e.g. the story of St John and the work only two short fragments survive,
young robber (Quis div. salv. 42, p. but Eusebius informs us (H. E. vi. 13)
958), quoted in Eus. H. E. iii. 23. that in it he mentioned 'the traditions

2 Strom, iii. 13, p. 553. which he had heard from the elders.'

3 Cited in Eus. H. E. vi. 14. This is another indirect link with the

4 In his book on the Paschal Fes- School of St John.

tival Clement makes the 14th the day 5 See Liicke, p. 78. His commen-

of the Crucifixion (Fragm. p. 1017 ed. tary on St John was written about the

Potter), thus following out the tra- year 222. In it he controverts Hera-

dition of the Asiatic School. Of this cleon.

94 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

VI. THE CHURCHES OF GREECE AND MACEDONIA.

1. The extant remains belonging to this branch of the Church
in the second century are very slight indeed. In the few lines
of Dionysius of Corinth that survive, no quotation could have
been introduced naturally. Perhaps however the EPISTLE TO
DlOGNETUS 1-10 may belong to this Church. It certainly
shows evidence of Hellenic culture both in diction and matter.
This however is a very slight presumption in favour of its
ascription to Greece proper ; and I only include it here because
some place must be found for a document which is undoubtedly
very early, and cannot well be assigned to a later date than the
middle of the second century 1 .

The Epistle is full of indications of the influence of
St John's writings. 'Christians dwell in the world but are not
of the world ( 6 ; cf. John xvii. 11, 14, 16).' The doctrine of the
Word is drawn out fully in 7. He is described as ' the
artificer and creator of the universe, by Whom God made the
heavens, by Whom He enclosed the sea in its proper bounds
(cf. John i. 3, Heb. i. 2)': 'God sent Him as saving... He sent
Him as loving and not as judging (cf. John iii. 17).' In a
later passage ( 10), in language which is an echo of John iii. 16,
we are told, 'For God loved men... to whom He sent His only-
begotten Son, to whom He promised the kingdom in heaven
and will give it to those that love Him (cf. 1 John iv. 9).'
'How then/ the writer goes on, ' shalt thou (worthily) love Him,
that before loved thee so (cf. 1 John iv. 10, 11) ?'

2. That ATHENAGORAS should be considered a representa-
tive of the Church of Greece is evident from the heading of his

1 Westcott (Canon of the N. T. p. vlbv pa<ri\ta 7), as illustrating the

88, ed. 4) places it c. A.D. 117, Bunsen Incarnation, may very well have been

(Hippolytus i. p. 170) A.D. 135. I am in- suggested by the adoption of M. Aure-

clined to date it somewhat later. The lius by Antoninus Pius in A.D. 147.

Diognetus addressed is not improbably On the other hand the simplicity of

the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, and the the theological teaching will not allow

reference to ' a King sending his us to bring the date down much later,
son as a King ' (u>s /3ao-tXei>s

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 95

extant Apology, in which he describes himself as an 'Athenian.'
Thus the account of him given by Philippus Sidetes and pre-
served by Nicephorus Callistus 1 , which makes him the first
leader of the Catechetical school at Alexandria, must be
inaccurate. But Philip of Side, who lived in the fifth century
and was ordained deacon by Chrysostom, was a notoriously
pretentious and careless writer. For instance, in his short
account of Athenagoras he makes Pantsenus the pupil of
Clement, and asserts that Athenagoras' Apology was addressed
to Hadrian and Antoninus, whereas its title shows it to have
been dedicated to the emperors Aurelius and Commodus, and
therefore written after Commodus was associated in the govern-
ment (autumn of A.D. 176). From other indications it seems
possible to fix the date more precisely between the end of
A.D. 176 and the end of A.D. 177 2 .

The absence of all appeal to Holy Scripture, which is
characteristic of apologies addressed to the heathen, is noticeable
in Athenagoras also. But this does not prevent him from
exhibiting correspondences with the thought and teaching
of the Fourth Gospel. Thus God the Father ' hath made all
things by the Word that proceedeth from Him (Sia rov Trap'
avrov Aoyov 4 ; cf. John i. 3).' Again, ' the Son of God is
(the) Word of the Father in form and in energy ; for of Him
and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son
being one, the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the
Son ( 10 ; cf. John i. 3, xvii. 21 sq.).' ' To know God and the
Word that proceedeth from Him, what is the union of the Son
with the Father, what the communion (KOIVOJVLCI) of the Father
with the Son' is the Christian's life (12; cf. John xvii. 3).

1 See Dodwell Dissert, in Iren. of the Christians of Vienne and Lyons

2 The /3a0e?a dprivrj ( 2) is only (A.D. 177) raises a difficulty. Athen-
applicable to the years 176-178 in agoras declares ( 35) that no slaves
the reign of M. Aurelius. This peace had ever accused their Christian mas-
intervened between the close of the ters of the infamous crimes attributed
insurrection of Avidius Crassus and to them. This statement ceased to be
the outbreak of the Marcomannic War. true after the commencement of the
On the other hand to place the Apology persecution in question.

after the outbreak of the persecution

96 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

The later Church of Greece proper is almost a blank as
regards any literary activity.

VII. THE CHURCH OF ROME.

The genuine Epistle of Clement has been assigned with
great probability to A.D. 95 or 96, during the reign of Domitian,
when St John was still in banishment in the island of Patmos.
It was almost certainly composed before St John wrote his
Gospel. Accordingly, in this, the first contribution to Christian
extra-canonical literature which emanated from Rome, no
quotation from the Fourth Gospel is possible.

1. We therefore pass on to the SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, the
author of which is described in the Muratorian Canon, in a
well-known passage, to have composed his work during the
episcopate of his brother Pius (c. A.D. 141-156) in Rome 1 . It is
the earliest Christian allegory, written probably by a slave 2 , and
is noticeable for its lack of quotations from Holy Scripture.
This applies not merely to the New Testament but to the Old
Testament likewise. There are numerous passages which recall
the language of the psalms and prophetical books in the one
case, and of the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles especially the
Epistle of St James in the other, but the coincidences are
embedded in the narrative itself, and have to be carefully
disentangled from it. The only quotation which is avowedly
such, is taken from an apocryphal work, the book of Eldad and
Modad 3 . In spite however of this characteristic feature, the
treatise contains indications that the author was influenced by
the writings of St John. The very title The Shepherd recalls
the parable of the Good Shepherd in John x., and the sixth
Similitude is an elaboration of the metaphor employed in that

1 Sedente cathedra urbis Eomae ec- probable that he came originally from
clesiae Pio episcopo fratre eius. Can. Southern Greece.

Murator. p. 58 sq. (ed. Tregelles). 3 '771)5 Kifyuos rots tTri<TTpe<f>o/j.ti>oi$,

2 Vis. i. 1, unless indeed he is as- wj ytypairrat tv T$ 'EX5a5 /cai Muddr
suming a fictitious character. His Vis. ii. 3.

mention of Arcadia (Sim. ix.) makes it

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 97

parable. The same chapter in the Fourth Gospel affords a
more remarkable coincidence. In the ninth Similitude the Son
of God is called 'the Gate 1 / and it is added that 'no man can
enter into the kingdom of God otherwise than through the
name of His Son Who is beloved by Him (Sim. ix. 12 ;
cf. John x. 9, xiv. 6).' In the same section the Son of God is
said to be 'begotten prior (Trpoyevecrrepo^) to all His Creation,
so that He became His Father's adviser in His Creation.'
These correspondences occurring together seem to indicate the
influence of the Fourth Gospel. Elsewhere St John's teaching
on ' the Truth ' underlies Hennas' words as in Mand. iii., 'Love
the truth, and let nothing but truth proceed out of your mouth
...and thus shall the Lord, Who dwelleth in thee, be glorified,
for the Lord is true in every word, and with Him is no lie,'
a clear allusion to 1 John ii. 27. Lastly, another passage recalls
expressions in John x. 18, the Son 'having Himself cleansed
the sins of His people, showed them the paths of life, giving
them the law which He received from His Father (Sim. v. 6).'
2. The reasons for assigning the MuRATORIAN CANON to
Rome are briefly as follows: (1) the mention of 'urbs,' implying
that the writer was familiar with Rome and probably wrote at
Rome, (2) the translation of the work into Latin and its
preservation in the Western Church, (3) the fact that the
Canon which it presents is substantially the Canon of the
Western Church 2 , (4) the knowledge which the writer displays
of the Roman authorship of the Pastor of Hennas, (5) the
prominent position assigned to the Epistle to the Romans,
which he explains more fully than usual, promising an
exposition of the Epistle itself 3 . I will not discuss the

1 The word is 6vpa in St John, TT^XT; refuse to allow the public reading of the
in Hermas ; but the passage in St Apocalypse of Peter, as though imply -
John is loosely quoted at least three ing that the majority accepted this
times by the early heretics given in work as canonical.

Hippolytus with irv\ri instead of 0upa; 3 Komanis autem ordine (?ordinein)

and so also in the Clementine Homi- scripturarum sed et principium earum

lies; see below, p. 114. esse Christum intimans prolixius scrip -

2 There is however an obscure allu- sit, de quibus singulis necesse est a
sion to some (quidam ex nostris) who nobis disputari.

L. E. 7

98 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

question of the authorship of this interesting fragment. It
has been assigned to Gaius, the Roman presbyter, to He-
gesippus, to Hippolytus. It was obviously written in Greek
originally, and Greek was for the first two centuries the
language of the Roman Church. The data for ascertaining the
age of the writing are two, (1) the notice of an event occurring
in the episcopate of Pius (A.D. 141-156) as having taken place
nuperrime temporibus nostris, (2) the mention in a passage
manifestly corrupt of Arsinous, Valentinus, Miltiades 1 , Basilides
and the founder of the Montanists. We have thus the inferior
and the superior limits within which the work is to be assigned ;
and, though the problem presents considerable difficulties, we
may provisionally place the date at A.D. 170 or thereabouts.

The fragment opens with an account of the Four Gospels.
It is mutilated at the beginning, and the description of
St Matthew's Gospel is wanting. This is the case too with the
notice of St Mark's Gospel, which is lost all but the conclusion
of the last sentence ' at which however he was present and so
he set them down 2 .' But the account given of St Luke throws
light upon the writer's meaning. St Luke, he tells us, was
a physician who after the Ascension became a follower of
St Paul and compiled his Gospel in his own name. 'But
neither did he (nee ipse i.e. any more than St Mark) see the
Lord in the flesh/ that is to say, he was not an eyewitness.
'He wrote from hearsay (ex opinione e'f a/eor}?).' The writer
then continues, 'The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John one
of the (personal) disciples (of Christ) (ex discipulis e/c rdov
paOriTwv)! This expression is significant. St John's position
is here contrasted with that of St Mark and St Luke, who
were not eyewitnesses. The word /jbaOrjrr)^ implies a personal
disciple of the Lord, and it is so used in Papias and Irenseus 3 .
Moreover in this place it is peculiarly appropriate, inasmuch as
St John uses this expression of himself (John xviii. 15, 16,

1 For speculations as to Arsinous 2 Quibustameninterfuitetitaposuit.
and Miltiades see Bunsen Anal. Anten. 3 Irenaeus always calls John o TOV
i. p. 134 sq., andCredner Canon, p. 82. Kvplov /j.adrjTrjs; e.g. above, p. 57.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 99

xix. 26, 27, xxi. 20, 23, 24) 1 ; and his example doubtless fixed
the usage of the Asiatic School. A little lower down, after
quoting 1 John i. 1, he draws attention to the fact that
St John 'not only claimed to have seen and heard' the Lord
(read non solum visorem se esse et auditorem), 'but to have
written all the marvels of the Lord in order (sed et scriptorem
omnium mirdbilium Domini per ordinem profitetur).' This
statement is emphatic. As distinct from the arrangement of
events in the second and third (perhaps also in the firs) Gospel,
the eyewitness is declared to preserve the true chronology.

The references to the writings of St John in the
Muratorian Canon are full and explicit. (1) The circum-
stances under which the Gospel was written are first described ;
(2) incidentally the opening words in the first Epistle are
quoted, 'What wonder then if John so boldly puts forward
each statement in his Epistle (in epistolis suis rals eVto-ToXat? 2 )
also saying of himself, " What we have seen with our eyes and
heard with our ears and our hands have handled, these things
we have written unto you'"; (3) The mention of the number of
St Paul's Epistles introduces an allusion to the Apocalypse, ' for
John likewise in the Apocalypse, although he writes to seven
Churches, yet speaks to all.' (4) Next the Catholic Epistles are
discussed 3 , and we are told that 'two Epistles of the before-
mentioned John are considered canonical 4 ,' (5) lastly, the
Apocalypse is mentioned again in conjunction with the Apoca-
lypse of St Peter, and an unqualified testimony is given to its
acceptance in the Church. Thus there is a continuous chain of

1 See Westcott Canon of the N. T. 3 There is evidently a lacuna in the
p. 211 (ed. 4). MS. hereabouts, for the First Epistle of

2 The plural is here probably used St Peter is not mentioned.

to describe one epistle. This is not 4 Superscript! lohannis duas (I.

uncommon, cf. the Epistle of Poly- duae) in catholica (Z. catholieis) ha-

carp ( 3) ; Euseb. H . E. vi. 1 ; vi. 43 ; bentur. The two Epistles meant are

Joseph. Ant. xii. 4. 10 ; and in classical probably the Second and Third Epistles,

writers Thuc. i. 132 ; iv. 50; viii. 51 ; the first being considered as a kind of

Polyb. v. 43. 5 etc. It is common in prologue to the Gospel, detached from

the LXX ; cf. Esth. iii. 14 ; 1 Mace. v. the shorter pair, and treated with the

14, etc. See my Philippians, p. 140 sq. Gospel.

100 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

notices, and the absence of the faintest hint to the contrary
renders it unquestionable that the same John is meant from
beginning to end as the author of the Gospel, of the First
Epistle, of the two shorter Epistles, and of the Apocalypse.

But is not the account of the Gospels in this fragment
founded upon Papias ? And if so, what account did Papias
give ? We have found that the Muratorian writer lays stress
on the secondary character of St Mark's account, with apparent
reference to his chronology. Papias also 1 informs us concerning
St Mark, that, though strictly accurate, he 'did not write in order
(ov /jbevToi rafet), for he was not himself a hearer or follower of
the Lord (ovre yap rj/covcre TOV ILvpLov ovre iraprjKdXovdrjcrev
aura}).' Again, we notice that the Muratorian writer quotes
from the First Epistle of St John in evidence. Papias likewise
does the same. We are not told with what object Papias
adduced this testimony from the Epistles; but it is at least
a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the
Muratorian writer. May it not then be inferred with some
degree of probability that the writer of the Muratorian Canon
borrowed in some degree from Papias ? The use of the term
ex discipulis seems to point to such a source of information.

3. It might have been unnecessary to carry the history of
the Canon in the Roman Church further ; but doubts have been
thrown 2 of the view of HIPPOLYTUS upon this question. It
has been maintained that he shows no knowledge of the Gospel
as the work of St John. It would indeed have been marvellous
if Hippolytus, the pupil of Irenseus, and the friend of Origen,
both of whom bear such unmistakeable testimony to the recep-
tion of the Fourth Gospel, had entertained any doubts on this
subject. But the answer to the objection is evident. (1) When
Hippolytus expounds his own views, he is addressing heathens.
He therefore does not appeal to any scripture, because it would
not carry authority with his hearers. (2) It is perfectly evident

1 Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39. character of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 57,

2 Tayler An attempt to ascertain the 77, 87.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND

when he refers to the quotations from St John in Gnostic
writings 1 , that he and they alike received as authoritative the
documents which are quoted. (3) He does not mention by
name St Matthew or St Luke. He mentions St Peter and
St James indeed, but without any connexion with their writings
in the New Testament. The only Pauline Epistles which he
connects with the name of St Paul are Romans, 2 Corinthians,
1 Timothy and perhaps Galatians 2 , though he quotes these and
most of the other Epistles of St Paul repeatedly. (4!) In the
work against Noetus ( 12, 14, 15 etc.) and in a fragment
preserved by Lagarde (p. 52) he distinctly quotes the Fourth
Gospel and attributes it to 'John, the beloved disciple 3 .'
(5) Among the list of works ascribed to him on his statue is
a 'Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of St John.' The work
is lost, but there is reason to suppose that it was known to, and
used by, Epiphanius 4 . These reasons seem to me amply to
justify our claim to reckon Hippolytus among the witnesses for
the Johannine authorship.

Hippolytus is the last and most famous representative of the
Greek Church of Rome. Henceforward Rome becomes the
focus of Latin Christendom.

VIII. THE CHURCHES OF AFRICA.

Meanwhile Latin Christianity has had its headquarters in
Africa and especially at Carthage. And it is here that we must
seek the opinion of the early Latin Church on the question of
the Canon. The Roman Church, Greek in nation and Latin in
soil, was the natural link between Greek and Latin Christendom.
Carthage and Africa were converted from Rome. The Canon

1 See below, p. 105 sq. 30, ii. 19, iii. 6, 13 (twice and by name),

2 Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians 31, iv. 34, v. 25 (twice), 36, vi. 27, 35,
once only, 1 Timothy twice. 45, viii. 12, x. 18, 30, xi. 35, 52, xiv. 6,

3 The quotations are as follows: 8 sq. 12; xvi. 28, xix. 14, 37, xx. 1,
John i. 1 (by name), 1-3 (by name)* 17.

10, 14, 18, 20, 29 (twice, once by name), 4 On this work see below, p. 118.

102 'tHE GGSBEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

of the African Church therefore may be supposed, in all the
more important points, to reproduce the Canon of the Church
of Rome.

1. TERTULLIAN is the first known writer of the African
Church ; as to his own individual opinion on the authority of
the Fourth Gospel no doubt can be entertained. He quotes it
some two hundred times or more without the slightest mis-
giving. It is more important to trace the evidence, which his
language affords, to the traditional testimony to its use. Thus
in his treatise against Marcion (iv. 2, 5), after mentioning the
four Evangelists together by name, he appeals to the Churches
founded by St John and the succession of bishops derived from
St John, as evidence for the reception of the Gospels by the
Catholic Church. Making all allowance for his rhetoric, such
an appeal cannot be considered unmeaning. Of the Gospel of
St John especially he speaks (adv. Prax. 5) as though it had
long worked itself into the phraseology and the teaching of
Christianity.

2. Another document, contemporary with, or rather earlier
than, Tertullian, THE ACTS OF MARTYRDOM OF SS. PERPETUA
AND FELICITAS (Ruinart, p. 80 sq.) shows what deep hold the
writings of St John had taken on the African Church at this
time. At the outset, we meet in the preface with two obvious
coincidences with Johannine phraseology. The courage of the
martyrs is instanced as a proof of the power of God, * Who
worketh always the works which He hath promised, for a
testimony to them that believe not, for a support to them that
believe ' (quae repromisit non credentibus in testimonium, cre-
dentibus in beneficium a reference to John x. 38). The passage
then proceeds, 'accordingly in our case too, that which we
have heard and handled declare we unto you also, brothers and
sons, that ye also may... recount the glory of God (et nos itaque
quod audivimus et contrectavimus annuntiamus et vobis, fratres et
filioli, ut et vos...rememoremini gloriae Domini),' an expression

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 103

based upon the opening words of St John's First Epistle 1 .
Less stress can be laid on the fact that in her vision Perpetua
sees ( 4) sitting in the midst of a garden hominem canum in
habitu Pastoris, for this favourite idea of Christ as the Good
Shepherd may have been derived from the Pastor of Hermas,
though its original source was doubtless John x. But towards
the close of the document occurs an allusion to the Fourth
Gospel, which is interesting because it is not apparent on the
surface. The only direct quotation from the New Testament
found in this martyrology runs as follows : ' But He who had
said, "Ask and ye shall receive " (qui discer at Petite et accipietis),
gave (to the martyrs) at their prayer that form of death which
each had desired ( 19).' Now, though the passage quoted
occurs in three of the four Gospels (Matt. vii. 7, Luke xi. 9,
John xvi. 24), yet the exact form in which it is couched 2 shows
that it was derived, not from the Synoptic narrative, but from
the Fourth Gospel. In short, with the exception of the Apoca-
lypse (e.g. especially 12), there are no such coincidences with
any other part of the New Testament as are afforded to the
language of the Fourth Evangelist.

The Montanist, or rather Montanizing 3 , tendencies of this
martyrology bear testimony to its early date. Indeed, there is
every reason to believe that it was contemporary with the
events which it records. Tertullian refers to the document in
his de anima 55, and the date usually assigned to this treatise
is c. A.D. 208. The date of the martyrdom of St Perpetua and
her companions is fixed by a reference in the martyrology itself
to the birthday of Geta Caesar 4 , thus placing it between
A.D. 198, when Geta became Caesar, and A.D. 209, when he was
created Augustus. It is highly probable that the actual year
was A.D. 202, during the persecution of Severus.

1 The passage quoted is probably alone alrelre /ecu \-/i/j,\f/e<rOe.

verse 3. Notice however the variation 3 The allusion to ' cheese ' in 4

quod audivimus et contrectavimus for can, I think, hardly be taken to show

quod vidimus et audivimus. that the writer or the martyrs were

2 St Matthew and St Luke have Artotyrites.

cu'retre /ecu dodrja-eTcu vfuv, St John 4 Natale tune Getae Caesaris 7.

104 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

IX. THE CHURCHES OF SYRIA.

There is no early Syrian writer of importance until Barde-
sanes. He flourished at the close of the second century, or at
the beginning of the third century, according as we consider the
emperor Antoninus mentioned in connexion with him (Epiph. i.
477 A, Eus. H. E. iv. 20, Jerome Vir. III. etc.) to have been
M. Aurelius or Caracalla. Bardesanes was a voluminous writer,
but of the various works assigned to him only one has survived,
The Book of the Laws of Countries, which was discovered by
Cureton among the Nitrian MSS., and published by him in his
Spicilegium Syriacum in 1855. When examined, however, this
treatise appears to have emanated from the disciples of Barde-
sanes rather than from Bardesanes himself, and its date is too
late to be of assistance in determining the tradition of the
Syrian Church on the question of the Fourth Gospel. Among
the Ancient Syriac Documents discovered by Cureton in 1848
and published in 1864, is one entitled The Doctrine of the
Apostles, in which Simon Peter is represented (Cureton I. c.
p. 25) as quoting the promise of the Comforter in the language of
John xiv. 26 ; and in another document, The Doctrine of Simon
Cephas, the same quotation in a shorter form is again put into
St Peter's mouth (Cureton 1. c. p. 36). But here again, the value
of this evidence is lessened by the uncertainty of the date which
is to be assigned to these ancient documents.

X. THE TESTIMONY OF HERETICAL WRITERS.

We now pass from the evidence of orthodox writers to the
testimony of heretics, and when we begin to look into it we are
surprised at its extent and at its early date. The numerous
controversies which the early fathers held with the multiform
systems to which Christianity gave rise, has resulted in our
possessing, embedded in the works of the defenders of the faith,
large extracts from the writers who assailed it. This mine
of unorthodox literature has been largely increased by the

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 105

acquisition in recent years of Hippolytus' great work the
Refutation of all Heresies. From this newly-discovered work
I shall draw the greater part of the evidence which I hope
to bring before you. The evidence itself I shall state as briefly
as I can. We will begin with the Gnostics.

A. THE GNOSTICS.

1. SIMON MAGUS is credited with a work called The Great
Revelation (77 fjueyaXr) d7r6<f>acri,s), of which Hippolytus has pre-
served considerable extracts (Ref. vi. 9-18). There is however
reason to believe that the treatise was mainly written by his
disciples. In a quotation from this book given by Hippolytus
(1. c. vi. 9), where man is described as ' born of blood ' (rov e'
ai/jLcircov yeyevvrjfjLevov), some have found an allusion to John i.
13 (ot ov/c ef ai/jLdra)v...6jvvr)67ja-av). This seems to me very
doubtful. Indeed the book was probably composed somewhere
about the close of the first century, perhaps before the Gospel of
St John was written, or at least circulated.

2. The OPHITES or NAASSENES. This was a very early sect,
almost pre-Christian in its origin, which broke up into several
distinct branches, as it adopted diverse extraneous elements.
But its assimilative character makes it next to impossible for
us to separate the more ancient features of its teaching from
the more recent developments. Thus we have no means of
ascertaining the exact date of the writings quoted by Hippolytus
But Hippolytus himself composed his Refutation some time
early in the third century 1 , and he intimates that when he
wrote the Ophite system was already on the wane. There is
good reason therefore for assigning an early period in the second
century for the document which he had before him. It abounds
with quotations from the Fourth Gospel. I will not weary you

1 The limits of date for the compo- own death, which took place some-

sition are the death of Callistus A.D. where between A.D. 235 and 238 (Liber

220, of whom an account is given Pontificalis i. pp. 64, 145, Duchesne).
(Haer. ix. 11 sq.), and Hippolytus'

106 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

by detailing them at length, but will content myself with giving
the references to the Gospel and to the pages in Duncker and
Schneidewin's edition (1859) of the Refutatio, merely premising
that the quotations are clear and explicit.

John i. 3. Refutatio v. 8 (p. 150), v. 9 (166).

i. 9. v. 9 (p. 172).

iii. 5. v. 8 (p. 162).

iii. 6. v. 7 (p. 148).

iv. 10, 14. v. 9 (p. 172).

iv. 21. v. 9 (p. 166).

v. 37. v. 8 (p. 154).

vi. 44. v. 8 (p. 158).

vi. 53. v. 8 (p. 152).

viii. 21. v. 8 (p. 154).

x. 9. v. 8 (p. 156).

xiii. 33. v. 8 (p. 152).

There are also undoubted allusions to the marriage of Cana
in Galilee (John ii'. 1-11 ; cf. Ref. v. 8 p. 152) and to the man
born blind (John ix. 1 ; cf. Ref. v. 9 p. 172), which are evidently
taken from the same source. And this list might be enlarged
without difficulty.

3. The distinction between the PERAT^E and the Naassenes
is not very clearly defined, and the two bodies seem to have
held many tenets in common ; but Hippolytus treats them as
separate sects, and it is evident therefore that he considered the
Peratse, as a body, to have a real and independent existence.
I tabulate as before the obvious quotations from the Fourth
Gospel, which occur in the account of them taken by Hippolytus
from one of their own documents.

John i. 1-4. Refutatio v. 16 (p. 194).

iii. 14. v. 16 (p. 192).

iii. 17. v. 12 (p. 178).

viii. 44. v. 17 (p. 196).

x. 7. v. 17 (p. 198).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 107

4. We pass on to another Ophite sect, which is treated
next in order in the Refutatio the SETHIANI. As far as we
can judge from the extracts which Hippolytus gives us, the
formularies of this sect do not indulge in scriptural phraseology
to any great extent But here again we meet with traces of
the use of St John's language, e.g. Ref. v. 19 (p. 206), where
the Logos is said to have 'drunk the cup of the living water which
springeth up,' an expression which recalls John iv. 10, 14 ; and
Ref. v. 21 (p. 212), where true believers are spoken of as those
' who are born again of the Spirit, not of the flesh,' words which
remind us of John iii. 6.

5. JUSTINUS, whom Hippolytus quotes as another Ophite
heresiarch, elaborated a system which combined heathen
mythology and the book of Genesis into a fantastic theory of
the universe. The Book of Baruch, from which Hippolytus
quotes, presents few correspondences with the New Testament,
but the same coincidence is found with John iv. 10, 14, which
we have noticed already ; and Jesus, as he leaves his body on
the cross, says to his mother Eden, ' Woman, thou hast to the
full thy son ' (Tvvai, aTre^et? crov rbv viov), words which, though
with a wholly different application, betray an acquaintance with
John xix. 26.

6. The evidence which the Ophite system affords can be
supplemented from the PISTIS SOPHIA, one of the few
remains of the old Gnostic literature which have come down to
us. This work is preserved in a Coptic version. It is in four
books, the fourth probably by a different author, and containing
a simpler form of teaching than the other three. The date
usually assigned to the composition is the middle of the third
century. I give from Petermann's edition the correspondences
which it presents with the Fourth Gospel.

John i. 20. Pistis Sophia p. 9.
vii. 33. p. 11.

xii. 35. p. 11.

xiv. 3. p. 145.

108 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

John xv. 15. Pistis Sophia p. 145.

xv. 19. pp. 8, 145.

xvii. 14, 16. pp. 8. 145.

xvii. 23. p. 145.

xvii. 25. pp. 120, 175.

The Johannine expression ' Verily, verily '
occurs very frequently (pp. 23, 55, 117, 197) in this treatise.

7. BASILIDES, Gnostic teacher of Alexandria, flourished in
the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138). He professed to have
been instructed by Glaucias, a follower of St Peter. Clement of
Alexandria, to whom we owe this information (Strom, vii. 17
p. 898), classes him in a loose way with those heretics ' who
arose about the times of Hadrian, and who reached until the
period of the elder Antoninus 1 / Though Clement was interested
in placing his date as low as possible 2 , there is no serious
difference of opinion in this respect. Within a few years the
limit must lie. Now Hippolytus gives an abstract of a work,
or portion of a work, by Basilides ; and in it one or two passages
of St John are quoted and gnostically explained : ' And this,'
says he, ' is what is called in the Gospels, " That was the true
light that lighteth every man who cometh (or coming) into
the world " J (*Hz> TO $? TO d\r)6ii>6v, b </>omet iravra avOptoirov
ep%6/jLvov et? TOV KQG^ov Ref. vii. 22 p. 360 ; cf. John i. 9).
And again : ' But that every thing,' says he, ' has its own
proper times (/caipovs), the Saviour states explicitly, saying,
" My time is not yet come " ' (ovirco rjKet, rj a>pa JJLOV Ref. vii. 27
p. 376 ; cf. John ii. 4). It is said, however, that these quotations
are taken not from Basilides himself, but from some other
Basilidean writer. But what are the facts ? The general form
in which the quotations are introduced the word ty^a-lv
cannot be urged as an argument one way or the other ; for the
expression is often used impersonally, and may mean ' he says '

1 Our chief authorities for the life xxiv. 1. (p. 68 c), Theodoretfl". F. i. 2.
of Basilides are Clem. I.e., Iren. i. 24, 2 He is contending that the Catholic
3 sq., Eus. H. E. iv. 7, Epiph. Haer. Church is older than the sects.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 109

or ' they say.' The question must be decided by an examination
of the passages themselves. Hippolytus begins by stating
(p. 356 1. 64), that Basilides and Isidore his son and disciple
declare that Matthew delivered to them certain secret truths
which he had heard from the Saviour. Then follows a series of
quotations, extending over many pages and ushered in (p. 356
1. 69) by <f)7)criv. This connecting particle is repeated again and
again, but it links together a continuous argument from which
it is patent that Hippolytus is quoting some one book and
some one representative of the school. When he comments on
the statements made, he occasionally speaks of his opponents in
the plural 1 , but the narrative quoted exhibits more than once the
writer's personality, e.g. '"I do not admit," says he' (ov &e%o/i,afc,
<f>7)o-iv p. 356 1. 79); '"By willed, I mean," says he' (TO Se
r)6e\rj(re Xeyw, fyrjcri p. 358 1. 97), clearly showing that the
writer was a single individual who delivered his opinions with
authority. Who then was this writer ? The answer is obvious.
None other than Basilides himself. No other name is
mentioned 2 by Hippolytus. After the first introduction Isidore
is tacitly dropped, and Basilides is treated as the solitary
antagonist. But it may be contended that this was a later
work written by a disciple in the name of Basilides. To this
contention we may reply, (1) that no such work was ever heard
of, (2) that Basilides differed herein from other heresiarchs, as
Simon Magus for example, in that his followers had no interest in
forging documents in his name. For unlike the Ophites and the
Valentmians, the Basilideans were not a large and spreading sect.
They soon dwindled away, leaving by a natural selection the
Ophites and Valentinians masters of the Gnostic field. On the
other hand, the abstract which Hippolytus gives shows the
influence of a master mind. Now it is known that Basilides
wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel 3 a work which is

1 e.g. p. 356 11. 84, 86, p. 360 11. 45, roiouro B.), p. 364 1. 8 (StT^rcu ybp
49, p. 366 1. 36, p. 368 1. 69, p. 376 vwo B.), P- 366 1. 46 (B....3ui<ra0er), cf.
1. 7, p. 378 1. 12. p. 366 1. 47, p. 368 1. 50 etc.

2 e.g. p. 356 1. 85, p. 360 1. 27 3 See Agrippa Castor in Eus. H. E.
(<j>evyei ybp 6 B.), p. 362 1. 67 (Ka\ei TO iv. 7.

110 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

quoted by Clement of Alexandria 1 , and which therefore was
very likely to be in the hands of Hippolytus. And part of the
abstract in Hippolytus is taken up with explaining what is
meant by the term 'the Gospel' 2 ; while the whole is closed
with the significant sentence, ' These then are the fables which
Basilides utters, who taught throughout Egypt, and such were
the fruits which he produced who was instructed in so great
wisdom (p. 378 1. 40 sq.).' And then Basilides is dismissed,
and Hippolytus goes on to combat his contemporary Saturninus 3 .
The extreme probability therefore that we have in the Refuta-
tion the very words of Basilides himself falls little short of
demonstration; and thus we have a passage from St John
quoted, as contained ' in the Gospels,' by one outside the
Church who ranks in antiquity between Clement of Rome
and Poly carp 4 .

8. VALENTINUS came to Rome, we are told, in the episco-
pate of Hyginus (A.D. 138-141) and was in his full vigour in the
episcopate of Pius (c. A.D. 141-1 56) 5 . He professed to have
received his instruction from Theodas, a disciple of St Paul 6 .
Tertullian informs us 7 that he adopted the Canon of the New
Testament complete, and the fact that the whole phraseology of
the Valentinian system is built upon the opening verses of
St John's Gospel 8 is conclusive evidence that he recognised our
Fourth Evangelist. Indeed, we have Irenseus' authority (iii. 11, 7)
for saying that the Valentinians especially affected the Gospel
of St John. But the matter is set at rest once for all by a
distinct quotation from St John (x. 8) which Hippolytus
records of him (Bia TOVTO, (frrjcri, Xeyet o 2fim//o* Hai/re? 01

1 Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 12, 83 sq. 5 Irenams iii. 4, 3.

(p. 599 sq.). 6 Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 17, p. 898.

2 e.g. p. 370 1. 97 sq. , p. 372 11. 12 7 Tert. de praescr. 38, si Valentinus
sq., 32, 37, 40, p. 378 1. 10 sq., and integro instrumento uti videtur, non
especially p. 376 1. 6 sq. callidiore ingenio quamMarcionmanus

3 ravra. i*tv oSv tartv a ical B. pv0e6ct, intulit veritati ; cf. de came Chr. 19,
. . . SaTO/wet Acs S TIS <rwaK/tid<ras ry B. Iren. iii. 14, 4.

K.r.X. Eef. vii. 27, p. 378 1. 40 sq. 8 7rX^/)w/Aa, /Jiovoyevris, 0a>s, <r/f6Tos,

4 See Westcott Canon of the N. T. \6yos, fwij, dX^tfeia are Valentinian
p. 290, ed. 4. terms, so also is

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. Ill

7T/30 efjuov 6Xrj\v06vTs K\e7TTcu teal \rj<TTal el<rl Ref. vi. 35 p. 284
1. 77 sq.).

9. The Valentinians were divided into two schools (1)
Western and (2) Eastern (Hipp. Ref. vi. 35 p. 286). Of the
Western Valentinians the most noticeable names are Heracleon,
Ptolemaeus and Marcus. Now HERACLEON 1 wrote a commentary
on St John, which is quoted frequently by Origen 2 . Origen
informs us that Heracleon was reported to have been a familiar
friend of Valentinus (Comm. in Joan. Tom. n. 8). The rise of
commentaries shows an advanced stage in the history of the
text of the Fourth Gospel. PTOLEMAEUS, like Heracleon, was
a direct disciple of Valentinus. His letter to his sister Flora
is preserved in Epiphanius (Haer. xxxiii. 3 p. 216 sq.); and in it
John i. 3 is quoted ( 3) as the statement of o aTrotrroXo?. Again,
in Iren. i. 8, 2 a Valentinian writer quotes John xii. 27 (ri etirta
OVK olSa), and a little later on ( 5) follows a direct quotation
from the same or another writer, commencing, 'John the
disciple of the Lord/ and explaining from a Valentinian stand-
point the prologue of the Fourth Gospel. From the clause
added at the end of the section in the Latin version (et
Ptolemaeus quidem etc.) it appears that the anonymous writer
was Ptolemaeus. MARCUS himself must have been of early
date, inasmuch as ' the Elder who lived before ' Irenaeus wrote
against him (Iren. i. 15, 6). From the account which Irenaeus
preserves of him, he appears to have used our Four Gospels,
and the extracts from his teaching which survive in the works
of this father contain an illustration of the mystical number
ten, founded on a reference to the appearance of our Lord after
His resurrection 'when Thomas was not present' (Iren. i. 18, 3;
cf. John xx. 24).

It is doubtful whether Marcus should be included among
the Western, and not rather among the Eastern Valentinians.
Our information as regards these last is very scanty, but a ray

1 For his date see Hilgenfeld Zeit- 2 He is also quoted by Clem. Alex.
schr. x. p. 75, and Westcott Canon Strom, iv. 73, p. 595.
p. 299 sq. ed. 4.

112 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

of light is thrown upon them by a collection of extracts ap-
pended to the works of Clement of Alexandria and according to
Bunsen (Analect Antenic. p. 203) taken from the first book of
the Hypotyposeis. The collection is entitled etc rwv SeoBorov
Kal r^9 ava,To\i,ief)<; Ka\ovp,evns SiSaa/eaXta? Kara TOU? Ova\ev-
Tivov %poVoi/9 7riTOfjLa. It abounds in quotations from the
Fourth Gospel, explained in a Valentinian sense. I tabulate
the most striking, giving the pages from Potter's edition of
Clement :

John i. 1. Clem. Alex. 6, 18 pp. 968, 973.

i. 3. 45 p. 979.

i. 4. 6, 18 pp. 968, 973.

i. 9. 41 p. 979.

i. 14, 18. 6 p. 968.

ii. 16. 9 p. 969.

iii. 8. 17 p. 972.

iv. 24. 17 p. 972.

viii. 12. 35 p. 978.

viii. 56. 18 p. 973.

x. 7. 26 p. 975.

xi. 25. 6 p. 968.

xiv. 6. 6 p. 968.

10. MARCION elaborated his system about A.D. 150. At first
he accepted all the Four Gospels (Tert. de came Chr. 2, 3), but
afterwards he became 'ultra- Pauline/ rejecting all but mutilations
of the writings of St Luke and St Paul. The ground on which he
would reject the authority of the three 'pillar- Apostles 1 ' is
evident from Tertullian (adv. Marcion. v. 3), who tells us that he
appealed to St Paul's references in the Epistle to the Galatians
to certain false apostles who had perverted the Gospel of
Christ, and especially to St Peter, as not walking uprightly
after the truth of the Gospel. Thus he would consider them
plunged in the blackness of intellectual darkness and incapable
of imparting any teaching to a Gnostic like himself, while his

1 Galat. ii. 9 ol SOKOVVTCS oruXot eli/cu.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 113

condemnation of the Fourth Gospel would be pointed by the
consideration that St John was an Apostle of the circumcision.
His silence therefore with respect to the Fourth Gospel
becomes an argument in favour of its genuineness ; had
Marcion quoted it with approval, the fact would have been,
so far as it went, evidence against the Johannine authorship,
Apelles, his disciple, was certainly aware of its existence, for he
tells us 1 that after His resurrection our Lord showed His
disciples ' the marks of the nails and in (of) His side/ an inci-
dent which is mentioned by St John alone (xx. 25).

11. The DOCET^E doubted the reality of the Incarnation,
saying that our Lord's humanity was an appearance and
nothing more. Their language was founded upon St John's
phraseology \6yos, povoyevr)?, 7rX?;/3&>//,a occurring constantly
in their formularies (Hipp. Ref. viii. 9, 10, pp. 416, 418, 420).
John iii. 5, 6 is adduced in support of their opinions in a Docetic
document given us by Hippolytus (Ref. viii. 10 p. 422).

12. The JUDAIZING CHRISTIANS in the primitive Church
separated off into two main divisions, according to the view that
they adopted of the obligation of the Mosaic Law. The Nazarenes,
while recognising the binding nature of the law upon themselves,
were in the main orthodox. On the other hand the Ebionites
considered the old dispensation permanent and for everyone,
and repudiated the authority and Apostleship of St Paul. In
considering the testimony which these two early Judaizing
sects afford to the Fourth Gospel, we are fortunate in being
able to appeal at first hand to extant works emanating from
representatives of both schools of thought.

The CLEMENTINE HOMILIES represent the views of Gnostic
Ebionism 2 . The exact date of the work is -uncertain, but it
may be placed with confidence between A.D. 100 180. I am
myself inclined to fix it at c. A.D. 150. Formerly our know-
ledge of the treatise was derived from a manuscript mutilated

1 In Hipp. Ref. vii. 38, p. 410. my Galatians, pp. 327 sq., 340 sq.

2 On the Clementine literature see [Dissertations, pp. 83 sq., 98 sq.]

L. E. 8

114 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

at the end, and some alleged correspondences with the Fourth
Gospel, which it contained, were hotly disputed by the Tubingen
school, who made this document the keystone of their elaborate
theory of the alleged antagonism between St Paul and St Peter in
the early Church. In 1853, however, Dressel published the mis-
sing conclusion from a Vatican MS., and it was found to contain
an obvious allusion to the story of the man born blind 1 . From
that time the acquaintance of the Clementine writer with the
Fourth Gospel has not been denied. Though this passage in
the 19th homily is decisive, it may be of interest to give
other coincidences from the earlier portions of this work; e.g.
Clem. Horn. iii. 25 * He was a murderer and a liar ' (fyovevs yap
rjv /cal ^JreucTTT/?, cf. John viii. 44) ; Clem. Horn. iii. 52 ' I am
the gate (77 irv^yY of life, ne that entereth through me entereth
into life ' (cf. John x. 27) ; ib. ' My sheep hear my voice ' (cf.
John x. 9) ; Clem. Horn. xi. 26 ' Verily I say unto you, except
ye be born again of living water in the name of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven ' (cf. John iii. 5).

The book entitled THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE
PATRIARCHS is a product of Nazarene, as the Clementine
Homilies of Ebionite, Judaism. It was written after the
capture of Jerusalem by Titus, and probably before the
rebellion of Barcochba (A.D. 132 135) 3 . It professes to be a
prophecy of the Messiah, and it could not therefore without
loss of dramatic propriety quote from the Evangelical record,

1 80ev Kal 5i5d<r/caXos w&v irepl TOV named by Origen (Horn, in Jos. xv. 6),
eK yeverijs wripov Kal at>a(3\e\f/avTos Trap' and probably was known to Tertullian
avrov %era[t;(av epwrrjffaau'] el OVTOS (c. Marc. v. 1, Scorpiace 13), and (as I

77 ol yoveis avrov 'iva Ti>0Xos believe) even earlier to Irenaeus (Fragm.

y, direKplvaTO, Otfre ovrds n TJ/j.ap- 17, p. 836 sq. Stieren). Had it been

rev otfre 01 70^15 avrov, dXX' 'iva 8C avrov written after the suppression of Bar-

(fiavepwdrj i) dtiva/jus rod Qeov Clem. cochba's rebellion, it is next to im-

Hom. xix. 22 ; cf. John ix. 2, 3. possible that no mention should have

2 For irtXr) see above, p. 97. been made of an event so important

3 For the various dates assigned to to the Judaizing Christians as the
this work see on Galatians, p. 320, second destruction of Jerusalem by
[Dissertations, p. 76]. It is directly Hadrian.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 115

but it contains many expressions which are characteristic of the
Fourth Gospel, as povoyevrjs (Test. Benj. 9), o a/-i*/o? rov eoO
(Test. Jos. 19, Benj. 3), o crarrjp rov /coo-pov 1 (Test. Levi 14,
Benj. 3), 77 7777777 et? farjv rcd<rr)s crap/cos (Test. Jud. 24). Other
longer sentences are apparently due to the same source ; thus
Test. Levi 14 TO <c3<? rov KOO-JJLOV TO SoOev eV v/julv et? (froorio-fjLov
iravros dvQpcoTTov (cf. John i. 9, viii. 12), ib. 18 avros 7roi,r)<ri,
Kpicriv a\rf6eia^ eVt TT}? 7779 (cf. John v. 27) ; 16. TOTE a<ya\-
\ida erai 'A/3 pad /JL (cf. John viii. 56) ; Test. Jud. 20 TO Trvevpa
T7J9 X?7#ea9 fj,aprvpel irdvra /cal Karrjyopel irdvrwv (cf. John
xv. 26); Test. Benj. 9 eVt uXou vifra)6ijo~6rai,...Kal...(rrai,
dvaj3aivwv diro 77^9 t9 ovpavov (cf. John iii. 13, 14, vi. 62).

Hitherto the voice of antiquity, whether uttered by the
early fathers of the Church or by those who stood outside her
pale, has been unanimous, as far as we can follow it, in testifying
to the genuineness and authenticity of the Fourth Gospel. To
this universal tradition, however, there is one exception, and
one only, and we will conclude our examination of the external
evidence by a consideration of this solitary exception to the
chorus of universal attestation.

After speaking of Marcion's mutilation of the Canon,
Irenaeus (iii. 11, 9) goes on to mention 'others also, who, in
order that they may frustrate the gift of the Spirit, do not
admit that type of Church teaching (illam speciem), which is in
accordance with St John's Gospel, in which the Lord promised
that He would send the Paraclete ; but at one and the same
time reject both the Gospel and the spirit of prophecy.
Unhappy men in very truth, who desire false prophets to exist
(pseudo-prophetae read pseudo-prophetas quidem esse volunt),
but yet banish from the Church the grace of prophecy...
Accordingly they ought not to acknowledge the Apostle Paul
either... because he testifies to men and women prophesying in
the Church 2 .'

1 This expression occurs only in 2 A reference to 1 Cor. xi. 4, 5.

John iv. 42 and 1 John iv. 14.

116 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Now from Irenseus' argument, of which I have given only a
part, it is clear (1) that these objectors repudiate the Gospel of
St, John, because it contains a special promise of spiritual gifts,
< -) that they confess the existence of false prophets, and yet
deny the existence of a true prophecy, (3) hence, Irenseus
argues, they are as unreasonable as those who refuse to associate
with the brethren for fear there should be hypocrites among
them, (4) on this ground they ought not only to reject the
Gospel of St John, but also the Epistles of St Paul, for St Paul
has spoken very emphatically about spiritual gifts, and recognises
both men and women as prophesying in the Church 1 . Irenseus
goes on in the next chapter to show at great length that there
is a Spirit.

It is evident therefore that the persons spoken of are strong
anti-Montanists ; they took offence at the claims of the Monta-
nists to spiritual gifts, more especially at the prophesyings of
women. We must therefore read pseudo-prophetas in the
passage given above 2 . For Montanism was spiritualism con-
sidered as a reaction against formalism and intellectualism.
The Montanists laid great stress upon the writings of St John,
especially the Apocalypse, hence these opponents of Montanism
cut the knot by denying the authority of the Fourth Gospel 3 .
And they did more than this. Irenaeus speaks only of their
rejection of the Gospel of St John. He is dwelling only on
the Gospels ; and therefore he would naturally not say anything

1 See a similar argument used a- the martyrs 'while yet in bonds' to the
gainst these same persons by Epipha- brethren in Asia and Phrygia. At the
nius (li. 32, p. 106 ed. Oehler). same time the martyrs sent Irenseus,

2 The alternative correction of Liicke then a presbyter, as their delegate
(p. 65) nolunt for volunt seems to inter- with letters of recommendation to
fere with the sense. Eleutherus, bishop of Eome (Eus.

3 Considerable light is thrown on H. E. v. 4) for the sake of conferring
Irenseus' attitude upon this matter by with him on this same question,
the letter of the Gallican Churches to Irenaus therefore is not a strong
the Asiatic Churches quoted in Eus. anti-Montanist. He mentions the
H. E. v. 3 on this very subject of pseudo-prophetae in another passage
Montanism. The letter is an attempt (Haer. iv. 33, 6) with, again, a pro-
at mediation ; it was written avowedly bable reference to Montanism.

eKcv, and it was penned by

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 117

about their position with respect to other canonical books. It
appears however from other sources that they rejected also the
Apocalypse. For Epiphanius (who wrote after A.D. 350) describes
a sect of heretics, whom he dubs "AXoytu, or irrationalists. It is
a play on the word, for they rejected the testimony of John, who
taught the doctrine of the Logos. He says, ' I put upon
them this nickname ; from henceforth they shall be so called,
and therefore, my beloved, let us give them this name ' (Epiph.
Haer. li. 3). He seems to have succeeded in affixing this
opprobrious title upon them, for Augustine so calls them
afterwards (Haer. 30, Oehler i. p. 202). Of these Alogi Epi-
phanius relates that they sprang up after the Cataphrygians,
and he evidently considers that they originated in the same
neighbourhood (I. c. esp. 33). He begins by describing them
( 1) as e-myeloi ' material/ ' sensual/ in their views, and as
gainsaying the Holy Spirit and the wonderful sequence of the
Gospels ( 16). He closes a full account of them with a passage
commencing ( 35) ' And these not receiving the Holy Spirit
are convicted by the Spirit etc.' Thus his account begins and
ends with an allusion to their attitude towards the doctrine of
the Holy Spirit, and his expressions are meaningless unless he
is describing an anti-Spiritualist, anti-Montanist movement.
We may therefore take it for granted that Irenseus and
Epiphanius are referring to one and the same body of people.
Epiphanius goes on to say that they rejected the Gospel and
the Apocalypse, and attributed these writings to Cerinthus.
He supposes that they also rejected the Epistles of St John
likewise, ' for these/ he says, * agree in character with the
Gospel and the Apocalypse ' ( 34), but he evidently knows
nothing definite about this last point.

In every other respect the Alogi seem to have been orthodox
(Epiph. li. 4 Bofcovdi yap /cal avrol ra ccra rjfjblv Tua-revetv 1 ). It
does not appear that they rejected the doctrine of St John's
Gospel. The silence of Epiphanius on this point is speaking.

1 Compare Prsedestinatus Haer. i. 30 onmia nobiscum sapiunt (Oehler i.
p. 243).

118 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Certainly this energetic champion of orthodoxy does not detect
any mark of Ebionism in them. They may, however, have
repudiated the Johannine form under which the Divinity of our
Lord was taught, though even this is doubtful.

Very similar is the brief notice of the Alogi in Philastrius
(Oehler i. p. 61). He mentions those who reject both the
Gospel and the Apocalypse ; but he seems to restrict to the
Apocalypse their attribution of the authorship to Cerinthus.
And this was perhaps really the case. For Dionysius of
Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vii. 25, comp. iii. 28) speaks of some
before him who attributed this book to Cerinthus and the
Cerinthians, because they thought that they saw in it a gross
and material picture of an earthly kingdom of Christ. This
ascription would suit very well the fragment of Gaius written
against the Montanists and preserved in Eusebius (H. E. iii. 28),
and it is possible that Dionysius alludes to Gaius; but it is
strange that, if this was the view of Gaius, Eusebius should not
have told us so distinctly. Certainly Theodoret interpreted it
differently (Haer. Fab. ii. 3; see Routh E. S. ii. 139).

But whence did Epiphanius draw his information ? We can
make a shrewd guess. Hippolytus of Portus wrote a book vjrep
TOV Kara 'Iwavvrjv evajy\Lov /cal d7ro/ca\v^ra)^ 1 . This fact is
recorded on his statue (Fabricius Hippol. pp. 36 sq., Bunsen
Hippol. I. p. 460). That this book was known in the East
appears from the Catalogue of Ebed-Jesu (Assemani Bibl. Or.
III. p. 15), where it occurs in the list of Hippolytus' works as
Apologia pro Apocalypsi et Evangelic loannis Apostoli et
Evangelistae. It is probable also that this is the same work
of which the title is given by other writers, e.g. de Apocalypsi
(Jerome Vir. III. 61), Trepl a7roKd\vtyeax; (Andreas of Csesarea
in Apocal. Synops., Syncellus Chron. p. 674 ed. Bonn). At all
events, Epiphanius is borrowing largely from some earlier writer 2 .
Here then and elsewhere Epiphanius may have consulted Hip-

1 See above, p. 101. and the pseudo-Tertullian on heresies

2 The common source unlerlying is an interesting problem, which can-
the works of Epiphanius, Philastrius not be entered upon here.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 119

polytus. Now twice in the immediate context (li. 6, 7) is an
allusion to a Merinthus who is mentioned side by side with
Cerinthus; and from another passage 1 it is clear that Epiphanius
was uncertain whether they were not after all one and the
same person. The passage is interesting. ' Whether the same
Cerinthus was afterwards called Merinthus, or there was a sepa-
rate person by name Merinthus, a fellow-worker of his, is known
to God (alone).' Now MijpwOos means a 'noose,' and was
doubtless, as Fabricius shrewdly suggested (Cod. Apoc. N. T.
344), nothing more nor less than an opprobrious nickname given
by an earlier writer, whose work was in Epiphanius' hands, and
who may have written thus ' Cerinthus, or had we not better
say Merinthus ' (6 Se Krfpivdos ouro?, elre MrjpivOov Set \eyeiv),
and in this way misled his copyist. Such pleasantries were by
no means uncommon as applied to antagonists. Thus Demo-
critus is called by Epicurus Lenocritus (Zeller Stoics iii. 1 p.
429), Photinus of Pirmium in the Macrostich Skotinus 2 , Manes
(Mai/^?) by Eusebius 3 and others Maneis (Mavels). This habit
of playing upon names is quite characteristic of Hippolytus.
Thus in his treatise against Noetus, he turns his antagonist's
name to ridicule, NO^TO? ^ vowv rrjv d\r)6eiav (c. Noet. 8),
and in his Refutation, when dealing with the Docetae, he plays
upon the words So/celv ' to seem ' and So/eo? ' a beam,' contending
that they are so named 4 , not because they ' seemed to be of
importance ' (Gal. ii. 6), but because of * the beam in their eye '
(Matt. vii. 3). For these reasons we are tempted to infer that,
though Epiphanius claims for himself the invention of the term
Alogi, he may have borrowed the name and the account which
he gives from his more fanciful predecessor 5 .

1 Epiph. Haer. xxviii. 8, p. 1150. doKov ev 6<f>9a.\^ (ftepop^vrjv 5ie\tyxo/J.ev,

2 See Bright'sC/mrcfc History (1860), Hipp. Ref. viii. 11.

p. 52, who gives instances from Eu- 5 Two additional sources of testi-

sebius H. E. v. 23, vi. 41, vii. 10, 31. mony have been omitted in the above

3 See Bright I.e. and Cotelier Pair. account, viz. that (1) of heathen
Apost. i. p. 543. writers, (2) of Apocryphal documents.

4 AO/CT/TOIS eavrovs Trpo(nr)y6pev<ra.v, uv In the former class, Celsus (c. A.D. 150)
ov TO ooKeiv eZVcu -rims Ka.Tavoovfj.ev treats the Gospel of St John as a
/j.a.TaiovTas, dXXd TTJV K TOffavT^ vXrjs record considered authoritative by the

120

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

In looking back over the subject which has been occupying
us, we cannot fail to be struck with the variety and the fulness
of the evidence which has been adduced. Within the Catholic
Church that evidence springs in the first instance direct from
the fountain-head, the band of disciples which in Asia Minor
gathered round the person of the aged Apostle of Love. From
Polycarp and Papias it is handed down to the next link in the
chain in Irenseus, the great scholar and traveller, whose life
is associated with three distinct and important Churches-
Churches in constant intercommunication Asia Minor, Rome.
Gaul. These three great centres we are able to test by inde-
pendent extant documents, the Apology of Theophilus, the

Christians (Origen c. Celsum i. 67, ii.
18, x. 24). He speaks of Christians
calling our Lord avrbXoyov (c. Gels. ii.
31), he refers to our Lord sitting
thirsty by Jacob's well (c. Gels. i. 70 ;
cf. John iv. 6), and to the piercing of
His side and the result (c. Gels. ii. 36 ;
cf. John xix. 34). Therefore we con-
clude that by the middle of the second
century this Gospel was so well known
amongst Christians that Celsus could
appeal to it as an accredited witness.
Again Lucian(c. A.D. 165 170), in his
account of Peregrinus Proteus ( 11),
gives indications of acquaintanceship
with the Fourth Evangelist (see Zahn
Ignatius, p. 593), and so does Amelius
in Eusebius Praep. Evang. xi. 19.
The last-named was a disciple of
Plotinus, and nourished c. A.D. 250.
Prominent in the latter class are
the Ada Pilati (given in Tischendorf
Evangelia Apocrypha), which form the
first sixteen chapters of the Evange-
lium Nicodemi, and appear not only in
Greek but in Coptic and in Latin.
This is a very early work, and in its
Latin form exists in a Vienna palim-
psest of the 5th or 6th century. There
is little doubt that it is the compo-
sition referred to by Justin Martyr
(Apol. i. 35, 48) and Tertullian (Apolo-

geticus 21), for it answers in all par-
ticulars to the books described by
these writers. Apocryphal Gospels are
notoriously liable to interpolations ;
we cannot therefore lay much stress
upon the evidence in this case, but as
the document stands, with whatever
uncertainty hanging over it, the inci-
dents are again and again taken from
St John's Gospel. Lastly the Sibyllist
lends her voice to the general attesta-
tion. The eighth book of the Oracula
Sibyllina is the work of a Christian
who wrote during the reign of Anto-
ninus Pius (A.D. 138161). Speaking
of the resurrection, the poet declares
that those shall rise with the risen
Lord 'who have washed away their
former sins in the waters of the
eternal fount (^777775), having been
born again from above (avayevvyetv-
res dvu6ev)...For the Lord will exhibit
Himself first to His own, in bodily
shape as He was before, and will show
them His hands and His feet and the
marks printed upon His limbs, four
in number, east and west, south and
north (x.tpffi-v re iroffiv T' eiri5eit;ei Te'cr-
<rapa rots idlois txvr) irrj-xdtvTa ^Xetraiv
dvffiv re, /jiea-rj/ji^ptav re xai
(Orac. Sib. viii. 316 sq.; cf.
John iii. 3, xx. 20).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 2. 121

Muratorian Canon, the Letter of the Gallican Churches, and we
find an unhesitating response to our enquiry. We pass over to
other Churches of the East, to Palestine and Alexandria, to
Greece and Macedonia, with equally satisfactory results. We
cross the Mediterranean southwards to Carthage, and the earliest
extant writings of the Latin Church of Africa show unmistake-
able acquaintance with St John. And now we take a new
departure. We leave the apologists and fathers of the orthodox
Church, and we turn to the representatives of those multifarious
heresies whose rank growth seemed likely to stifle the infant
Church of the second century. And here we are startled at
once by the variety and the unanimity of the evidence presented.
Differing in almost every other particular, heterodoxy unites in
bearing testimony to St John's Gospel. Gnosticism, the out-
come of Gentile license of speculation and practice, Ebionism,
the offspring of Judaizing tendencies, Montanism, the expres-
sion of spiritual excitement they all presuppose, and to some
extent build upon, the Fourth Gospel. Fresh discoveries, which
have added considerably to our stock of heretical treatises, have
only served to give new weight and force to this testimony.
Making every allowance for the possibility that in some cases
zealous disciples may have interpolated documents already
existing, or have perpetrated forgeries in their masters' names,
yet more than enough of unorthodox literature can be tested
to throw back the date of the general acceptance outside the
Church of St John's Gospel as genuine to a very early period in
the second century. The solitary exception to this chorus of
attestation is found to proceed from an insignificant sect, which,
having a special doctrine to inculcate, seeks to effect its end by
impugning the documents which strike at the root of its theory.
When we pass to the consideration of heathen writers in
the opponents of Christianity, or of Apocryphal literature, the
supplementary evidence which we are able to collect, though
necessarily scanty, still bears out the results to which our
previous investigations have already pointed us.

Lastly, so far from considering that the general subject is in

122 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

any way exhausted, we rise from our review with the conscious-
ness that it has been most inadequately treated, and with the
confident persuasion, that a little more patient investigation
bestowed on the literature of the first two centuries of the
Christian era, as it has come down to us, would enable us to
add very materially indeed to the weight of external evidence
which with fresh force from year to year tends to the conviction
that this most divine of all divine books was indeed the work
of 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.'

[18671872.]

III.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL.

Printed from Lecture-notes.

III.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE AUTHENTICITY
AND GENUINENESS OF ST JOHN'S GOSPEL.

IN considering this question three points will be taken in
succession. I shall endeavour to show :

I. That the writer was intimately acquainted with the
language, customs, ideas, geography and history of Palestine at
the time which he describes.

Inference. He was not only a Jew, but a Palestinian Jew ;
not a Hellenist, but a Hebrew. And most probably too he was
a contemporary. For the double destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus and by Hadrian had caused a dislocation, a discon-
tinuity, in the history of the Jews, which it would be difficult
to bridge over by one writing after the occurrence of the second
of these events.

II. That the narrative bears on its face the credentials of
its authenticity. It is precise, circumstantial, natural in the
highest degree.

Inference, It is the work of an eyewitness.

III. That it contains indications the more convincing be-
cause they are unobtrusive (a) that the author was the Apostle
St John ; (@) that the book was written at the time and under
the circumstances, under which tradition reports it to have
been written, i. e. at Ephesus, towards the close of the first
century after Christ.

126 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

These, then, are the three stages in the argument :

(1) The writer was a Hebrew, probably a contemporary.

(2) The writer was an eyewitness.

(3) The writer was St John (and as a subsidiary matter,
St John writing under peculiar circumstances).

I.
THE WRITER WAS A HEBREW, PROBABLY A CONTEMPORARY.

The main heads of this division of the argument are as
follows :

1. His knowledge of the Jewish language.

2. His knowledge of Jewish ideas, traditions, expectations,
modes of thought, etc.

3. His knowledge of external facts, the history, geography,
names and customs of the Jewish people.

i. THE WRITER'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE JEWISH LANGUAGE.

This is shown (i) indirectly, by his own Greek style ; (ii)
directly, by his interpretation of Hebrew words and his quota-
tions from Hebrew Scriptures.

(i) The writer's indirect knowledge of Hebrew shown by his

Greek style.

I spoke of the Jewish language ; but what is meant by this?
There are two languages with which a Palestinian Jew might
be familiar :

(1) The Hebrew the sacred language, the language of the
Old Testament.

(2) The Aramaic the colloquial language, the language
of common life.

He would necessarily know the second, not necessarily know
the first.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 127

The Hebrew of the New Testament is Aramaic. This is the
meaning of 'Efipala-ri in such passages as John v. 2 ; xix. 13, 17 ;
xx. 16. The forms quoted as Hebrew (Talitha cumi, Maran atha)
are Aramaic. This is no doubt the language of the inscription on
the cross (John xix. 20), and of St Paul's speech on the temple-
stairs (Acts xxi. 40).

It is a common error to suppose that Aramaic is a corrupt
form of Hebrew. This is quite wrong. The Shemitic family of
languages has three main languages, one of which Arabic
may be neglected for our purpose, leaving Hebrew and Aramaic.
Of these, Aramaic, the language of Aram (Syria) [the high-
land ?], has, as its dialects, Syriac, Chaldee, Assyrian (the
cuneiform inscriptions). On the other hand, Hebrew, the lan-
guage of Canaan [the low-lands ?], was originally the language
of Phoenicians and Canaanites, the people on the coast.

Which then was the language of the Jewish nation at the
beginning of the Christian era ?

Abraham comes from Ur of the Chaldees, and therefore
would naturally speak an Aramaic language. But he settles
in Palestine among the Canaanites, adopts a Canaanite language,
and speaks what we call Hebrew. Hence the incident in Gen.
xxxi. 47, 48. The * heap of witness ' is called by Laban ' Jegar-
sahadutha,' by Jacob ' Galeed.' Thus the descendants of Terah
in the third generation speak two languages. The grandson
of Nahor retains his Aramaic, while the grandson of Abraham
has adopted Hebrew. This is what we should expect, and is an
incidental testimony to the credibility of the Mosaic narrative.
After the return from the Babylonian captivity the Jews
gradually merged their own Hebrew language in Aramaic,
but the name 'Hebrew' was transferred to the adopted language.
Thus the Jews returned apparently to what was the language
of their ancestors. How they came by this Aramaic whether
it was the dialect of their Chaldean masters, or the dialect
of the people who overran their land during their absence,
or a mixture of both we need not stop to enquire.

At the time of our Lord the natives of Palestine were

128 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

bilingual ; they spoke Greek and Aramaic. At least this was
the case in a great part of the country, more especially in the
towns and populous districts, the centres of commerce 1 , such as
the lake of Galilee and Jerusalem. In this respect the Pales-
tinian Jew resembled a Welshman on the border-land, a Fleming
in the neighbourhood of the half- French towns of Flanders, a
Bohemian in Prague.

Now apply this to the case of the Apostle St John. John
was not a man of the lowest class socially. He was a native
of Bethsaida, and had connexions or friends in high quarters at
Jerusalem (xviii. 16). He would be able to understand and
speak Greek from his boyhood, possibly even to write it. But
he would think in Aramaic. Aramaic would mould the form
of his thoughts 2 .

Take the case of a person writing in a language which was
not the common language of his daily life, not his mother-tongue.
What would be the phenomena, which his style would present ?
The two parts of a language, in which a person writing in a
foreign tongue is apt to be at fault, are the vocabulary and the
syntax. As regards vocabulary, we should not expect great
luxuriance of words, a copious command of synonyms for
instance. In the matter of syntax, we should not look for a
mastery of complex and involved syntax, or of sustained and
elaborate periods.

Now apply this to the Fourth Gospel.

1. The Vocabulary. The words in this Gospel are very
few ; probably much fewer than in any other portion of the
New Testament of the same length.

(a) We meet with constant repetition of the same
words: e.g. ^iv^cnceiv (57 times), Kocrfios (79 times), irlans,
(99 times), fatf, tfiv, ^(ooTroieiv (55 times), paprvpia,

1 See Eoberts, Dissertations on the fellow townsmen Andrew and Philip,
Gospels, whose view however is per- is strictly in accordance with proba-
haps somewhat exaggerated. bilities. It is a significant fact that

2 The incident given in John xii. they both bear Greek names.
20 22, relating to his friends and

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 129

fjiaprvpetv (47 times) ; TrpofSaTov occurs in the tenth chapter
alone 15 times; icocrpos occurs in the seventeenth chapter
alone 18 times 1 .

(6) We find not only the same words, but the same
phrases : e.g. ep^a-dcu, o Tre/u^a? yite, a7roa-re\\eiv, Karaftaiveiv
CK (anro) rov ovpavov all used of Christ's Incarnation, etc. 2

2. The Syntax. On the extreme simplicity of the Fourth
Gospel in this respect, I shall have to speak later. This charac-
teristic of the writer is well expressed by Heinsius, who describes
him thus, In sermone afyekeia : in sensibus est tn/ro? 3 . The
absence of periods is particularly noticeable, and is without
a parallel in the New Testament.

Thus much, generally, of one writing in another language
than his mother tongue. Now to come to the special case of
one accustomed to speak in a Shemitic tongue, and obliged to
write in an Aryan ; of one familiar with (say) Aramaic, the
conversational, spoken language, and Hebrew, the sacred lan-
guage ; but writing in Greek. Both these languages present
striking contrasts with Greek. In these Shemitic tongues
there is little or no syntax. This is due partly to

(1) The absence of moods, inflexions, etc.

(2) The paucity of connecting particles.

On this last point, which is of special importance, one
example will suffice.

(1) Paucity of connecting particles.

The ^ is used equally for opposition and for simple connexion;
in Hebrew and Aramaic it stands for ' but ' as well as ' and.'
The extent of this use is best shown by the variety of particles
which are employed to render it in the Authorised Version of
the Old Testament.

Thus in Deut. i. (taken at hap-hazard) 1 is translated ' so '

1 These calculations are based upon 2 See Luthardt i. p. 31 sq.
Ij\ifiia,rdiDasJohanneischeEvangelium 3 Quoted by Luthardt i. p. 28.

i. p. 27 (1852).

L. E. 9

130 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

vv. 15, 43, 46; 'then' v. 29; 'yet' v. 32; 'but' v. 40; and
with ?, 'notwithstanding' v. 26.

Again in 1 Kings xii. (again taken at hap-hazard) it is
rendered ' but ' vv. 8, 17, 22 ; ' so ' vv. 12, 33 ; 'so when ' v. 16 ;
' wherefore ' vv. 15, 19 ; ' then' vv. 18, 25 ; ' whereupon ' v. 28 ;
' that ' v. 3. There are thirty-three verses in this chapter, and
all the verses but vv. 4, 23, 27 (i.e. thirty verses out of thirty-
three), begin with ). Of the remaining three, two are be-
ginnings of speeches, and therefore necessarily are asyndeta.

Indeed in the later Aramaic, Greek particles (a\\d, 8e, and
afterwards pev) were deliberately introduced to supply the
deficiency 1 .

Consequently, in these languages sentences are not subordi-
nated, but coordinated ; 'hence.' as Winer describes it 2 , 'the very
limited use of conjunctions (in which classical Greek is so rich),
the uniformity in the use of the tenses, the want of the periodic
compactness which results from the fusion of several sentences
into one principal sentence, and along with this the sparing use
of participial constructions, so numerous and diversified in
classical Greek.' The result is an entire absence of periods,
producing a monotony of expression, which however is most
impressive.

The character of the Greek language was quite different.
Greek writers distinguished two styles :

(1) The periodic (Kareo-rpa^evrj) ;

(2) The disjointed (Siyprj/jLewri), or 'jointed' (elpopevrj).
See Aristot. Rhet. iii. 9, rrjv \ej~w dvdy/cr) elvat, rj elpofjuevr^v /cal
rw avvSeo-fJMi) p,iav...ri /car ear pa/jLfjievrjv.... \eyco 8e elpo^evrjv fj
ovSev e^et reXo? KCL& avrrjv, av fj.r) TO Trpay/jLa \ey6fAevov reXeico-
0rj... /career pafji/jLevr) Se 77 eV Trepio&ois' \eyco Be wepioSov \e%tv
e^ova-av dp^rjv KOI re\evrrjv avrrjv /cad' avrrjv /cal /j,eye6o$
evavvoTrrov.

1 This strange lack of particles, trated likewise by Coptic.
which seem to us indispensable to 2 Winer Grammar of N. T. Greek
express our simplest thoughts, is illus- p. 33 (Moulton's translation).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 131

In the infancy of the language the earlier prose writers
Hecatseus and Herodotus exhibit the dpopt-vr] ; the later, when
a mastery over the language had been attained, the fcareo-rpap,-
jjievrj. Now, Hebrew and Aramaic do not lend themselves to
the Karecrrpa^evTj, the genius of the languages necessitating
the elpo/jLevrj. Hence, as a rule, the general simplicity of the
New Testament writers, who either spoke Aramaic, or derived
their materials from Aramaic sources. The exceptions are the
cases of those who commonly spoke Greek, and did not speak
Aramaic at all, as St Luke in the prologue to his Gospel (for
where he is using documents, the case is different), and the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

This simple, jointed style, is seen in its extreme form in
St John. In fact, no greater contrast can be exhibited in this
respect than the prologue of St John when compared with the
prologue of St Luke. The sentences are strung together, where
they are not altogether asyndeta. There is no attempt at
periodicity. The ical takes the place of the \ and has almost as
wide a range, connecting together not only independent, but
dependent, and even opposite and contrasted clauses 1 . I give
a few examples of this :

John i. 1, 4, 5, 10, 14, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 34; ii. 1, 3, 4, 8,
12-16 ; iii. 11, 12, 13, 14; iv. 11, 40, 41; vi. 17 ; vii. 26, 28, 33,
34 ; ix. 18, 19 ; x. 3, 9, 12, 14-16, 22, 27, 28, 39-41 ; xiv. 23, 24 ;
xv. 6; xvi. 22, 32 ; xvii. 1, 8, 10, 11 (six times in three lines);
xix. 34, 35.

For instances where /cal introduces an opposition, with the
meaning of 'and yet,' 'nevertheless/ see John i. 5, 10; iii. 10,
11, 19, 32; iv. 20; v. 40; vi. 70; vii. 4, 19, 26, 30; viii. 49, 55;
ix. 30, 34 etc.

A single instance would occur here and there in classical
Greek as in any other language ; but it is the frequency of
occurrence in the Fourth Gospel which betrays the Hebraeo-
Aramaic mould in which the diction is cast.

1 See the references in Wilkii Clavis N. T. (ed. Grimm, 1868, s. v. KCLI p. 215).

132 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

(2) Hebraic parallelism of sentences.

Instances of this characteristic can be found in almost every
part of the Fourth Gospel. The prologue especially presents
a succession of parallel clauses. I content myself with drawing
attention to some special phenomena of this parallelism.

(a) Repetition of words and phrases in parallel and
opposed clauses, e.g. iii. 6 (TO yeyevvrjfjLevov /c rfjs crap/cos crdpj;
eanv KOI TO yeyevvrjfjievov IK rov rcvev^aro^ rrvevfj^d <mv} ;
iii. 31 (o wv /c rfjs 7779 etc rrjs 7779 e(rriv...o IK rov ovpavov
epxopevos errdvto Trdvrwv ecrriv) ; cf. vii. 6, 7, 8, viii. 14, 23, x.
18, xi. 9, 10 etc. etc.

(b) Repetition of words and phrases in parallel, but not
opposed clauses, e.g. ix. 21, 22 (TTW? e vvv ft\e7rei, OVK
otSa/jiev, r} Tt9 r)voi%ev avrov rou? o$#aXyu,ou9 17/^669 OVK ol^>a^ev)\
xvii. 16 (e/e TOV KOG/JLOV OVK elo~iv Ka6a)s eja) OVK el/jul K TOV
KOCT/JLOV) ; cf. xviii. 18, xix. 10 etc. etc.

(c) Strengthening of a statement by the negation of its
opposite, e.g. i. 3 (jrdvra $i avrov eyevero Kal %ft)/3t9 avrov
eyevero ovSe ey); i. 20 (0)^0X07770-6^ Kal OVK ^pvtjcraro), cf. iii.
18, x. 28, xi. 25, 26, xx. 27 etc. etc.

(3) Oriental definiteness of expression by the repetition of
the same word or phrase.

(a) Repetition of the name, instead of using a personal
pronoun, e.g. i. 43 sq. (evpia-Ket, <&l\i,7r7rov...tfv Se o
...evpiffKeiQiXiTTTTOs rov NadavarfX,. . .Kal elrrev avrw
...\eyet, avru> o ^XtTTTTW) ; cf. iii. 23 sq., xii. 21 sq. etc. etc.

(6) Repetition of the nominative pronoun, where the
Greek does not require it, e.g. i. 42 (o-v el ^IJJLCOV 6 vlos "\(odvov,
a-v K\t)0rjo-r) K?7(/>a9); cf. i. 25, 31, iv. 10, 19 etc. etc.

(c) Repetition of the noun, e.g. vii. 6 (o Kaipos o e/xo9
ovTTd) Trdpeo-riv, 6 Be /cat/309 o vfjuerepos rrdvrore eanv eroifjuos) ;
cf. vii. 8, 19, xii. 43, 47 etc. etc.

(d) Repetition of the verb, e.g. v. 17 (o Trartjp pov ea>9
apn epryd&rai, Kayo* epyd^ofjiai) ; cf. vi. 63, vii. 24, 28, viii.
53, x. 10, xiii. 43 etc. etc.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 133

(e) Repetition of the same phrase in successive clauses,
e.g. iii. 31 (o dov IK -n}? 7779 /c r/J? 7*79 ecrriV KOI ex rfjs 7779
\a\i); cf. viii. 14, 23, 24, x. 18, xi. 9 sq. etc. etc.

(f) Taking up a word or expression from the preced-
ing sentence; e.g. x. 11 (70) eiju o iroi^v o /ca\6s' 6 iroi^rjv o
/caXos Tr]v tyvxrjv avrov rLOrjaLv K.T.\.) ; cf. i. 1, iii. 32, 33, xvii.
2, 3 etc. etc.

(4) Preference of the direct over the oblique narrative in
relating the words of another.

In some instances these will be the precise words them-
selves ; in others only an approximation, and in this latter case
the direct narrative is only a different way of expressing what
we express by the oblique. Thus we find the narrator himself
relating the words or surmises of a crowd, where from the
nature of the case the exact words cannot be reproduced ; or
we find persons referring back to their own words or the words
of another, and not always reproducing the exact expressions.
Examples of all these varieties are very common, see the
narrative of the Samaritan woman in ch. iv. (esp. vv. 17, 27,
33); of the sick man healed in ch. v. (esp. vv. 11, 12); the
conversation in ch. vi. (esp. vv. 41, 42); cf. vii. 11 sq., 35, 36,
40 sq., viii. 22, ix. 8 sq., 23 sq., 40 sq., x. 20, 36, 41, xi. 31, 36,
37, xii. 19 sq. etc. etc.

(5) The arrangement of words in the sentence, especially
the precedence of the verb, e.g. i. 40 47 (77^ 'Avpeas...6vpicrfCi

...rjv B 6 < 3>L\i7r7ros,..vpi(TK6i, <$>l\L7nro<$...ical CLTTCV aura)
NaOavafa... \eyet, avrcD o <&L\.iTnros...elev 'lij(rovs). This is
noticeably the case with the expression \eyei avroJ, e.g. iv.
726, xi. 34, 35, 39 sq. etc. etc.

(6) Other grammatical and lexical peculiarities.

(a) The superfluous pronoun (1) after a relative, repre-
senting the Heb. *)&^N which is indeclinable, e.g. i. 12 (60-01 Se
e\a(3ov avrov, eSa)K6i> avrols) ; v. 38 (bv aire<TTei\ev

134 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

TOVTW u/xefc ov Trio-revere) ; cf. i. 33, vii. 38, xvii. 2, xviii. 9,
11 etc. etc., (2) after nouns or participles, e.g. i. 18 (/jiovoyvrj<?
#eo9 6 wv et9 rov KoXirov rov TTarpos 6/celvo<? etyyrjaaTo) ; v. 11
(o 7rofc?7cra9 yu,e t^t?} eicelvos /-tot elirev 9 Apov rov Kpdparrov <7ou);
cf. vi. 46, vii. 18, 38, x. 1, xiv. 21, 26, xv. 5, etc. etc. This con-
struction, it is true, occurs in classical Greek, but the point to
be noticed is the extreme frequency of the usage in the Fourth
Gospel.

(b) The characteristic Hebraism 7ras...ov (prf) occurs
three times in this gospel ; iii. 16, vi. 39, xii. 46.

(c) The frequent use of Iva in St John, especially as
the complement of a demonstrative pronoun, is probably to be
explained by the flexibility of the Aramaic ^D. Instances are
i. 27, iv. 34, vi. 29, 40, viii. 56, xi. 50, xiii. 34, xv. 8, 12, 13, 17,
xvi. 7, 33, xvii. 3, 24 (see Winer xliv. p. 425 ed. Moulton).
In every one of these passages a Greek would probably have
expressed himself differently.

(d) The use of av&p(i>7ro$ for r^, e.g. v. 7
avOpwirov OVK e%o>), vii. 22, 23 (eV aappdr

av6 PWTTOV el irepiro^rjv \a/jL/3dvei avdptoiros K.T.\.)\ cf. viii. 40,
ix. 16 etc. This represents a thoroughly characteristic use of
t^X, see Gesenius s. v.

(e) The transition from the dependent to the inde-
pendent clause, e.g. i. 32 (reBea^ai TO Trvevfjua /cara/3a2vov...Kal
efjiewev eV avrov)', cf. xi. 44 (Winer Ixiii. p. 717 ed. Moulton).
This transition however appears in other New Testament
writers also, and cannot be pressed into an argument.

(/) The frequent recurrence of the expression el? TOV
al&va, especially with a negative, e.g. iv. 14, vi. 51, 58, viii. 35,
51, 52, x. 26, xi. 28, xii. 34, xiii. 8, xiv. 16; and the use of e/c
rov alwvos ix. 32.

(g) Other Hebraisms are : i. 13 (alfidrwv), 15, 30 (TT/JWTO?
pov, cf. xv. 18), iii. 29 (%a/o %at/36fc), vii. 33, xii. 35, xiv. 19
(eri /jiiKpov, cf. xvi. 16, 17, 19), iv. 23 (ep^erai wpa /cal vvv
earlv), xi. 4 (OVK eo-riv 777)09 Odvarov, cf. xvi. 20), iv. 26, viii.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 135
24, 28, xiii. 19, xviii. 5, 6 (eyco elfu), x. 24 (ew? Trore), xviii. 37

((TV \eyet,?).

(7) Imagery, secondary senses of words etc.

This displays a thoroughly Hebrew, or at least Oriental,
colouring. The simple facts in life are used to convey deep
spiritual truths. Nature and history become signs (a-jj^ela)
of the heavenly and the eternal. Instances of this figurative
treatment are to be found in the Evangelist's use of the
following words and phrases; a\r)6eia i. 14, 17, iii. 21; Sofa i.
14, ii. 11, xii. 41; vSa)p fwz> iv. 10, 13; tcoi\ia vii. 38; fan? v.
24; TO /jLavva vi. 31; apros vi. 32; TO Trorrjpiov xviii. 11;
v-fy(i>6&, e\fcva-a) xii. 32.

If the special Hebraisms or Aramaisms, are few, this is
unimportant : for the whole casting of the sentences, the whole
colouring of the language, is Hebrew.

In short, it is the most Hebraic book in the New Testament,
except perhaps the Apocalypse. The Greek is not ungram-
matical Greek, but it is cast in a Hebrew mould. It is what
no native Greek would have written. As Grotius puts it.
Sermo Graecus quidem, sed plane adumbratus ex Syriaco illius
saeculi (quoted in Lticke 1 i. p. 172). On the general accord of
recent writers on this point, see Sanday Authorship of the
Fourth Gospel, p. 28 2 .

On the other hand, there are no classicisms ; not a single
sentence, I believe, from first to last which suggests in the
smallest degree acquaintance with classical literature.

In this respect the writer presents a great contrast to
St Luke, and even to St Paul, e.g. Luke i. 1 sq.; 2 Cor. vi. 14 sq.

(ii) The writers direct knowledge of Hebrew.

1. The quotations from the Old Testament.
The quotations are a valuable criterion of the position of
a writer.

1 Commentar iiber das Evangelimn is purer than that of the Synoptists.'
des Johannes (1840). If purer in one sense, yet it is more

2 Mr Sanday (I. c.) says ' The Greek Hebraic.

136 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

The quotations in St Paul show a knowledge of the Old
Testament in Hebrew. He frequently quotes the LXX, but in
other passages he is as plainly indebted to the original. On
the other hand, the quotations in the Epistle to the Hebrews
are all derived from the LXX. There are no distinct traces of
a knowledge of the original.

What are the facts in St John's case? 1 The quotations in
St John are not very numerous. Moreover they are often free
quotations ; so free that we cannot say whether they were
taken from the Hebrew or the Greek. But there is a residuum
of passages, which are decisive, and certainly cannot have been
borrowed from the Greek.

(a) Passages certainly taken from the Hebrew.

(1) Zech. ix. 9 quoted in John xii. 14, 15 (see Turpie,
p. 222).

The quotation is loose. Two points are noticeable. St
John has o ftacriXevs crov ep^erai. The LXX o /Sao-tXeu?
e/o%rat aoi (but some edd. insert crov). The Heb. repre-
sents o ftacn\evs crov ep-^erai croi, as in Matth. xxi. 5.

The other point is more important. St John has TTU>\OV
ovov, which comes from the Hebrew, the LXX having 7rw\ov
veov, while St Matthew quotes the Hebrew still more literally,

7Ti 7TOu\OV VIOV V7TO^Vj[,OV.

(2) Zech. xii. 10 quoted in John xix. 37, o-fyovrai et? bv
ei;efcevTr)crav (Turpie, p. 131).

This agrees with the Heb. 'They shall look upon me whom
they have pierced.' But the LXX is quite different, KOI ejn-
P\etyovTat irpos //,e dv6" wv Karcdp-^rjcravro, i.e. they shall
look on me, because they have derided. The LXX evidently
read llpl for ^|T7> and this reading is actually found in some
MSS. of Kennicott and de Rossi. The LXX has not a single
word in common with St John.

1 My investigation was made before 244 sq). I have derived much help
I saw Bleek's Beitrdge, and agrees from Turpie The Old Testament in
almost entirely with his results (p. the New (1868).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 137

On the reading ^K ' unto me ' and V ?fct * unto him/ which
is read by many MSS., see de Rossi in. p. 217. Aquila, at
least, of the other versions, seems to point to this reading. He
renders avv &>. The Evangelist, however, if he had '7fct, would
not unnaturally change the person from the first to the third to
suit the connexion. Comp. Apoc. i. 7.

(3) Ps. xl. 10 quoted in John xiii. 18 (Turpie, p. 55).

St John has o rpcoyuv fiov rov dprov eirrfpev 67r' e/ze rrjv
irrepvav avrov. The LXX o eo-Olwv aprou? fiov e^eyd\vvev eir

Here again there is hardly a word the same in the two
translations. St John's is evidently a loose quotation taken
from the Hebrew. The LXX translation has lost the meaning
in endeavouring to render /**TJTL St John gives the more
correct, though free, rendering. So Gesenius takes it (p. 266,
ed. 1829); but Perowne ad loc. seems to think either inter-
pretation admissible.

(4) Is. vi. 10 quoted in John xii. 40 (Turpie, p. 233).

It is a very free quotation. The LXX is quite different.

The point to be observed is the use of the active in St John
T6TV(f>\a)Kv avT&v TOL/9 o</>#aX//.oi>9 KOL 7r(opa)(Tv avrwv TTJV
fcapblav. God Himself is represented as blinding, as hardening.
This points to the Hebrew, which has also the active. But
there it is imperative ; and the change to the indicative is
intelligible. As Symmachus translates *O3n> JfiETl e/3dpwe,
efjLvo-e, it is quite possible that St John translated the same
words TeTv<j)\a)Kv, eiro^pwaev, perhaps from a mixture of Aramaic
with Hebrew forms. In the Syriac the imperative and 3rd pers.
pret. are the same.

On the other hand, the LXX has adopted a passive form of
the sentence, eTra^vvOrj fj /capita /t.r.X., evidently to get rid of
a doctrine which was a stumbling-block. Symmachus seems
likewise to Lave surmounted the difficulty, though in another

138 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

way. He takes PITH DJ?H as the nominative, 6 Xao? ouro? ra
wra efSdpvvev ical rovs ocfrQaX/jiovs avrov e/juvae K.T.\.

Now it is quite inconceivable that the writer of the Fourth
Gospel, having only the LXX before him, should accidentally
have reconverted it, and thus reintroduced the perplexity. The
chances are a thousand-fold against it ; and he would surely
have shrunk from it.

It is noticeable too, that the other New Testament writers
who quote the sentence (Matt. xiii. 14, 15 ; Acts xxviii. 26, 27),
quote it from the LXX. In Mark iv. 12, Luke viii. 10, this
part of the quotation is omitted.

(5) Is. liv. 13 quoted in John vi. 45 (Turpie, p. 198).

This is a doubtful case. The Hebrew has 'And all thy
sons (are) disciples of God,' St John /cat ecrovrai Trai/re? BtBa/crol
BeoO. The LXX however attaches the sentence to what goes
before, teal Trdvra^ TOU? vlovs crov SiSaKTovs eoO. St John
treats it as independent so do the Targum, Ewald, Gesenius,
in interpreting the Hebrew.

These passages then, except perhaps the last (5), are decisive.
In no case could they be derived from the LXX.

But, it may be said, they came perhaps not from the original
Hebrew, but from a Targum.

This admission is sufficient for my purpose, which is to show
the direct acquaintance of the Evangelist with Hebrew writings.

($) Passages which may have come from either the Hebrew
or the Septuagint.

In many cases it is doubtful whether a quotation was taken
from the LXX or the Hebrew.

These instances divide themselves into three classes :

(1) Where the Greek and Hebrew differ, but the quotation
is too loose to allow of any inference. Examples of this are :

(a) Deut. xix. 15 quoted in John viii. 17 (Turpie, p. 49).

Here the LXX inserts irav\ but St John paraphrases the

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 139

whole sentence Bvo dvOpwirwv r) f^aprvpia. Thus the crucial
point of difference is evaded.

(/3) Exod. xii. 46 (Numb. ix. 12) quoted in John xix. 36
(Turpie, p. 31).

Here St John follows neither the Hebrew nor the LXX.
But the passage intended to be quoted may be Ps. xxxiii. 21 ;
in which case the Hebrew and LXX agree, and no inference
can be drawn. Or St John may have had all three passages
in his mind, and combined them in a loose way.

(2) Where the Greek and Hebrew agree, but the Greek
is the obvious, or an obvious, rendering of the Hebrew ; and
no conclusion can be drawn. Examples :

(a) Ps. xxxiv. (xxxv.) 19, Ixviii. (Ixix.) 5 ol fiurovvTe?
fji baypedv. Comp. Ps. cviii. (cix.) 3, in John xv. 25 (Turpie,
p. 30).

(/3) Ps. Ixix. (Ixviii.) 10 quoted in John ii. 17 (Turpie,
p. 29), where the Evangelist substitutes /cara^dyerat for
/caretyayev.

(7) Ps. Ixxxii. (Ixxxi.) 6 quoted in John x. 34 (Turpie,
p. 4).

Or again, (3) The Greek and Hebrew agree, but the Greek
is not an obvious rendering. Yet the Evangelist's quotation is
not exact enough to warrant an inference. Examples :

(a) Ps. Ixxviii. (Ixxvii.) 24 quoted in John vi. 31 (Turpie,
p. 60).

The use of aprov however here in St John seems to show
that he had the LXX rendering in mind, for this is apparently
the only passage in the Old Testament where p*l is rendered
by dp TO 9.

(/3) Is. xl. 3 quoted in John i. 23 (Turpie, p. 219).

Yet evOvvare (St John) for evOelas Treuerre (LXX) looks like
a direct derivation from the Hebrew, which has one word
not two, in the original. All the other Evangelists have e
Trotetre (Matt. iii. 3; Mark i. 3; Luke iii. 4); and this makes
the probability stronger.

140 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

(7) Passages almost certainly, or most probably, taken from

the LXX.

(1) Ps. xxi. 19 quoted in John xix. 24 (Turpie, p. 4).
The LXX is a literal translation of the Hebrew; but the

probabilities are greatly against the Evangelist stumbling
upon the same rendering word for word, more especially the
opposition of i^dna and l/juana-pos.

(2) Is. liii. 1 quoted in John xii. 38 (Turpie, p. 106).
Again the LXX is a literal rendering of the Hebrew, for

TIVI as a rendering of ^/J? can hardly be regarded as an
exception. But the probabilities are against the whole com-
bination of words being the same.

These are all the quotations from the Old Testament in
St John, and the result at which we arrive is as follows:

The writer certainly derived several of his quotations
from the Hebrew, or from an Aramaic Targum, not from the
LXX.

On the other hand, he most probably took one or two from
the LXX, though the evidence for the LXX is not so decisive
as for the Hebrew. The majority of the passages prove nothing
either way.

2. The writer s interpretation of Hebrew words.

(a) Rabbi, Rabbouni, i. 38 ( ( Pa/3/3ei, o \eyerai
vevopevov AtSao-^aXe), xx. 16 ( ( Pa/3/3ovv6L, o \eyerat,
The longer form is the more impressive, the higher title ; hence
it is peculiarly adapted to the solemnity of the circumstances
of Mary's recognition of the risen Lord. In this respect compare
Mark x. 51, where again the circumstances are exceptional.
These are the only two passages in the New Testament in which
the form occurs; see Keim iii. p. 560, Buxtorf p. 2177 sq.,
Levy ii. p. 401. The omission by St John of the interpretation
of the pronoun ' my master ' is to be explained by the fact that

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 141

it had got attached to the word, as in Rabbi, and had ceased
to have any distinct force : just as, by the reverse principle,
6 fcvpio? is rendered in Syriac ' our Lord.'

(b) Messias, i. 41 (evpijtcajjiev rov Meo-a-'iav, o eariv
fjL0pfjL7]vev6fj,vov Xpto-To?), iv. 25. The word does not occur in
the New Testament save in these two places.

(c) Cephas, i. 42 (K?;(/>a9, o ep^veverai Der/ao?). This
title is only used by John and St Paul. Elsewhere, when the
appellation is employed, the Greek form is preferred.

(d) Thomas, xx. 24, xxi. 2 (o>//,a?, o \<yofLvos Ai8vjj,os).
Thus St John takes care to let us know that the familiar name
of this Apostle was merely a surname, ' twin.' There was an
early tradition in the Syrian Church that Thomas' real name
was Judas, e.g. Eus. H. E. i. 13 'lovSas 6 /cal Bwyita?, Acta
Thoinae I. 'lovSa Scoria TGO /cal ^i^vfjiw (ed. Tisch. p. 190), see
Assemani Bibl. Orient. I. pp. 100, 318, Cureton's Syriac Gospels
p. 1., Anc. Syr. Documents p. 32. In the Curetonian Syriac of
John xiv. 22 ' Judas Thomas ' is substituted for ' Judas, not
Iscariot.' As there were two other Apostles of this same name,
some distinction would be necessary ; and this we find was
the case, one being called Lebbseus, another Thomas, the third
Iscariot.

(e) Siloam, ix. 7 (et? rrjv Ko\v/j,(3ij0pav rov StAojayu,, o
ep/jLTjveverat, ' ATrecrTaXpevos). The word occurs in Isaiah viii. 6
rh& (A. V. Shiloah), and signifies a 'conduit/ 'emissary/
'aqueduct/ from the root rhW 'send/ which is used of water
in Ps. civ. 10, Ezek. xxxi. 4 (Gesenius p. 1415). D'PPK7"rrV2
occurs in the Talmud, meaning either 'a conduit for irrigation' or
'field needing artificial irrigation' (Buxtorf p. 2412 sq). Another
form rh& (A. V. Siloah) is found as a proper name in Neh. iii.
15, if indeed the Masoretic pointing may be trusted. That
two forms should exist side by side is very conceivable, for the
word is not strictly speaking a proper name. In Greek the
forms vary : StXcoayu, (LXX Luke xiii. 4, Josephus frequently),

(Josephus elsewhere), StX-wa (Aquila, Symmachus,

142 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Theodotion). The geographical and symbolical bearing of the
notice will be considered hereafter 1 . At present I am only
concerned with the etymology. This the Evangelist has
explained rightly. Two further points deserve attention. He
has given the correct meaning, notwithstanding that it is
somewhat obscured by the Greek form. Again he has added
the definite article ' the Siloam.' This is in accordance with
Jewish usage. In the Old Testament, and generally in the
Targums and the Rabbinic passages, as well as in St Luke /. c.,
the definite article occurs. With this compare Acts ix. 35
' the Sharon ' (rov ^apwva).

(f) Golgotha, xix. 17 (et? rov Xeyo/Aevov Kpavlov TOTTOV,
o Xeyerat 'E@pai<rTl ToXyoOd); cf. Matt, xxvii. 33, Mark xv. 22
(Luke xxiii. 33). As the interpretation occurs in the Synoptic
narrative also, no argument can be drawn from it.

(g) Gabbatha, xix. 13 (et? TOTTOV Xeyopevov AiOoo-rpwrov,
'El3pal<rrl Be Ta^aOd). Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. 28) tells us that
the pavements called lithostrota were first introduced by Sulla,
and that in the temple of Fortune at Prseneste one could be
seen in his day which Sulla had placed there. Again, Suetonius
(Jul. 46) states that Julius Caesar was accustomed to carry
tesselated pavements about with him for his own use in his
expeditions (in expeditionibus tesselata et sectilia pavimenta
circumtulisse). This last notice however does not help us
much, for evidently St John's account speaks of some fixed
locality. It shows, however, that such a flooring would seem
necessary for a Roman magistrate's tribunal. A fixed place at
Amathus was so called, Boeckh G. /. G. 2643 7ro rov 'Hpatov

60)9 TOV AtOoCTTpCOTOV.

But what is the meaning of the Hebrew Gabbatha 1 It is
commonly connected with 33 from PQH or JD3 'to be high,'
meaning a ' prominence ' or ' hill/ compare gibbus. The word
would then represent KHJD3 ; see Levy, I. p. 123, Lticke, Heng-
stenberg ad loc., Keim iii. p. 365. This theory receives further

1 See below, p. 171.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 143

support from the fact that Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 29, vi. 4, 2 and
elsewhere) uses TafiaOa for Gibeah, 'a hill.' And it is a very
possible solution, for the Evangelist does not say that the
Hebrew represents the meaning of the Greek equivalent. But
this interpretation labours under the disadvantage that it does
not account for the doubling of the @. Accordingly Ewald (Johan.
Scfi7. I. p. 408) suggests as the derivation JD3 JDp ' to collect
together/ and thus the word would imply 'a mosaic.' This
appears to me highly probable, for I find this word JDp used
of studding or inlaying with jewels or precious stones, e.g.
Ex. xxv. 7, of the jewels of the high-priest's ephod, and
Deut. xxxiii. 21, where the Tar gum Ben Uzziel has 'a place
inlaid (jDp/D) with precious stones and jewels'; see Levy s.v. II.
p. 342. Thus here again St John shows his intimate knowledge
of the derivation of an obscure Hebrew term.

(h) Iscariot. The phenomena which St John's Gospel
presents in the use of this name are somewhat remarkable. As
soon as the false readings are swept away which obscure the
true text, we find (1) that the designation is attached to the
father's name (vi. 71, xiii. 26) as well as to the son's (xii. 4,
xiii. 2, xiv. 22), (2) that in more than one place (xii. 4, xiv. 22)
the definite article should precede the name. We gather there-
fore that the word is not strictly speaking a proper name at
all, but merely describes the native place of the traitor. This
solution is suggested by St John's Gospel, but there is no hint
of it given by the Synoptists. Yet it is rendered highly probable
by other considerations also. The word 'IcrtcapicoTTjs is &W
HV")p 'the man of Kerioth.' Now in 2 Sam. x. 6, 8 among the
mercenaries hired by the children of Ammon to attack David
are mentioned 'of Ishtob twelve thousand men,' or, as it almost
certainly should be rendered, 'of the men of Tob twelve
thousand men,' Tob being a district mentioned in Judges
xi. 3-5. This word becomes in Josephus Ant. vii. 6, 1 a proper
name, "Io-ro/3o?. The interpretation of Josephus may be right
or wrong ; but we are only concerned with the representation
of the Hebrew form in Greek ; and, so far as it goes, it is an

144 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

adequate illustration of the way in which Wlp WW would
appear in a Greek dress. Again, the tradition of Judas' birth-
place is preserved in some MSS. of the New Testament. Thus
in Matt. x. 4, xxvi. 14 some old Latin MSS. have Carioth,
while other authorities have intermediate readings, Scarioth,
; in Mark iii. 19 the correct reading (K B C L) is
, the termination not having been interfered with,
e has Cariotha, and there are other variations. In Mark xiv. 10
N B C L* have la/capicoO, while la/capKorrj^ is found in A and
the majority of authorities. Here again Scarioth is read by
some Latin MSS. On the whole it seems probable that
'Itr/capitoO is consistently St Mark's form of the appellation.
In Luke vi. 16 Icr/capicoO is the right reading (N B L); on the
other hand in xxii. 3 latcap iwr^v seems to be correct, though
here again the alternative form has supporters. St Luke
therefore appears to vary, and this we might expect from the
manner in which his Gospel was composed. Turning now to
St John's Gospel we find that D has airo Ka^ucoroi; in four out
of the five verses in which the name occurs, and (followed by
three Latin MSS.) ^KaptcoO in the fifth passage (vi. 71), where,
on the other hand, airo Kapv&rov receives the support of N 1 69,
124, and of the margin of the Harclean Syriac. Thus the trace
of the original meaning of the word seems to linger in the
Western text of the Fourth Gospel.

Kapt,a)6 is the LXX rendering of HVIp. The word signi-
fies 'cities/ i.e. a conjunction of small towns. Hence it is of
frequent occurrence. Thus a place of the name was situated in
Moab (Jer. xlviii. 24, 41, Amos ii. 2, see Merx Arch. f. wissensch.
Erf. des Alt. Test. p. 320), another in Judah (Joshua xv. 25).
This latter is perhaps the birth-place of Judas who, like Peru-
gino, Correggio, Veronese and others, has merged his personal
name in that of his native town.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 145

i. THE WRITER'S KNOWLEDGE OF JEWISH IDEAS, TRADITIONS,
EXPECTATIONS, MODES OF THOUGHT.

(i) The Messiah. Occasion has been taken elsewhere to point
out that, in the Fourth Gospel, 'the narrative and the dis-
courses alike are thoroughly saturated with the Messianic ideas
of the time 1 .' In discussing this subject attention was drawn
to two facts as especially worthy of notice: (1) that though the
writer's point of view is twofold, the Word as the theological,
the subjective, centre, no less than the Messiah as the his-
torical, the objective, centre, yet, with a true insight which is
the best evidence for his veracity, he keeps these two points of
view separate. The topic of our Lord's discourses with the
Jews is not the doctrine of the Logos, for which His auditors
would feel neither predilection nor interest, but the Messianic
expectation, in which they were thoroughly absorbed. (2) It
was shown that the Messianic conceptions are not the ideas as
corrected by the facts, but the ideas in their original form, not
yet spiritualised, but coarse and materialistic still, reflecting
the sentiments not of the second century but of the early years
of the first ; in a word, Jewish, not Christian. This Messianic
idea is turned about on all sides. We learn very much more
about it from the Fourth Gospel than from all the other three
Gospels together. This is a fact which we do not sufficiently
realise, and it is a characteristic, though an accidental, token to
this fact that the Hebrew equivalent for Xpio-ros the word
Mecr<7ta9 is found only in this Gospel. The prevalence, nay,
the ubiquity, of the Messianic idea is the key to the motive of
the narrative. Does Jesus work a miracle ? It is a sign of His
Messianic office. Does He suffer an indignity ? It is fatal to
His claims as the triumphant King and Avenger of His people.
Does He utter an unpalatable truth, or a seemingly unpatriotic
sentiment? Such language is inconsistent with the office of
the long-expected Saviour of the Jewish nation. Does He
exhibit in His person the common associations and relationships

1 [See above, p. 23 sq., where this part of the argument is treated fully.]
L. E. 10

146 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

of life ? This again is not compatible with His Messianic
character.

Moreover, He is only one in a long line of claimants who
have arrogated to themselves this high office. Before Him
many thieves and robbers have entered into the fold by stealth
and violence (x. 8). This last passage has been attacked as
fatal to the authority of the Gospel, and this on two grounds.
First, we are told 1 that it is a thoroughly Gnostic sentiment,
directed against the lawgiver and the prophets. They are the
thieves and the robbers. Thus it is inconsistent not only with
our Lord's own position, but also with the position of St John
as a ' pillar-apostle ' of the Circumcision. Secondly, we are
informed 2 that the statement is historically incorrect; for as a
matter of fact we do not hear of false Messiahs before Christ.
I give this as a sample of the attacks which are made in certain
quarters upon the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel. In reply
it is sufficient to state (1) that the interpretation, which sees in
the thieves and robbers a reference to Moses and the prophets,
is quite untenable. It contradicts the whole teaching of the
Gospel. Our Lord constantly refers to the Old Testament
Scriptures as authoritative, and as foretelling Himself. Thus
Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, and he saw it and was
glad. The Jews are Abraham's seed, yet they seek to kill Him
(viii. 37, 56). Moses will accuse them to the Father; for had
they believed Moses, they would have believed Christ, for
Moses wrote of Him (v. 45 sq.). And the Evangelist sees in the
persistent unbelief of the Jewish race a fulfilment of a prophecy
of Isaiah uttered when he saw Christ's glory and spake of Him
(xii. 37 sq.). The interpretation therefore may safely be dis-
missed. Curiously enough it is a view borrowed from Valentinus,
who states that ' all the prophets and the law spake from the
Demiurge, a foolish God, and were foolish themselves and
ignorant' (Hippol. Haer. vi. 35 p. 194), and then proceeds to
quote this passage : and it is echoed by the Manicheans

1 By Hilgenfeld. 2 By Baur and Scholten.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 147

(August, c. Faust, xvi. 12, vm. p. 288 F., 289 A.) and probably
by other dualistic sects. Such at least would appear from
Clem. Alex. Strom, i. 17 pp. 366 sq. (ed. Potter). Further, the
consciousness of the misuse that was made of the text would
account for the omission of the words irpo efjiov by some
authorities 1 . (2) The expression need not necessarily be
confined to false Messiahs. 'Shepherds' are teachers (Jer.
xxiii. 1, Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 3), and thus the Scribes and Pharisees,
the leaders of religious thought, would naturally be included in
the category. In other passages our Lord refers to them as
robbers, as wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt. vii. 15), as devouring
widows' houses (Matt, xxiii. 14, Mark xii. 40, Luke xx. 47)
And the beginning of this corrupt state of teaching did not
synchronize with the time of our Lord's life upon earth. For
some generations past the whole tendency of religious education
had been thoroughly vicious 2 .

But after all there is no sufficient reason for denying the
appearance of false Messiahs before the Christian era. On the
contrary, everything points to the fact of such appearances.
And if these earlier false Messiahs do not come forward
so prominently in Josephus as those who flourished afterwards,
this is only what was to be expected; for they did not fall
within his own lifetime. Gamaliel, at all events, in his speech
as recorded by St Luke (Acts v. 35 sq.), mentions two of these
impostors, Theudas and Judas the Galilean, the latter of whom
is described as having revolted ' in the days of the taxing.' In
the case of the former, there is a well-known chronological
difficulty, Josephus (Ant. xx. 5. 1) speaking of a Theudas who
headed a rebellion in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus
after A.D. 44 ; but the occasion of the revolt of Judas the
Gaulanite is given by him in detail (Ant. xviii. 1. 1 sq.), and
his language shows evidently that the rising took a theocratic

1 The words are omitted in K*, in Chrysostom and Augustine,
most Latin MSS., in the Syriac, Sahidic 2 See Ewald, Jahrb. der Bibl. Wissen-

and Gothic versions, and by Cyril, schaft ix. 43.

102

148 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

character 1 . In another place Josephus, referring to the time
of the death of Herod the Great (Ant. xvii. 10. 8), tells us that
'Judaea was infested with robbers (Xyo-Trjpiwv 77 'lovBaia 7rXea>?
riv), and as the bands of the seditious found anyone to head
them, he was created a king at once, in order to do damage to
the community.' He mentions several of these adventurers by
name, beginning (Ant. xvii. 10. 5) with Judas the son of a
certain Hezekiah, whom he calls the 'brigand-chief (o apxi-
\77<7T77?). Now it is quite impossible to separate all these
uprisings from Messianic anticipations, even if the contrary
was not directly stated in some cases by the historian. For
the air was full of rumours, and echoes of the Messianic
expectations had penetrated as far as Rome, and found expres-
sion in the pages of Suetonius (Vesp. 4), and in the Fourth
Eclogue of Virgil. By some the Herod-family was looked to as
the embodiment of the national hope, Antipas (Viet. Ant. ap.
Cramer Gat. in Marc. p. 400), Agrippa (Philastrius Haer.
xxviii.), and Herod the Great (Epiphanius Haer. xx. p. 45) being
at different times regarded as the Messiah by their partisans 2 .

But it is not only the prevalence of the Messianic idea
exhibited in this Gospel, it is the minuteness and variety of
detail displayed which arrests our attention, and is so power-
ful a testimony to the authenticity of the narrative. This
phenomenon can be conveniently illustrated by the designations
which the Evangelist applies to the Messiah. I give some of
the most striking.

(a) The Lamb of God (i. 29, 36). The reference is to Isaiah
liii. 4, a passage which was commonly interpreted of the
Messiah, apparently before the Christian era (see Bishop
Harold Browne, Sermons 3 p. 92 sq., and cf. Sanday, Authorship
of the Fourth Gospel p. 39 sq.), and is interpreted of our Lord
directly by Philip the Evangelist (Acts viii. 32), and indirectly

1 Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1. 6 dvffviKrjros Dictionary of the Bible; and compare
5e TOV \ev6tpov tpws tffrlv avrois fibvov Keim I. p. 244 sq.

iiyfji.6va teal deffirbryv rbv Qebv vireiXij- 3 Messiah as foretold and expected

<j>bciv. Cambridge (1862).

2 See the article Herodians in Smith's

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 149

by St Peter (1 Pet. i. 19). This idea of the lamb as typifying
the Messiah is not found in the other three Evangelists. It is
introduced however by St John naturally and without comment :
the meaning is only explained by recalling the Messianic
expectations of the time, and in fact is lost sight of by many
commentators. With the substitution of another Greek word
(apviov for a/^i/o?) the same metaphor occurs in the Apocalypse
nearly thirty times.

(b) The Son of God, the King of Israel (i. 49). The
naturalness of this outburst on the part of Nathanael is
deserving of notice. The titles with which he hails the Messiah
are introduced in a way which is absolutely free from artifici-
ality. The first designation, the ' Son of God/ is derived from
Ps. ii. 7. It occurs again in the Fourth Gospel, i. 34, iii. 18, ix. 35
and especially xi. 27, in the last passage coupled expressly with
the title ' the Christ/ a combination which we find elsewhere
(Matt, xx vi. 63 in the mouth of the High Priest, and Matt. xvi.
16 in the confession of St Peter). Even when it stands
alone, as in Luke iv. 41, xxii. 70, it is at once recognised as
applying to the Christ. The second title, ' the King of Israel/
is a favourite appellation in the Fourth Gospel (xii. 13, cf. xviii.
36, 37, xix. 3, 5, 12, 14, 19). As Mr Sanday appositely remarks
(Authorship of the Fourth Gospel p. 35), ' the phrase is especially
important, because it breathes those politico-theocratic hopes,
which, since the taking of Jerusalem, Christians, at least, if not
Jews, must have entirely laid aside. It belongs to the lowest
stratification of Christian ideas, before Christianity was separated
from Judaism; and there is but one generation of Christians,
to whom it would have any meaning.'

Other Messianic titles which are found in our Evangelist are

(c) He that is coming (6 epxopevos) vi. 14, xi. 27, cf. Matt. xi. 3,
Luke vii. 19, 20, derived from the well-known Messianic psalm
(Ps. cxviii.), which is quoted in this sense by all the four Evan-
gelists (Matt, xxiii. 39, Mark xi. 9, Luke xiii. 35, John xii. 13);

(d) the Holy One of God (6 ayios TOV Seov) vi. 69, cf. Mark i.
24 and other passages; (e) the Son of Man, i. 51 etc., the most

150 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

familiar of all designations of the Christ, especially in St Luke's
Gospel; (/) the Light, i. 7, 8, viii. 12, xii. 46, cf. Luke ii. 32; an
idea found in Messianic passages like Is. ix. 2, xlii. 6, 7, Mai. iv.
2, 3, and expressly interpreted of Christ by the Talmud ' Light
is the name of Messiah' (see Lightfoot Hor. Heb. p. 564 quoted
by Sanday, p. 152); (g) He that hath been sent (o aTreo-raXitevos),
ix. 7, where the interpretation of the name Siloam connects the
pool with Christ (see x. 36, xvii. 3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25 etc., cf. Is. Ixi.
1) rather than with the man (see Wetstein ad loc.), but where
the allusion to the title, so far from appearing on the surface,
is inserted in the most unobtrusive manner possible. These
instances show the perfect ease and familiarity with which the
writer of the Fourth Gospel moves among the Messianic expec-
tations and the national feelings of the period which he depicts.

(ii) The companions of the Messiah. Attention has been
drawn elsewhere 1 to the significant references to 'the prophet'
which occur in four places in St John (i. 21, 25, vi. 14, vii. 40).
It has been pointed out that the form which the conception
takes is strictly Jewish, not Christian. While Christian teachers
identified the prophet foretold by Moses (Deut. xviii. 15) with
our Lord Himself (Acts iii. 22, vii. 37, cf. John i. 46) 2 , the Jews
in St John's Gospel conceive of * the Christ ' and f the prophet '
as two different persons. If He is not the Christ, they adopt
the alternative that He may be 'the prophet' (i. 21, 25); if
not c the prophet,' then ' the Christ ' (vii. 40). But this brings
us to another point, which is worthy of consideration. Spring-
ing out of the phrase employed by Moses in the passage quoted
above (* a prophet like unto me ') came the Jewish idea of the
parallelism of the lawgiver and the Messiah. In part this idea
was justified by the prophecy, and finds its proper place in the
language of the New Testament. Thus, as the writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews shows, Moses and Christ are the two

1 See above, p. 25. 20, Clem. Recogn. i. 43, Origen in

2 This identification is a common- Johan. vi. 4, Eusebius Demonstr.
place in patristic writers, see Tertull. Evang. i. 7, p. 26 sq. (ed. Paris 1628).
adv. Marcion. iv. 22, Apost. Const, v.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 151

mediators of the two covenants (Heb. viii. 5, 6). Thus again, in
a well-known passage (1 Cor. x. 1 11), St Paul works out the
parallel in his record of the wanderings of the children of Israel.
The crossing of the Red Sea is a baptism by Moses. The rock
smitten in the wilderness is Christ. Thus again, St John in
the Apocalypse (xv. 3) sets in the mouth of the redeemed a
twofold song, ' the song of Moses the servant of God, and the
song of the Lamb. 3 And lastly, our Lord Himself instances
the action of Moses in lifting up the serpent in the wilderness
as emblematic of Himself (John iii. 14). But the Rabbis
carried out the parallelism into the most minute details, so
that the career of the Messiah became in effect a reproduction
of the career of Moses. Of this belief adventurers, who wished
to pose as the Messiah, were not slow to take advantage. For
instance Theudas, to whom allusion has already been made 1 ,
undertakes to divide the Jordan (Jos. Ant. xx. 5. 1), in imitation
probably as much of Moses as of Joshua and Elijah. Again,
other nameless adventurers, to whom Josephus makes reference
a little later on (Ant. xx. 8. 6), ''urged the multitude to follow
them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would
exhibit manifest wonders and signs that should be performed
by the providence of God (tear a rrjv rov OeoO Trpovoiav).'
Gfrorer, who has worked out this subject in his Jahrhundert
des Heils (ir. p. 318 sq), tells us that Micah vii. 15 was quoted
to prove that the passover was the time in which this mani-
festation of Messianic power should be exhibited. In fulfilment
of the prophecy of Zechariah (ix. 9), the King should appear
riding an ass (Gfrorer p. 339). The miracles which he was
expected to perform were to include the two mighty works of
his prototype, the smiting of the waters as suggested by
Zechariah (x. 11), and the giving of the manna. We have seen
how the first of these symbolical acts was promised by Theudas.
To the general expectation of the second miracle rabbinic
literature furnishes full and explicit testimony. Thus in
Coheleth Rabba, 9 fol. 86. 4, we read Dixit P. Berachia nomine
1 See above, p. 147.

152 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

R. Isaaci ; qualis fuit redemptor primus, talis erit redemptor
ultimus....Sicut redemptor primus fecit descendere manna, ita
redemptor posterior faciet descendere manna. Again, in Shir
Rabba, fol. 16, Redemptor posterior revelabitur iis...et quonam
illos ducet? Sunt qui dicunt in desertum Judae, sunt qui
dicunt in desertum Sichoris et Ogi et descendere faciet pro Us
manna (see Lightfoot HOT. Heb. II. pp. 552, 557 ; cf. Shemoth
Rabba xxv.). In the light of these notices we can imagine the
ferment which would be occasioned by the feeding of the five
thousand, and we can now understand the full significance of
the challenge thrown out to Him on the part of the unbelieving
crowd, ' What dost thou work ? Our fathers did eat manna in
the wilderness (vi. 30, 31),' which in St John's narrative occurs
in so abrupt and unexplained a manner 1 . The key to the
understanding of the whole situation is an acquaintance with
the national expectation of the greater Moses. But this know-
ledge is not obtruded upon us by the Evangelist. It is tacitly
assumed. In fact, the meaning is unintelligible, except to one
who is brought up among the ideas of the time, or to one who,
like a modern critic, has made them his special study.

And so we might pass in review the various details of the
Messianic conception, and show how marvellously they correspond
with the account given so naturally and incidentally by the
Evangelist. The birth and generation of the Christ who, in
accordance with Micah v. 2, should be a descendant of David,
born in Bethlehem (vii. 42), and yet at the same time the
mystery and uncertainty of that birth (vii. 27) based upon the
well-known passage in Isaiah 'who shall declare His generation?'
(Is. liii. 8) 2 , the apparent discrepancies of the two accounts
being explained by the rabbis on the analogy of Moses who
was born and then hidden 3 ; His manifestation 'to Israel'

1 See this matter treated more fully fol. 5. 1) alleged that the Messiah had
above, p. 24. been born at Bethlehem a good while

2 See Sanday p. 146, Gfrorer, pp. before their own times but had been
203, 307, Wetstein and Lightfoot on snatched away. The same idea is
John vi. 27. found in Midrash Sair fol. 1, 16. 4 (on

3 The Gemarists (Hieros. Berachoth Canticles ii. 9) Caprea apparet et oc-

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 153

(i. 31 a passage with which Sanday, p. 33, compares Luke i. 80
spoken of John the Baptist ; cf. xiv. 22, xvii. 6 sq.), an event
which Jewish tradition decided would take place at the Passover
(Shemoth Rabb. xv. 150, Jerusalem Targum on Ex. xii. 42,
Mechilta on Ex. xii. 42, R. Bechai in Kad Hakkemach 49) *
doubtless another element in the excitement of the crowds
after the Feeding of the Five Thousand which took place at
Passover-tide (John vi. 2) ; lastly, His eternal continuance (xii.
34), a point much discussed among the rabbis 2 .

One of the accompaniments of the Messiah in Jewish antici-
pations was the return of the Shechinah, the symbol of that
visible divine presence, the loss of which after the captivity had
been so universally deplored. This confident hope was based
on such prophecies as Ezekiel xxxvii. 27, xliii. 7, Zechariah ii.
10 sq, viii. 3, Isaiah viii. 8, and on the language of Ecclesiasticus
xxiv. 8 sq. ' He that created me caused my tabernacle to rest
(fcareTravcre rrjv cr/crjvtjv /JLOV), and said, Let thy dwelling be in
Jacob (ev 'Iatfft>/3 Karaa/cr)va)crov)...in the holy tabernacle I
served before him (eV (r/crjvfj dyia zvunriov avrov eXeirovpyrjcra).'
It finds expression in more than one passage in the Apocalypse
(vii. 15, xiii. 6, xv. 5, xxi. 3). It remains however for St John
io his Gospel, in words which are replete with local colouring, to
point with a quiet triumph to the fulfilment of this expectation
in the person of Jesus Christ, ' The Word became flesh, and
tabernacled (ta-Ktjvcocrev) among us, and we beheld His glory

cultatur, apparet et occultatur. Sic postes nostrarum frontium consecrati

redemptor primus (Moses) apparuit et sunt. Hieron. Comm. in Matth. iv. 25.

fuit occultatus, et tandem apparuit 6, Op. vn. 203 (ed. Vallarsi). For the

iterum... Sic redemptor posterior (Mes- Christian counterpart of this Jewish

sias) revelabitur iis atque iterum abs- expectation see Justin Dial. c. Tryph.

condetur ab iis... In fine quadraginta 8, p. 34, 110, p. 368 (ed. Otto),
quinque dierum revelabitur iterum iis 2 See these various speculations given

et descendere faciet pro iis manna. in Gfrorer pp. 252 sq, 296, 315 317.

1 And at midnight ; Traditio Judae- The passages referred to by the multi-

orum est Christum media nocte ven- tude (^ytteis -f)Koij<rafj.v K rov v6fj.ov) were

turum in similitudinem Aegyptii tern- probably Is. ix. 6, Dan. vii. 13, 14,

poris, quando Pascha celebratum est and the Targums on these texts wilJ

et exterminator venit et Dominus super repay study,
tabernacula transiit et sanguine agni

154 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

rjv Sotfav avrov), the glory as of the only-begotten from the
Father, full of grace and truth (i. 14).'

(iii) The Messianic expectation among the Samaritans.

It has been denied 1 that the Samaritans had any Messianic
anticipations at all. But, firstly, they had the prophecy referred
to above (Deut. xviii. 15), which, as forming part of the Penta-
teuch, they would accept as authoritative. This was sufficient
in itself to suggest such expectations, and the fact that they were
under the same stimulating influences as the Jews, influences
arising from the political troubles of the times, would encourage
presentiments of a Deliverer. Secondly, as a matter of fact,
there is sufficient evidence to show that Messianic hopes were
as rife among them at the time of our Lord, as they are now at
the present day. Thus Josephus informs us (Ant. xviii. 4. 1)
that in the procuratorship of Pilate a disturbance arose among
the Samaritans in consequence of an impostor who ' bade them
assemble on Mount Gerizim ' under promise that he ' would
show them the sacred vessels (Se/feiz> ra iepd o-tceinj) which
were buried there, because Moses had put them there.' All
this is distinctly Messianic in character, and has an obvious
reference to the narrative of 2 Maccabees (ii. 1 8), where
Jeremiah is related to have buried the tabernacle, the ark and
the altar of incense on the mountain ' where Moses climbed up
and saw the heritage of God/ and to have declared that the
secret of the hiding place should not be revealed 'until the
time that God should gather His people again together, and
receive them unto mercy.' And this view finds confirmation
from a passage in the Joma Babl. (fol. 526, quoted by Gfrorer
p. 350), and explains the reference in Apoc. ii. 17 to the 'hidden
manna,' which was one of the treasures contained in the ark
(Ex. xvi. 33, 34, Heb. ix. 4). These disturbances among the
Samaritans took place A.D. 34, 35, and are connected by Keim
(I. p. 518) with the preaching of John the Baptist. Further
light is thrown on these Samaritan aspirations in the Clementine

1 e.g. by the author of The Jesus of History (1869).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 155

Recognitions. Here Simon Magus and Dositheus are both
mentioned as Samaritans who professed themselves to be
Messiahs 1 , and the Samaritans are described as ' rightly looking
forward to one true Prophet in accordance with the foretelling
of Moses, but prevented by the perverse teaching of Dositheus
from believing that Jesus was He whom they expected (Recogn.
i. 54 ; cf. vii. 33).' For the later communications with the
Samaritans held by Scaliger, Ludolf, and de Sacy, see Westcott,
Introduction to the Study of the Gospels p. 148. Petermann
likewise, who resided two months at Nablous, gives the results
of his visit and investigations in Herzog's Real-Encyklop. XIII.
p. 372 sq. All these authorities agree that the Samaritans
found their hopes upon the appearance of the prophet like unto
Moses. All agree too that they expect the discovery of the
furniture of the Sanctuary, e.g. the ark, the manna and the
tables of the commandments, a fact which leaves the interpre-
tation of the passage in Josephus beyond a doubt. With them
the Messiah is represented under two aspects, first as the
Hashab or Hathab (^HH) the Converter, Restorer, Buyer-back
(Westcott and Petermann I.e.), secondly as the El Muhdi the
Guide (Robinson, Biblical Researches n. 27 8 2 ). Thus we see how
the confident aspirations placed by St John in the mouth of
the Samaritan woman, * I know that Messias cometh, which is
called Christ; when he is come, he will tell us all things'
(iv. 25, cf. vv. 29, 42), are not the invention of a later generation,
but reflect the contemporary national feelings of this interesting
people.

(iv) Jewish beliefs, and sentiments on other points.

(a) The relation of the Jews to Abraham exemplified in
John viii. 33 sq. is worthy of notice, as illustrating the writer's
acquaintance with the Jewish ideas of his time. The boast,

1 Recogn. ii. 7, Simon hic...gente Recogn. i. 54 magistrum suum (i.e.

Samaraeus...gloriaeacjactantiae supra Dositheum) velut Christum praedi-

omne genus hominum cupidus ita ut carunt ; cf. Origen c. Gels. i. 57 (i.

excelsam virtutem...credi se velit et 372).

Christum putari (cf. Horn. ii. 22) ; 2 ed. 1867.

156 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

' We are Abraham's seed/ is an evidence of a justifiable pride of
birth (cf. v. 53), but the latter part of the sentence 'and we
have never been in bondage to any man ' has given much
difficulty to the commentators. Certainly it is not what a
stranger would have said of the Jewish people. The opinion
felt by the Romans for the Jews is well expressed by Cicero,
who contemptuously classes together the Jews and the Syrians
as nations born to slavery (Judaeis et Syris nationibus natis
servituti, Cic. Prov. Cons. 5). And Apion casts in the teeth of
Josephus the fact that, so far from ruling the Gentiles, the
chosen people were as a fact subject to them (TO /-i^ &PX eLV
ov\evt,v Be paXkov eOveai Jos. c. Apion. ii. 11). Yet this
proud assertion of liberty is exactly what the Jews would make
on their own behalf, whatever wresting of facts might be
necessary to maintain it. The answer of Josephus to Apion
at the end of the section is quite characteristic. 'At a time
when even the Egyptians,' he contends, ' were servants to the
Persians and the Macedonians, we (the Jews) enjoyed liberty,
and moreover had the dominion of the cities round about us
for about a hundred and twenty years, until Pompey the Great.
And when all nations were conquered by the Romans, who are
kings everywhere, our ancestors were the only people who
continued to be esteemed their allies and friends because of
their fidelity.' And in a certain sense the claim was true.
The national spirit of the Jews had never been thoroughly
enslaved. But externally it would appear to be the reverse of
the truth, and it is difficult to conceive how words such as the
Evangelist records could have found a place in a narrative
written in the middle of the second century, after the twofold
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and by Hadrian had stamped
out the last spark of national liberty.

(b) The authority assigned to Moses is another graphic
touch which shows a minute acquaintance with Jewish thought.
The assertion ' We are Moses' disciples ' (ix. 28) is illustrated
by Lightfoot (Hor. Heb. n. p. 572) from Joma fol. 4. 1, where the
same expression occurs, and the favourite title of Moses in

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 157

vogue among the Jews was 'Moses, our master' (quoted by
Scholtz on this verse). Associated with this idea is the
prestige which attached to the rabbinical schools. The
surprise expressed that our Lord should set up for a teacher
(vii. 15), the contemptuous disregard for the opinion of the
people (vii. 49), the very form of address (2t> el o Si&da/caXos
rov 'lo-parfK; iii. 10), which was apparently a formula of
remonstrance among the Jews 1 all these features can be
readily illustrated from rabbinical literature.

(c) The jealousy and contempt with which the Palestinian
Jews viewed the Greek dispersion is strikingly evidenced by
the sarcastic comment of the Jews ' Will he go unto the
dispersed among the Gentiles (M?) els rrjv SiaaTropdv TWV
e E\\Tjvo)v /teXXet TropevecrOat,), and teach the Gentiles?' (vii. 35.)
Contemporary Jewish opinion drew a hard and fast line
between their brethren of the Babylonian dispersion, i.e. those
who preferred to remain in the land of their captivity, and the
Greek dispersion in Asia Minor, the result of the wholesale de-
portations of Seleucus Nicator and Antiochus Epiphanes. The
former were held in high honour. The land of Babylon was
considered to be as holy as that of Palestine (Rabbi Solomon in
Gittin fol. 2. 1), and the descendants of the Jews there even
purer than those in Judaea itself (Kiddush fol. 69. 2). Even
Gamaliel deigned to hold correspondence with the 'sons of
the Dispersion of Babylonia' (Frankel Monatsschrift, p. 413,
1853). Hence, as Lightfoot remarks (Hor. Heb. ad loc.), 'for a
Palestine Jew to go to the Babylonish dispersion was to go to
a people and country equal, if not superior, to his own : but to
go to the dispersion among the Greeks was to go into unclean
regions, to an inferior race of Jews, and into nations most
heathenized.'

(d) Lastly (to confine ourselves to one further instance),
the question put to our Lord concerning the man born blind,
' Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was

1 See the story told in Lightfoot, from Echah Rabbathi, fol. 66. 2.
Hor. Heb. n. p. 534, of Kabbi Joshua

158 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

born blind 1 ?' reflects with a faithful accuracy the popular
teaching of the day as regards the consequences of sin. It
was a received doctrine in the Jewish schools that physical
defect in children was the punishment of sin committed by
their parents ; and though the Jewish doctrine of metempsy-
chosis was confined to the souls of the righteous (Jos. B. J. ii.
12), and thus a man brought no taint of sins with him from his
previous existence, yet it is clear from many curious Rabbinic
passages which Lightfoot quotes (ad loc.) that even in the
womb the infant, from the moment of his first quickening, was
considered capable of incurring stain of sin.

3. THE WRITER'S KNOWLEDGE OF EXTERNAL FACTS, THE
HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, NAMES AND CUSTOMS OF THE
JEWISH PEOPLE.

(i) The relations of the Jews with those around them.

(a) The Galileans. Owing to the fact that St John lays
special stress on the Judsean ministry, the references to the
Galileans in his Gospel are less numerous than in the Synoptic
narrative. But the notices, though few, are highly significant,
and the touches with which St John depicts them, singularly
vivid. Thus we cannot fail to observe the contempt which the
Jews of the metropolis display for them. * Shall Christ come
out of Galilee?' 'Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet' (vii. 41,
52). 'Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?'
(i. 46). Such is the objection, which rises unpremeditatedly to
the lips of speakers, when the northern province is indicated as
the home of the Messiah. This disparagement of the Galileans
is reflected more than once in the rabbinic literature of the
period. ' Foolish Galilean ' seems to have been the inevitable
form of address when a Galilean appears as a character in a
dialogue 2 . This contempt arose in great measure from the
admixture of foreign blood in the Galilean people. The Sea of

1 John ix. 2. 2 e.g. see Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. n. pp. 78, 543.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 159

Galilee was an important commercial centre, and as a natural
consequence strangers Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks and Romans
settled in the district, and intermarried with the Jewish inhabi-
tants, to the prejudice of the race in the eyes of a strict Jew of
the capital (see Keim I. p. 309). The distinction thus in-
augurated by the taint of foreign blood was further emphasized
by a difference of pronunciation. The rough dialect of the
northerners, which was a subject of comment in the case of
St Peter (Mark xiv. 70), is a favourite theme likewise in
rabbinical writers 1 . Thus in one story 2 a Judaean professes
himself unable to distinguish between ^^ 'a lamb/ Iptf
' wool,' *"^?r! ' wine ' and "^H ' an ass/ as pronounced by a
Galilean when the latter wants to make a purchase, an illus-
tration which shows that the divergence consisted largely in a
careless confusion of gutturals on the part of the Galileans.
The bad name, from which the Galileans suffered generally,
seems to have attached itself more particularly to their city
Nazareth (John i. 46). Certainly the account which we have of
them from other passages in the Gospels (Luke iv. 16 29,
Matt. xiii. 54 58) conveys the impression that the Nazarenes
were a violent, unscrupulous, irreligious people. They may
therefore have fully justified their invidious reputation. That
this reputation was widespread appears from the irony in the
superscription on the cross, ' Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the
Jews' (John xix. 19). We pass on to notice the Evangelist's
accurate knowledge of other traits in the Galilean character.
In John iv. 45 occurs a brief and incidental mention of the
welcome accorded to our Lord by the Galileans in consequence
of His doings at Jerusalem at the feast, ' for they also went to
the feast.' Now it is worthy of record that Josephus (Ant. xx.
6. 1) relates that serious troubles arose owing to collisions
between the Samaritans and the Galileans while the latter
were on their way to keep the feasts at Jerusalem 3 . The

1 See the instances given by Light- 2 See my Galatians, p. 197 (ed. 6).

foot, n. p. 78 sq, and cf. Fiirst Aram. 3 This notice illustrates John iv. 4
Idiom. 15. compared with Luke ix. 51 sq.

160 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

natural turbulence of the Galileans, to which Josephus calls
attention 1 , was on these occasions aggravated by their intense
religious enthusiasm 2 . It is therefore quite what we should
expect when we find a reference in St Luke (xiii. 1) to certain
Galileans 'whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices,'
and the portrait which St John gives us of St Peter is, as Keim
truly observes (l. p. 315), of 'a genuine Galilean type.'

(b) The Romans. St John's consummate skill does not fail
him as he sketches the relations of the Jews with their Roman
masters. We notice on the one hand the cringing political defer-
ence exhibited in the words of the chief priests, ' The Romans
shall come and take away both our place and nation (xi. 48),'
'We have no king but Caesar (xix. 15),' 'If thou let this man
go, thou art not Caesar's friend (xix. 12)'; on the other, the
religious horror of the pollution attaching to contact with the
Romans, which even at the height of their frenzied hatred of
their prisoner kept the Jews outside the judgment hall, 'lest
they should be defiled (xviii. 28).' He then proceeds to give
us details which reveal an accurate acquaintance with the
Roman customs and military arrangements of the time. Twice
over is reference made to ' the band ' (97 cnrelpa xviii. 3, 12),
once to 'the captain' (o %tX/a/?%o9 xviii. 12). Now, we learn
from Polybius 3 and Suidas 4 that o-jrelpa and %tXiap%o9 were
technical terms, the recognised Greek renderings of cohors and

1 Trpbs iraaav del iroXfaov Treipav dv- expression /caXetVcu shows that he is
rtffxw ' fuixwol T y&p fK vyirlwv /c.r.X. merely giving the Latin equivalent
Jos. B. J. iii. 3. 2 ; cf. Vit. 17 veur^puv (/co6prtj) for the Greek expression
tiridviJiovvTes del IT pay par wv. (aireipa). A little later on (xi. 33. 1)

2 Many of the false Messiahs were Polybius has again eirl r^rrapas tcobp-
Galileans, e.g.'IotfSas 6 raXiXcuos (Acts w TOVTO d' ten (nreTpa, where Ca-
v. 37). saubon has struck out the last four

3 rjoetj ffirelpas ' TOVTO 5e /caXetreu TO words, though they occur in all the
<rtivTay/j.a T&V ireffiv irapa 'Pw/xcu'ois manuscripts.

Ko6/ms Polybius xi. 23. Schweig- 4 Suidas (s. v.) states that x^ a PX OL

hauser in his note (ad loc.) contends came into office at Kome three hun-

that cnrflpa here means manipulus, and dred and fifteen years after the foun-

that the term cohors is applied to the dation of the city. This coincides

complement of three maniples ; but with the institution of military tri-

Livy in the parallel passage (xxviii. 14) bunes with consular power at the

has ternis peditum cohortibus, and the close of the Decemvirate.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 161

tribunus respectively. Accordingly the use of the definite
article by St John in both cases, 'the cohort' 'the tribune 1 ,'
shows that he was aware of a fact, which we learn from
Josephus also (B. J. ii. 12. 1), that a Roman cohort was
quartered in the Turris Antonia at Jerusalem to prevent
disturbances at the great festivals 2 . A few years later we find
soldiers from this Roman garrison employed in rescuing St Paul
from the hands of the Jewish mob during the feast of the
Passover 3 .

Again, the scene of the Crucifixion furnishes St John with
another opportunity of showing his intimate knowledge of
Roman military customs. A quaternion (rerpdStov Acts xii. 4)
of soldiers, as we learn from Vegetius and others*, was usually
employed as a watch on night duty, or for purpose of escort.
Now, it is noticeable that, when the other Evangelists speak
of the guard which attended at the Crucifixion, no number is
given. It is simply stated (Matt, xxvii. 35, Mark xv. 26,
Luke xxiii. 34), that the soldiers divided the Saviour's garments
among them. St John however gives the actual number. But
observe how incidentally the fact comes out. He makes no
mention of a quaternion: he merely says, 'Then the soldiers,
when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made
four parts, to every soldier a part.' The information is not
paraded in any way ; it is involved in the narrative. One more

1 On the other hand, though ' the the chief priests (Matt. xxvi. 5) as evi-
band ' is mentioned by the Synoptists dence to these disturbances.

(Matt, xxvii. 27, Mark xv. 16) at a 3 Acts xxi. 31 sq, where again the

later stage in the proceedings, the same technical terms are used with

definite article, as used in the Fourth the definite article av^tj 0d<rts T$ xiXi-

Evangelist, is more decisive. &PXV r W o""""/"?* K.T.\. This account,

2 When Cumanus was procurator, like that in the Fourth Gospel, is pro-
the insolent conduct of a Eoman bably the narrative of an eye-witness,
soldier at the Passover resulted in a 4 De singulis centuriis quaterni equi-
riot (B. J. I.e., cf. Ant. xx. 5. 3) in tes et quaterni pedites excubitum
which ten thousand (B. J. I.e., twenty noctibus faciunt, Vegetius de re mili-
thousand Ant. I.e.) Jews perished. tari iii. 8 ; cf. Philo in Flacc. 13, n. p.
For the disturbances at the great 533 ffTparubr^v nvb. TWV iv rots rerpadLois
festivals see B. J. i. 4. 3. Whiston <f>v\a.K<av KO.& 656v evpwv, Polyb. vi. 33
instances the cautious procedure of 7-6 0uXcucei6' <TTII> K rerrdptav dvdpuv.

L. E. 11

162 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

instance, and I leave this part of the subject. ' The Jews,' we
read, 'besought Pilate that their legs might be broken... Then
came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the
other which was crucified with Him (xix. 31, 32).' This again
is a detail added by St John, which a forger would not have
cared to risk. For crurifragium formed no part of a cruci-
fixion. It was a separate punishment 1 , to which slaves could be
subjected at the caprice of their masters, and it was abolished
together with crucifixion at the command of Constantine
(Lipsius de Grace in. 14). But there is some reason to suppose
that it was used to hasten death in the case of Jewish criminals
(Lactant. Inst. iv. 26), in order that the ends of justice might not
be defeated by the Mosaic enactment which required the bodies to
be taken down on the day of execution (Deut. xxi. 23 quoted
by Tertull. adv. Judaeos 10).

(ii) The writers acquaintance with Jewish Institutions.

1. The High-Priesthood.

The relative positions of Annas and Caiaphas at the time of
the Crucifixion have been a source of some perplexity. Annas
the high-priest had been deposed by Gratus the predecessor of
Pilate, and after intermediate appointments Gratus had nomi-
nated Caiaphas to the office. The date of Caiaphas' succession
is probably A.D. 25, one year before Pilate became procurator,
and he was deposed apparently about the passover of A.D. 37 ;
whereupon there followed a series of changes, as many as seven
high-priests holding office in the next ten years. These facts
we learn from a comparison of certain passages in Josephus
(esp. Ant. xviii. 2. 2 compared with xviii. 4. 3). Thus at the
time of our Lord's Passion Caiaphas was the actual high-priest,
while Annas had been high-priest a few years before. Turning
now to the New Testament, we find a certain vagueness in the
description of the two by the Synoptists, a vagueness due partly

1 See Plaut. Asinar. ii. 4. 68, Paen. Aug. 67, Tib. 44, passages quoted with
iv. 2. 64, Sen. de Ira iii. 32 ; Suet. others by Lipsius de Cruce n. 14.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 163

to the wide use of the word dpxiepevs, but not altogether
explained thereby. Thus, in his Gospel St Luke dates the first
year of our Lord's ministry eVl dp^cepeco^ " A.VVCL /cal Kaidcfra
(Luke iii. 2), but in the Acts he mentions as present at the
meeting of the Sanhedrin shortly after the day of Pentecost
"Az/i/a? o dp%{,ep6v<; /cal Kata^a? (Acts iv. 6). He would seem
therefore either to have consulted documents which did not
recognise the validity of Caiaphas' appointment, or to have had
himself no very clear conception of the relative positions of the
two. The account in the Fourth Gospel is much more precise.
St John is aware that Caiaphas is the high-priest (xi. 49, xviii.
13, 24), but he assigns an important position to Annas also,
whom in some sense he recognises likewise as dpxiepevs (xviii.
15, 16, 19, 22) 1 . On these facts we may remark, first that this
unguarded, and to us unintelligible, way of speaking betokens
a genuine author, who does not feel the necessity of explaining
what to himself is a familiar fact. As was natural with one
who was ' known unto the high-priest ' (7^0x7x0? rw dp^epel
xviii. 15, 16), he evidently has a very clear conception of the
relation of the two persons, though he has not definitely put it
on paper. Secondly, so far as we are able to test the accuracy
of his facts, they satisfy the test, i.e. Caiaphas is the actual high-
priest. Thirdly, his account serves as a connecting link between
scattered and apparently divergent notices in the New Testa-
ment 2 . Yet this episode about Annas in the history of the
Passion is peculiar to St John 3 .

The use of o dpftiepevs as applied to two different persons in
St John is admirably illustrated by a passage in Josephus
(Ant. xx. 9. 2). The high-priest Ananias (the Ananias of the
Acts) has been deposed, and Ishmael the son of Phabi has
succeeded (Ant. xx. 8. 8). Ishmael again has been set aside,
and his place given to Joseph, surnamed Kabi (xx. 8. 11).

1 The A. V. has taken unwarrantable - e.g. Matt. xxvi. 3, 57 compared
liberties with dtr^ffreiXev iu xviii. 24. with Acts iv. 6.

It should be * sent him ' not ' had sent 3 Keim's attempt (in. p. 322) to set

him.' The events are related in strict this episode of Annas aside is quite
chronological order. futile.

112

164 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Shortly after, Joseph is deposed, and the office conferred upon
the younger Annas or Ananus, son of the Annas of the Gospels
(xx. 9. 1). A period of three months however witnesses the
fall of Ananus, and Jesus (Joshua) the son of Damnseus is
appointed (ib.). In spite of this, however, after these four
changes in the high-priestly office, when Ananias reappears
upon the scene, he is still called ' the high-priest ' (o dp^epevs
xx. 9. 2), and this title is applied to him, even as late as the
breaking out of the Judaic war (B. J. ii. 17. 6, 9), though in the
meantime there has been a fifth change 1 in the actual holder of
the high-priesthood. And this is not all. Ananias is desig-
nated 'the high-priest' in describing his dealings with the
actual high-priest even in the same sentence (Ant. xx. 9. 2
o Se dp%i,6pv<; 'Avavias Kaff e/cdo-rrjv K.T.\. r)v yap

/cad' rj/juepav <yovv rbv ' 'A\ftivov ical rov d
eOepdnrevev}. This is at least as great an intermingling
of the use as in John xviii.; and is exactly of the same kind 2 .
Again, the passage in Josephus gives an example of the employ-
ment of the plural (OL re dp^iepels o/xota /e.r.A,.), a sufficiently
striking phenomenon. All this is perfectly natural in Josephus,
a contemporary and eye-witness, perfectly natural also in the
Fourth Evangelist, supposing him to be a contemporary and
eye-witness; but incredible in a forger, who could not have
failed to betray himself by some slip when treading upon such
delicate ground. Lastly, the prominence assigned by Josephus
to Ananias is a parallel to the case of Annas in the Gospel
and the Acts. If we had only a chapter or two of Josephus
detached from the sequence of the narrative, and read of
' Ananias the high-priest,' we should certainly suppose him to
have been the actual holder of the office at the time. It is
conceivable that some such mistaken inference has resulted in

1 Jesus the son of Gamaliel ap- may be considered doubtful. On the
pointed in place of Jesus the son of other hand Mr Sanday (p. 245) con-
Damnaeus (Ant. xx. 9. 4). siders the title to apply to Caiaphas

2 It is evident that the references in throughout, a view which compels him
vv. 13, 24 are to Caiaphas, those in to regard the aorist drArTetXe? in v. 24
vv. 19, 22 to Annas, while vv. 15, 16 as a pluperfect.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 165

the expression 'Annas the high-priest and Caiaphas' in Acts
iv. 6. Indeed it is quite possible that St Luke himself did not
know the precise facts, but had copied an authentic document,
in which an especially leading part had been assigned to
Annas 1 .

2. The Jewish Festivals.

We cannot fail to notice the large place which religious
festivals occupy in this Gospel. They are much more promi-
nent than in the Synoptic narrative. The main incidents are
connected with them, and this applies not merely to the
Passover, but to the other feasts likewise.

(a) The Feast of Tabernacles is described in John vii. It
is introduced by a remarkable expression (rjv 8e eyyvs $ eoprrj
TWV 'lov&aicov T] o-KTjvoTT'rjyia v. 2). 'The feast of the Jews'
was not in itself an unnatural way of designating the Feast of
Tabernacles. For it was called by the rabbis 3H 'the festival
par excellence*,' and Josephus (Ant viii. 4. 1) speaks of it as
'a feast of the utmost sanctity and importance among the
Hebrews ' (eoprrjs <r<f)68pa irapa rot? 'T&ftpaiois ayiwTdrijs /ecu

1 For the popular idea that the high- woman, on which see above, p. 35 ;

priest had a sort of inspiration (John (4) ii. 6, the purificatory rites on which

xi. 51 ' And this spake he not of him- see Lightfoot, ad loc. ; (5) marriage

self, but being high-priest that year he customs, especially * the friend of the

prophesied') comp. Josephus .B.J. iii. 8. bridegroom' (iii. 29), a metaphor in-

3 Tcepl Kpifffis oveipuv lKav6s...avr6$ (5v stinct with meaning, but it is only

iepevs, and Philo de Great. Princ. 8 (n. when we enter into the Jewish practice

p. 367) 6 Trpos d\r)6eiav iepevs el/Otis that this meaning comes out ; (6)

<TTI irpo<priTrjs, the gift however being funeral ceremonies, especially the form

in both passages extended to the of the grave (xi. 38, 41), and the mode

priesthood generally. Other minor of burial (xii. 7, xix. 39, 40, xx. 1, 5,

references which show St John's ac- 7, 11), on which last point compare

quaintance with Jewish rites and cus- Tacitus Ann. xvi. 6, where we read of

toms are (1) viii. 17, the necessity for Poppaea, a Jewish proselyte, ' corpus

two witnesses (cf. Deut. xvii. 6, xix. non igni abolitum, ut Eomanus mos ;

15, Matt, xviii. 16, 2 Cor. xiii. 1, Heb. sed regum externorum consuetudine

x. 28, 1 John v. 7 sq) ; (2) viii. 44, the differtum odoribus conditur.' Most of

allusion to Cain (cf. 1 John iii. 12) : these passages are well illustrated from

the argument appealed to certain ideas rabbinical sources in Lightfoot's Horae

prominent at the time which would Hebraicae.

not have occurred to any writer of a 2 See Smith's Dictionary of the

later date ; (3) iv. 27, talking with a Bible, s. v.

166 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

It was sufficiently prominent to attract the notice
of the heathen, as Plutarch (Symp. iv. 6, Op. Mor. p. 671 sq.),
who regards it as a sort of Dionysiac festival. Still, if the
words 77 eoprrj T&V J lov8alo>v alone had been used, the Passover
would probably have been meant. Hence the words 77 cnc^vo-
irrjyia are added. A little later on (v. 37) St John speaks of
the 'last, the great day of the feast' (ev rfj ea-^drrj rj^epa ry
fjLeya\rj TT}? eoprrf^), language which may mean either the
last of the seven days, i.e. strictly speaking the last of the
feast, or the eighth day, the holy convocation, which followed
upon the seven. There seems however to have been no special
sanctity about the seventh day 1 . The first was apparently
much more important than the seventh. On the other hand it
is urged that the eighth day did not properly belong to the
feast, which lasted only seven days. But though the feast is
sometimes spoken of as a seven days' feast, and the eighth day
is not regarded (Deut. xvi. 13 sq., Ezek. xlv. 25), yet elsewhere
the eighth day is reckoned as part of the feast, and a special
prominence attached to it. This is the case in Numb. xxix. 35,
in Neh. viii. 18, in 2 Mace. x. 6 8 , in Philo and Josephus 3 and in
Jewish writers generally 4 . I need not dwell upon the fact,
to which attention has been frequently drawn, that on this
occasion our Lord bases His discourse (vii. 37 sq., viii. 12 sq.)
upon the two most prominent features in the ceremonial of the
day, the pouring out of the water of Siloam upon the altar, and
the illumination of the city by flaming torches lighted in the
Temple area 5 . It will be sufficient to notice, first, that as in

1 Buxtorf, Syn. Jud. xvi. p. 327, 6/crtb coprV ofyoiras, Jos. Ant. iii. 10.
gives a certain prominence to it in his 4, and so a little lower down avievrai
description of the modern Jewish ce- de diro TroLvrbs tpyov Kara TT\V 6yd6r)v
lebrations of the tabernacles : see too -rj/utpav.

Groddeke in Ugol. xvm. p. 534. 4 Succah iv. 4 (hymnus et gaudium

2 fter' elxppoffvvTjs yyov T)/jipas 6KT& octo dies), iv. 9 (onines octo dies), v. 6
ffK^vwfj-drwv Tp6irov, 2 Mace. x. 6. (octavo die redibant ad sortes) ; cf.

3 eTTTo, de ^/ifycus 675677*' eTri<r<ppayl- Gem. Hieros. in Ugol. xvm. p. 492.
eTcu, /caA^<ras e65toi/ avT-fjv, OVK eKdvrjs 5 On the ceremonies of the eighth
cos eoiice V.QVQV rrjs eop-njj d\Xa iraffdv day seeesp. J&vf&ld. Alterth. p. 404. The
T&I> eTT]<rlwi> 6<ras Karri pi6fj,-ri<Tafji.e)>, Philo people broke up their tents and re-
Septen. 24, p. 298 M. ; <?<' wepas paired to the Temple. As the dwelling

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 167

our Lord's discourse, so in the ceremonial itself, the lighting of
the lamps followed the pouring out of the water, and was
intimately connected therewith ; secondly, that it took place in
the court of the women where the treasury (<yao<j>v\dKiov)
stood 1 , and where our Lord was speaking at the time (viii. 20).
Thus He would be able to point to the candelabra. Thirdly,
it is worthy of remark that Philo also incidentally connects the
same two images with the Feast of Tabernacles 2 .

(b) The Feast of Dedication. This festival (TO, ey/caivta) is
mentioned by St John alone, and it is remarkable how thorough
and confident a knowledge of it is implied in his narrative.
Here, again, the mode in which it is introduced deserves notice,
'At that time the feast of dedication was held at Jerusalem 1
(x. 22 eyevero rare ra ey/catvia ev rot? c Iepo<7oXi'/Aot?). There
is no mention made, as in the case of other feasts (e.g. ii. 13,
iv. 45, v. 1, vii. 8), of going up to Jerusalem. For the ey/calvia,
unlike the Passover, Tabernacles and Pentecost, might be
celebrated anywhere (see Lightfoot ad loc.). 'It was winter,'
we are told. Now the festival was held to commemorate the
purification and dedication of the altar and temple after pollu-
tion by Antiochus Epiphanes B.C. 167. This event and the
institution of the annual festival are described in 1 Mace. iv.
36 sq., where Judas Maccabseus directs that the commemoration
should take place 'from year to year by the space of eight days,
from the five and twentieth day of the month Chisleu (v. 59).'
Now the month Chisleu falls in November and December,
coinciding more nearly with December, and the Jewish winter
is reckoned to commence on the fifteenth of Chisleu. Hence
the notice of the season of the year in St John is strictly
accurate. Yet it is introduced quite incidentally, apparently to

in tents symbolized the wilderness life, 2 77 /JLV yap diKaiocrvi>i]s f<rriv 77 d

itself a deliverance from bondage, so ddiKias o.px~n Te ^al TT 77777, /ecu 77 fj.tv

the eighth day would be taken to da-Ktov 0wT6$, 77 5e o-/c6rous ffvyyevr/s,

signify the end of their wanderings Philo Septen. 24, not as read in the

when they settled in the land of ordinary texts, but as given in Tisch.

promise. Philonea.
1 See below, p. 169.

168 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

explain the fact that Jesus was not teaching in the open air
but under cover. 'It was winter, and Jesus was walking in
the Temple in Solomon's porch.'

(c) The Feast of the Passover. Graphic touches which
illustrate St John's acquaintance with the details of this feast
are his references to the paschal victim (xix. 36), to the danger
of ceremonial pollution (xviii. 28), and to the Preparation
(Trapao-Kevr) xix. 14, 31, 42), a term which he employs in
common with the Synoptists (Matt, xxvii. 62, Mark xv. 42,
Luke xxiii. 54), but, unlike St Matthew, uses twice without the
article, and in one case defines more accurately by the addition
of the words rov Trdcr^a (xix. 14), implying that the term was
not restricted to the Passover 1 . Lastly, the parenthetical
remark on xix. 31, 'For the day of that sabbath was a high
day ' (TJV ryap /JLeyaXfj 77 r)/j,epa etcelvov rov <7a/3/3rou) points to
the special sanctity of the day as a double sabbath, the sabbath
alike of the week and of the festival, hebdomadal as well as
Paschal.

(iii) The Topography of Jerusalem.

From this review of the festivals we pass on to consider the
localities mentioned in the Fourth Gospel, merely premising
that the complete destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and
Hadrian would have gone far to obliterate traces of the actual
sites, and would thus have rendered the work of a subsequent
forger more than usually exposed to danger of errors.

(a) The Temple. We start with the Temple. Observe the
familiarity with which the Evangelist moves about among the
sacred precincts. He mentions the Porch of Solomon, ' the east
portico,' as Josephus describes it to us (Ant. xx. 9. 7), ' on the
outer part of the Temple, lying in a deep valley with walls four
hundred cubits (long), built of square and very white stones'
of enormous size. It was the work of Solomon, and was left

1 This was apparently the case (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Mark xv. 42).

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 169

untouched in Herod's restoration 1 . A covered portico of so
vast an extent was doubtless a favourite place of resort and
shelter in winter time, to which its eastern aspect, catching the
warmth of the morning sun, would not be a disadvantage, and
thus it was a natural scene for our Lord's teaching. Another
spot where our Lord is stated to have taught is the treasury,
the ya&^vXd/ciov (viii. 20). This word St John employs in
common with the Synoptists (Mark xii. 41 sq., Luke xxi. 1), but
with characteristic exactness, he gives us additional information.
The other Evangelists merely speak of casting money ' into the
treasury,' confining the term apparently to the corban-chests,
and this is probably the use in Josephus also, when he says
(Ant. xix. 6. 1) that Herod Agrippa hung up a certain golden
chain which Caligula had given him ' within the temple-
precincts over the treasury (vTrep rov <yao<f>v\a,KLOvy St John
however shows that the expression was extended to embrace
the chamber in which the chests were placed. This chamber
was situated in the outer front of the Temple in the court of
the women. Thus it would be a frequented spot, since women
could penetrate no further, and St Luke (I. c.) calls special
attention to the crowd of people which passed to and fro (eOewpei
7TW9 o 0^X09 j3'i\\i, ^a\icov els TO ya^o^vXd/CLOv). How
natural to take advantage of this concourse, and how significant
the addition 'and no man laid hands on him (viii. 20),' when
we recollect that the Sanhedrin held its meetings 2 hard by
between the court of the women and the inner court, within a
stone's throw of the speaker.

(6) The Watercourses of Jerusalem.

(1) Bethesda, Bethsaida, or Bethzatha (v. 2). The Evan-
gelist describes this as 'a pool near the sheep (gate) 3 ' (eV^ 777

The ' sheep gate ' is mentioned more

1 Herod's restoration of the Temple included in it.

was so complete, that it is unlikely 2 In a hall called Gazzith (Light-

that in the second century a distinc- foot, i. p. 2005).

tion would have been preserved be- 3 A.V. ' sheep market.'
tween what was, and what waa not,

170 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

than once by Nehemiah (iii. 1, 32, xii. 39 f) TTV\T} 77
TrpoffaTitcr}), but it is difficult to fix its exact position. It
was this uncertainty of locality, doubtless which led to the
omission of the words eVt rf) 7rpo/3aTi/cf) in the Curetonian and
Peschito Syriac, and to the reading of the Codex Sinaiticus eV
rot? 'lepoo-oXvpois TrpoftariKr) Ko\vfjL(3rj6pa, which understands
the two descriptions as defining one and the same spot.
However it is clear that others also, besides the scribe of tf,
explained TrpofBarucr) as an adjective describing /co\v/jLj3r)0pa.
Thus Eusebius in his Onomasticon makes the following state-
ment : ^r)%a0a KO\vp0rf0pa ev 'lepovcrdXri/j,, ^rt? e&rlv rj jrpo-
/3ari,Ki] *, and goes on to derive the name from the animal
sacrifices which used to take place there (-Trap 1 b KOI TrpoftaTiKr}
KaXelrai SLO, ra Ov/juara). And this interpretation may have
produced the reading which we find in K. It is possible how-
ever, that Eusebius may have got hold of the rabbinical word
ITlKtDl'TS or K'MVlfi (Buxtorf p. 1796), which seems to mean
' a bath/ unless indeed this word has come from 7rpo(3a,Ti,KT], the
bath as well as the gate bearing the name. But it does not
follow that Eusebius and the Bordeaux Pilgrims were right in
their locality. Where then must we place the pool 1 The
question would be answered if we could fix the position of the
' sheep gate/ This however is only roughly possible. From the
notices in Nehemiah we draw the conclusion that the gate was
situated somewhere near the Temple, on the east side of the
city. The traditional site identifies it with St Stephen's gate,
north of the Temple area, but there is no sufficient ground for

1 He proceeds rb ira\aibv irtvrf. <rroas to which Eusebius draws attention is

fyovtra. KQ.I vvv deiKwrai tv rats avrbdi mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrims

\t[jivai.s Sidtf/iois, <Zv eKartpa. e/c T&V /car' in their description : Interius vero

ros ver&v wX^povrai, dartpa de irapa- civitatis sunt piscinae gemellares, quin-

56|ws TreQou'ly/j.froi' delKwat rb i/5wp, que porticus habentes, quae appellan-

txvos, ws 0ao-t, <t>tpov<ra T&V irdXai tur Betsaida. Ibi aegri multorum

Ka6aipo/j,{}>uv 4v avrfj iepelw. Jerome, annorum sanabantur : aquam autem

knowing the locality better, says quae habent eae piscinae in modum coccini

vocabatur irpofiaTucfi, Hier. de situ et turbatam, quoted by Wesseling, Itine-

n&m. (op. m. p. 182 ed. Vallarsi). raria (1735), p. 589.
The curious red colour of the waters

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS - 3. 171

this ; and Robinson's conjecture (i. p. 342) that Bethesda is the
intermittent spring in the Upper Pool known as the * Fountain
of the Virgin 1 ' at all events accords with the uninterpolated 2
account of St John, which implies nothing miraculous in the
water itself, but describes what was evidently an intermittent
and medicinal, perhaps (from the allusions quoted above to the
redness of the water) a chalybeate spring. However we need
not pursue the enquiry further. Enough has been said to show
that from early times much uncertainty was felt as to the
actual site. What forger then would have ventured to intro-
duce, or if he introduced, to localise, so obscure and contested a
spot ? Who but one thoroughly familiar with the scene would
have been content to describe the position by so elliptical and
ambiguous a phrase as eVt rfj TrpoftaTircf), employing an ad-
jective without a qualifying noun, a phrase which, as we have
seen, has been interpreted to mean 'sheep market,' 'sheep gate/
' sheep pool ' ? The naturalness of this vague allusion is the
best guarantee for the authenticity of the narrative.

(2) Siloam (ix. 7). Attention has been drawn already 3 to
the derivation of this word, and the symbolical use which
St John makes of this derivation. The topographical question
however requires a separate treatment. Fortunately the situa-
tion, unlike that of Bethesda, can hardly be considered doubtful.
Siloam is frequently mentioned and described by Josephus, and
the tradition of its position is tolerably continuous. It bears
the same name now, Silwdn, as in our Lord's time. It lies
at the mouth of the Tyropceon valley, close to its junction with
the valley of Hinnom, and is fed by a stream issuing somewhere
from the heart of the rocks of Jerusalem. Its proximity to
Jerusalem is evidenced by the well-attested tradition that water
was brought from it for the libations customary at the Feast of
Tabernacles, and by the name which it gave to one of the gates

1 It was connected by an under- omit the words e*5ex/^ I/WJ '-
ground passage with the pool of Si- (vv. 3, 4), which are found in the
loam. Textus Receptus.

2 Textual criticism compels us to 3 See above, pp. 141, 150.

172 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

of Jerusalem, ' the water gate.' It was both a fountain and a
pool. The fountain (Trrjyrj) is mentioned by Josephus (B. J. v.
12. 2), the pool or tank by Neherniah (iii. 15, riDIl) and St John
(Ko\v/jL/3rj0pa) 1 . The derivation of the name, which means an
' aqueduct ' or ' conduit ' (from H/fc^ to send) seems to imply
that the Siloah properly so-called was not the pool, but the
stream which feeds it or which flows from it. The points on
which the Evangelist incidentally displays his exact knowledge
are two : first, he apparently places the pool near the Temple,
for it is improbable that a blind man would be sent on a long
journey ; secondly, he is aware of, and draws a lesson from, the
Hebrew meaning of the name, in which he sees a spiritual
significance. Long ago these very waters had been invested by
Isaiah (viii. 6) with a symbolical interpretation. The contrast
between the ' waters of Shiloah that go softly ' and the * waters
of the River (i.e. the Euphrates), strong and many ' typified the
contrast between Judah and Assyria, between the quiet dwelling
in Jerusalem under Jehovah and the overwhelming of a foreign
conquest. This idea of an indigenous stream, the possession of
the favoured people, ' the river, the streams whereof shall make
glad the city of God ' (Ps. xlvi. 4 ; cf. Isaiah xxxiii. 21), bespoke
the Messianic hope. It foretold the stream of running
life-giving waters, which should issue from the temple-rock,
and revive the nations. It recalled and renewed the type of
the waters flowing from the rock smitten by Moses, which rock
was understood by St Paul to be the Christ (1 Cor. x. 4).
Thus St John seizes upon the current thought, and extends its
application. The Healer who sends the blind man is Himself
'the sent 2 .'

(3) Gedron (xviii. 1). This is undoubtedly the Kidron of

1 Isaiah (viii. 6) has simply rPfc^n *& OLTTO rov deov Trarpos avrov direa-raX^vos;
(LXX TO tidup roO SiXwdyw). Haer. xxxv. 3. So the ps. -Basil on

2 Epiphanius rightly connects the Isaiah viii. 6, ris ofo 6 dTrearaX^^os
two passages. After quoting Isaiah viii. /cat d^o^ri ptuv 17 irepl ov dprjTai o
6, he continues vdup yap SiXwd/t Ian Ktpios airtffreiXtv /*e; Basil, op. i. p.

di5a<TKa\la rov aircffTaXptvov ' rLs 5' ov 536 A.
eirj OUTOS dXX' r\ 6 Ktfpios yfA&v 'Irjffovs, 6

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 173

the Old Testament (2 Sam. xv. 23 etc.), and is mentioned by
St John alone of the Evangelists. The common text runs irepav
rov xei/jidppov rwv Ke&pcov (' the torrent of the Cedars '), and the
passage has a peculiar interest because it has furnished the text
for an elaborate attack upon the personality of the Evangelist.
Baur and Hilgenfeld after him (see Ewald Jahrbuch, vi. p. 118)
have pointed triumphantly to the undoubted fact that KeSpwv is
the Hebrew word pTlp 'dark,' so called probably from its turbid
stream 1 , and have proceeded to argue that the Evangelist in his
ignorance has imagined it to be the genitive plural of /ceSpos
' a cedar.' The writer therefore, they conclude, cannot have
been the Apostle St John, who, as a Jew, must have been
aware of the true derivation of the name.

Before admitting this conclusion, let us look the facts
fairly in the face. In Josephus the form KeSpwv occurs fre-
quently (B. J. v. 2. 3, v. 6. 1, v. 12. 2 ; Ant. vii. 1. 5, viii. 1. 5,
ix. 7. 3) used as a declinable noun. This is quite after Jose-
phus' manner in dealing with Hebrew substantives. In the
LXX the expression o %ifjLdppov<; TLe&pwv is employed with-
out an article, e.g. 2 Sam. xv. 23 (its second occurrence in
this verse); 2 Kings xxiii. 6, 12; 2 Chron. xv. 16, xxix. 16,
xxx. 14; Jer. xxxi. 40. But in two passages it is found with
the plural article 2 Sam. xv. 23 (on the first occurrence), and
1 Kings xv. 13 eV TGO ^ei/iappa) r&v Kefy>o>i/. This is the
reading of AB in both passages. Now it is quite clear that
the LXX translators did not mistake the meaning of the word.
Otherwise they could not have written, as they generally do,
6 'xei^appov^ Keopw, a solecism on this supposition; but we
should have had in every case o xeipappovs r&v KeSp&v.
Therefore either there is a corruption in the best manuscripts
of the LXX, or 6 ^ei^appov^ rtov KeSpcov was considered
a legitimate Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase * the
brook Kidron.' Turning now to the passage in St John, we
find that there is great uncertainty as to the actual reading,
authorities varying between r&v KeSpwv, rov KeSpou and rov
1 Compare Ps. cxx. 5 ' the tents of Kedar ' i.e. the dark-skinned folk.

174 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

1 , and that the preponderance of evidence is either for
rwv Ke&pcov or rov KeSpov. But the necessity for making a
selection suggests another view. What then is the probability ?
I believe the true account to be that the original reading was
rov KeSpwv; and this for two reasons. First, it is the inter-
mediate reading, the reading which explains the other two,
whereas neither of the other two will explain either this or
the other 2 . Secondly, it is much more probable that rov
Keopwv would be changed into r&v Ke&pcov and rov Ke&pov,
than conversely. Indeed the converse change in either case is
hardly conceivable, the tendency being to assimilate termina-
tions. And unless rwv KeSpwv be a legitimate rendering of
'the brook Kidron,' the corruption has taken place, and has still
more completely obliterated the original reading, in the LXX.
This solution was adopted by Griesbach and Lachmann, and
recommends itself to Renan, Meyer and San day. Tregelles gives
it as an alternative. On the other hand Tischendorf reads rov
Ke'Spou.

But suppose r&v KeSpcov is after all, as Westcott considers,
the right reading, what then ? The Septuagint shows that it
was held to be an adequate rendering of the Hebrew |*nip 7PIJ.
We must suppose therefore that is was the equivalent familiar
to Greek ears, and that St John writing to Greeks would not
hesitate to employ it. In confirmation of this view we may
notice the general tendency to assimilate Hebrew terminations
to Greek forms, which has coined the Greek plural o-dft/3ara
out of the Hebrew noun JIJl!}^ as though a-apftarov. As
Ke&pcw was only used with xeipappovs, the change to the
genitive would be natural 3 . Again, the temptation to extract

1 BCL, with the bulk of the Greek 2 A good instance of the application

manuscripts and the Gothic Version, of this test is the celebrated passage

have TUV Kedpuv ; ND ab the Sahidic 1 Tim. iii. 16, where 6s is to be pre-

and the ^Ethiopia have TOV icedpov ; ferred as accounting for both the vari-

AAS, the Vulgate and certain manu- ants 6e6s and 6'.

scripts (c, (e) f, g) of the Old Latin, 3 In Ps. Ixxxii. 10 XAB read ev

the Peschito and the Philoxenian ru x^appu K&ffwv (KHTCTW A) anar-

Syriac and the Armenian have TOV throus, but some inferior manuscripts

have TUV Kiacrwv.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 175

a Greek sense out of Hebrew names is exemplified in the
derivations given to Jerusalem and Essene 1 . If by an accident
there were any cedars in the valley, the adoption of this
Grecised form would be facilitated.

Bethany is mentioned by the Synoptists in connexion with
the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mark xi. 1 , Luke xix. 29),
with our Lord's retirement during Holy Week (Matt. xxi. 17,
Mark xi. 11, 12), especially the feast at the house of Simon the
leper (Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3 ; cf. John xii. 1), and with the
Ascension (Luke xxiv. 50). It occurs in St John's narrative
likewise as the scene of the raising of Lazarus (John xi. 1, 18),
and he exhibits his acquaintance with the place in a charac-
teristic way by mentioning that it was distant fifteen furlongs
from Jerusalem (xi. 18, *Hy e TSrjQavia yyv9 rwv 'lepocroXu/itoi/
&><? OLTTO (rraSicov $Ka7TevT6 2 ). This statement exactly accords
with the account which a modern writer gives of its situation.
' We reached it in three-quarters of an hour from the Damascus
gate. This gives a distance of a little less than two Roman
miles from the eastern part of the city' (Robinson I. p. 431).

Gethsemane is not named in the Fourth Gospel, but this
does not prevent St John from adding to our stock of know-
ledge regarding the scene of the Agony, which he describes
more precisely than the Synoptists, calling it 'a garden'

1 Jos. B. J. vi. 10. 1, 8ia TOVTO tense. The Evangelist sometimes uses
iepa.ffa.To r< 0e< irpwros KO.I TO lepov the imperfect (xviii. 1, xix. 41, 42),

5etduej>os ' Iepoff6\v/j.a Trjv ir6\iv sometimes the present (v. 2), occasion-

, ~Z6\vfj.a Ka\ovfj.fvrjv irpoTt- ally both tenses together (iv. 6, 9).

pov, Philo quod omn. prob. 12, n. p. 457 Similarly St Luke uses the imperfect

'E<rffaioi...dia\^KTov e\\-rjviKr)s irapwvv- (Luke iv. 29), and we may compare

/ioi 6<noTT)Tos ; cf. 12, p. 459, and' Kinglake's Crimea in. pp. 38, 117, 118,

fragm. n. p. 632 (ed. Mangey). The 122, 286, which is unquestionably the

same tendency is to be seen in English narrative of one who was an eye-

in the forms Charterhouse, Barmouth witness of the events he relates, and

etc. who writes not half a century later,

2 No inference can be drawn as to but within a very few years of the
the date of the composition of the occurrences.

Gospel from the use of the imperfect

176 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

xviii. 1) instead of simply 'an enclosure' (xpypiov Matt. xxvi. 36,
Mark xiv. 32), and defining its position as 'over the brook
Cedron.' Can we wonder if the events of that evening were
burnt into the memory of the beloved disciple in letters of fire ?
Again, he alone of the Evangelists informs us that the
Crucifixion took place outside the city-walls (xix. 20). This
statement is thrown out quite naturally, and no point is made
of it, but it is borne out by the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews (xiii. 11 sq.), who sees in it a deep moral lesson.
And no one denies that this Epistle was written at some time
or other in the first century after Christ.

(iv) The Topography of Palestine generally.

As far therefore as knowledge of the locality of the Holy
City is concerned, our author has ably stood the test applied
to him. Let us now take a wider sweep and investigate his
acquaintance with the geography of Palestine at large.

(a) Galilee. As is well known, the Fourth Evangelist
directs his attention chiefly to our Lord's ministry in Jeru-
salem. We do not therefore expect him to give us many fresh
details about the topography of Galilee. However he mentions
Cana in Galilee 1 (ii. 1, 11, iv. 46, xxi. 2), and he gives a new
designation to the Lake of Gennesareth, which he calls 'the
sea of Tiberias 2 ' (vi. 1, xxi. 1). Again, in describing the events
which clustered round the Feeding of the Five Thousand, his
varying use of Trepav ' on the other side/ now for the west,
now again for the east shore of the lake, bespeaks the eye-

1 Cana is named several times by is more closely allied to the represen-

Josephus (Vit. 16, B. J. i. 17. 5, Ant. tative in the Curetonian and Peschito

xiii. 15. 1), but the references do not Katna, though the t is not represented.
throw much light on its position. 2 The city of Tiberias also occurs

The traditional site is Kefr Kenna, (vi. 23). As it was built by Herod

about four miles north-east of Naza- Antipas (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2. 3, B. J. ii.

reth, and this identification is as old 9. 1), it could hardly have given its

as S. Willibald in the eighth cen- name to the lake as early as the date

tury. Robinson however prefers a of our Lord's ministry. The designa-

village, Kana el-Jelil, some five miles tion however 'sea of Tiberias 'is found

further north, and the spelling of the in Josephus (B. J. iii. 3. 5), before St

name (with a Koph instead of a Caph) John wrote his Gospel.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 177

witness, who, as he records the miracle, fancies himself enacting
the scene once more, and speaks as if he were himself first here,
then there.

(b) Judcea.

(1) Ephraim. In xi. 54 St John describes our Lord's
retirement ' into the country near the desert, into a city called
Ephraim ' (771/9 rfjs epijfjiov, e/9 *E<pat//, Xeyo/Aevrjv TroXtv).
This ' desert of Judah ' seems to mean the broad mountain
pasture lands near Jerusalem, which were sparsely inhabited,
for in the Gospel narrative 'the desert' (17 6/377^09) is generally
associated with ' the mountain district ' (TO 0/909). This city
Ephraim (or Ephrem) is noticed here only in the New Testa-
ment. But it is mentioned by Josephus (B. J. iv. 9. 9) in
connexion with the mountain district (rj bpeivr)) north of
Judaea, as a small fort (iro\i'xyiov) captured and garrisoned by
Vespasian when on his way westward to fight against Vitellius.
Josephus couples it with Bethel, and it is a coincidence that,
where it occurs in 2 Chron. xiii. 19, Bethel is named with it.
The two places were probably not far apart. Mr Robinson
(l. p. 447) identifies it with El-Tayibeh, some eight miles north
of Jerusalem. In the passage in the Chronicles referred to,
the Kthib has Ephron jIlBy, but the Qri Ephraim pSp,
perhaps a dual form like Mizraim, the Upper and Lower Egypt.
It is mentioned also in the Talmud (Neubauer p. 155). The
Ephraim of St John must not be confused with the wood of
Ephraim of 2 Sam. xviii. 6, or the Ephraim of 2 Sam. xiii. 23,
both of which are spelt with an Aleph like the patriarch
Ephraim ; or with the district called Apherema in 1 Mace. xi.
34. Mr Robinson (I. c.) identifies it with Ophrah PH^y of
Benjamin (1 Sam. xiii. 17, Josh, xviii. 23). This may or may
not be the case 1 The Qri of 2 Chron. 1. c. and the passage in

1 It is noticeable that in the Codex Ai'Ai'as J>s airb ffrjfjLelwv K ; cf. Hier.

Alexandrinus E(f>pcu[j. is the LXX ren- Op. ni. p. 203, who repeats the same

dering of the other Ophrah, the birth- statement. But if Mr Robinson's

place of Gideon, in Judges viii. 27, ix. 5. identification is correct, the Ephraim

Eus. Onom. s. v. says Kai ion K.O.I vvv of St John is the Aphra of Eus. Onom.

K^fjLT) 'E(j>pai[j. fjieyitTTT} vepl TO, 6pia 8. v.

L. E. 12

178 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

Josephus are sufficient for my purpose. Whether the Qri be
the right reading or not, it shows that such a place existed just
in the region where, from St John's account, we should expect
it to be.

(2) Bethany (i. 28). This is certainly the correct reading
in this passage, and accordingly St John has been charged 1
with gross ignorance as not being aware that Bethany was near
Jerusalem. In the light of the accurate and minute acquaint-
ance with topography elsewhere displayed by the Apostle, such
an accusation is hardly worth the trouble of refutation.

We may however briefly reply, first, that the writer carefully
distinguished the two places, speaking of one as 'Bethany
beyond Jordan ' (i. 28), of the other as ' Bethany the town of
Mary and her sister Martha' (xi. 1); secondly, that he accu-
rately described the Bethany of chapter xi. as ' nigh unto
Jerusalem about fifteen furlongs off 2 '; thirdly, that if we assume
with most commentators the identification of Bethany beyond
Jordan with 'the place where John was at first baptizing'
(x. 40), our Lord is represented at the time as out of
Judsea (xi. 7, aya)fj,v e/9 rrjv 'lovbalav ira\iv\ as journeying
from the one Bethany to the other, a journey which occupies
three days (xi. 39, rerapralo^ yap <TTI), which takes Him into
Judaea once more (xi. 7, aywpev 6/9 rrjv 'lovSaiav 7rd\iv), and
into danger from a position of security (xi. 8). Personally I
prefer to keep these scenes of St John's baptism distinct, and
to place the Bethany of chapter i. somewhere in the Upper
Jordan 3 . It was probably an obscure place. ' In any case/ as
Mr Sanday truly says (p. 45), 'the distinction between two
places having the same name is a mark of local knowledge
which is unlike fiction 4 .'

(3) JEnon near to Salim (iii. 23). Here again we are

1 By Paulas and Bolten ; see Liicke 4 In Mark viii. 22 there is a well-
i. p. 394. supported variant Rr]6a.vi<u> for Bi;0-

2 See above, p. 175. <rou.av, which may contain some under-

3 This is the view of Dr Caspari, lying foundation of fact, pointing to a
quoted by Sanday, p. 45. Bethany in the north-east of Galilee.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 179

introduced by the Evangelist to fresh names. It is true that
in Joshua xv. 32 mention is made in the tribe of Judah of
J71 &rh& (Cod. A, 2eXe*/4, A.V. ' Shilhim and Ain ') ; but
neither name corresponds exactly to the notice in St John.
Moreover the places mentioned in the Old Testament lie in the
arid country south of Judaea (see Grove in Smith's Dictionary
of the Bible, s. v. Salim). The most probable site of the
Salim of the Fourth Gospel is that assigned to it by Eusebius
and Jerome near the Jordan, eight Roman miles south of
Scythopolis. In Jerome's time it was called Salimias. A
Salim has been discovered by Van de Velde (Memoir p. 345 sq.)
exactly in this position, six English miles south of Beisan
(Bethshan), and two miles west of Jordan. The name ^Enon
fully bears out St John's description of the place, ' there
was much water (7ro\\a vBara) there/ the plural noun indi-
cating ' many fountains ' or ' springs.' Evidently therefore
^Enon was not situated on the Jordan itself.

These last two notices are especially interesting as showing
how carefully the successive stages of John the Baptist's
preaching are brought out in the Fourth Gospel. We find
him first at the lower fords of Jericho ' beyond Jordan,' OTTOV
rjv 'laydvwrjs TO irpwrov ^airri^wv (x. 40; cf. Matt. iii. 1). We
meet with him next at Bethany (i. 28, A.V. ' Bethabara ')
'beyond Jordan,' probably at the upper fords. Lastly, his
headquarters are at ^Enon, near Salim (iii. 23). Thus we seem
able to trace his course northward, and the successive changes
of scene bear out what we gather from the more general
account with which St Luke supplies us. Though John's
native town is in the hill country of Judsea (Luke i. 39), yet
he is apprehended and put to death by Herod, the tetrarch of
Galilee (Luke iii. 19, 20), and therefore must, before his arrest,
have passed within Herod's jurisdiction. The minuteness of
detail which in the Fourth Gospel characterizes the episodes in
which John the Baptist takes part, becomes doubly significant
when we consider the great probability that John the Apostle
had been in his early days a disciple of the Baptist.

122

180 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

II.

THE WRITER WAS AN EYE-WITNESS OF THE EVENTS RECORDED.

In a striking passage in one of his works 1 Auguste Sabatier
draws attention to two characteristics of this Gospel which
run side by side : that though in its teaching it is the most
dogmatic, yet at the same time in its narrative it is the most
vivid of the Four Gospels. We are apt to forget this latter
point in the absorbing eagerness with which we fix our attention
upon the sublimity of the doctrines inculcated. Yet this vivid-
ness of description is the best guarantee for the conclusion that
the writer was not merely a Palestinian Jew, but an actual
eye-witness of the events which he records. We shall be
compelled to treat this part of our subject in a very cursory
and incomplete manner.

(i) The minuteness and exactness of detail which he exhibits.

Sometimes these minute notices stand more or less closely
in connexion with the progress of the story; sometimes they
are detached personal reminiscences which apparently struck
the writer at the time, and have dwelt in his memory since.
Such a reminiscence, introduced apropos of nothing, is the
incident recorded by St Mark (xiv. 51 sq.) of the young man
clad with the linen cloth, which has been generally interpreted
as an allusion to the history of the Evangelist himself. I shall
divide what I have to say on this subject under the following
heads : (1) Time, (2) Place, (3) Persons, (4) Incidents.

(1) Time. The chronology of our Lord's life can be
gathered from St John's Gospel alone. In the other Evange-
lists the incidents are often grouped together with little or no
reference to their chronology. This is especially the case with
St Luke, who, having neither been present himself at the events,
nor, like St Mark, especially attached to one who was himself

1 A. Sabatier, Essai sur Us sources de la vie de Jesus (1866), p. 34.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 181

present, is of the four the farthest removed from the position of
an eye-witness. The minute exactness of St John's chronology
shows itself most particularly in his record of the first (i. 29,
35, 43, ii. 1) and of the last week (xii. 1, 12 etc.) of the narrative,
but it is present throughout (iv. 40, 43, vi. 22, vii. 14, 37, x. 22,
xi. 6, 17). It arises in great measure from the part which he
himself has in the drama. It extends even to the hour of the
day (i. 39, iv. 6, 52, xix. 14), or, if not the hour, the time
approximately (iii. 2, vi. 16, xiii. 30, xviii. 28, xx. 19, xxi. 3, 4).

(2) Place. We have had occasion already to allude to the
increased definiteness to be observed in the Fourth Gospel in
this respect 1 . All the incidents are referred to their locality.
Compare this feature with the other Gospels, e.g. St Luke's
account of Martha and Mary, Luke x. 38, et<? /cojf^ijv TWO,, with
John xi. 1, CLTTO RrjOavias e/c Trjs /cwfjLTjs Ma/u'a? fcal MdpQa?
T?)? aeA</>77? avrrjs. It runs through the whole narrative, e.g.
vi. 59, eV avva<yayyr) BtBdo-fcwv iv Ka<f>apvaov/j,, viii. 20, eV TO>
rya%o<t>v\aicup, x. 22, eV rc5 iepq* ev rfj crroa TOV SoAo/u-cS^o?.
Notice the precision with which on two occasions the distance
of the boat from the shore is recorded, measured by the
practised eye of the fisherman, vi. 19, o>9 a-raSLovs eitcoat irevre rj
Tpid/covra, xxi. 8, ft>? djro TTIJX&V Statfocr/a>i>, and for his greater
chronological accuracy contrast the Fourth Evangelist with
St Luke in the scenes of St Peter's denial (xviii. 15 sq.),
remembering that the narrator is 'the other disciple who was
known unto the high-priest/ himself a spectator throughout
the terrible tragedy.

In all these details we recognise the hand of the personal
disciple, and it would be strange indeed if an author with such
opportunities did not produce more exact and precise results
than one who, like St Luke, was the disciple of one who was not
even himself a personal disciple.

(3) Persons. Sayings, instead of being left vaguely general,
are attributed to the speakers by name, e.g. i. 41, 45, 46

1 See above, p. 168 sq.

182 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

(bis), 48, 49 of Andrew, Philip and Nathanael, vi. 7, 8 Andrew
and Philip, 68 Peter, xi. 16 Thomas, xii. 4 Judas Iscariot,
21 Andrew and Philip again, xiii. 8, 9 Peter, 24, 25 Peter and
John, 36, 37 Peter again, xiv. 8 Philip, 22 Judas not Iscariot,
xx. 25 sq. Thomas, xxi. 3 Peter, 7 Peter and John, 15 sq.,
20 sq. Peter. This exactness is more noticeable when we have
an opportunity of comparing the incidents with the Synoptic
records, as in the miracle of the feeding of the Five Thousand,
where the objection on the part of the disciples is left general
(Mark vi. 37 \e<yovai) instead of being placed in the mouth of
Philip (John vi. 7), or the feast at Bethany, where the loving
ministrations of Mary (John xii. 3) are vaguely assigned to
' a woman ' (Matt. xxvi. 7, Mark xiv. 3 yvwr)), and where the
expressed discontent of Judas (John xii. 4) is robbed of half its
force by being generalised (Matt. xxvi. 8 ol paOifrai, Mark xiv.
4 rives). Or again take the scene of the betrayal, where a
flood of light is thrown upon that part of the drama when we
learn from St John that it was St Peter (John xviii. 10) who
with characteristic impulsiveness drew his sword in his Master's
defence 1 .

(4) Incidents. The Fourth Evangelist acquaints us with
a number of details, which, though in some cases unimportant
in themselves, add greatly to the life-like character of his
portraiture of events. The six waterpots of water containing
two or three firkins apiece (ii. 6), the thirty and eight years
during which the man lying at the pool of Bethesda had been
afflicted (v. 5), the bag in which our Lord and His disciples
kept their common fund (xii. 6), the sop given to Judas
(xiii. 26), the three languages of the title on the cross (xix. 20) 2 ,
the four parts into which the tunic (XITMV) and the cloak
(Ifjuana) were divided (xix. 23), the water and the blood which
issued from the Saviour's side (xix. 34), the weight of the

1 The Synoptists are perhaps de- avrwv). The name of the servant

signedly vague (Matt. xxvi. 51, e?s Malchus is also given by St John.

rdv fj.era 'I-rjcrov, Mark xiv. 47, eis TU>V 2 The corresponding notice in St

, Luke xxii. 50, efs rts 4% Luke xxiii. 38 is an interpolation.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 183

myrrh and aloes used for the embalming (xix. 39), the
orderly folding of the napkin which had been about
His head (xx. 7), and, in the last chapter, the side of the
ship on which the net was to be thrown (xxi. 6) and the
number of the fish which were drawn up (xxi. 11) all these
are instances of the miniature painting which is noticeable in
this Gospel. What is the inference from all this? Minuteness
is not in itself an evidence of authenticity. But taken in
conjunction with the other arguments which have been adduced,
this fact is important, pointing as it does to an author who,
as he wrote, had all the scenes clearly and vividly before his
eyes.

(ii) The naturalness of the record.

This is exhibited in two ways, (1) by the development of
the characters depicted, and (2) by the progress of the incidents
related.

(1) The characters. Some of these appear also in the Synop-
tic Gospels; others are new. Of the former class are Martha and
Mary, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Judas, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas ;
of the latter, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Nathanael, the woman
of Samaria, Nicodemus 1 . In the first group of instances we
have an opportunity of testing the Fourth Gospel by other
independent accounts. The Evangelist therefore must be found
true to his fellow-Evangelists. In the second group we have
no such external criterion to guide us; but the Evangelist must
be found true to himself. We will select an example or two
from each of the two classes.

(a) St Peter. His character is sketched for us in clear
outlines in the Synoptic narrative. We cannot fail to notice
his eager, forward, impetuous nature. He is the self-constituted
spokesman of the disciples. His eagerness to learn, his curiosity,
his love of definiteness shows itself in the type of question
which from time to time he puts before his Master. He will

1 [The characters of Martha and in the first Essay (p. 37 sq.); they are
Mary and of Thomas are given above therefore omitted here.]

184 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

know the precise point at which forgiveness ceases to be a duty
(' Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive
him?' Matt, xviii. 21); the exact reward which those who
follow Jesus should obtain (' Behold, we have forsaken all, and
followed thee; what shall we have therefore?' Matt. xix. 27).
He will have one mysterious parable explained (' Declare unto
us this parable' Matt. xv. 15), and he will know the exact
range of the application of another (' Lord, speakest thou this
parable unto us, or even to all?' Luke xii. 41). Notice his
eagerness to remark upon what is going on around him,
whether it be the evidence of Christ's power (' Master, behold,
the figtree which thou cursedst is withered away ' Mark xi. 21),
or the current of popular opinion ('All men seek for thee'
Mark i. 37). His impetuosity leads him on two occasions to
administer rebuke to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, either
alone (' Then Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying,
Be it far from thee, Lord : this shall not be unto thee ' Matt,
xvi. 22), or with others (' Peter and they that were with Him
said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and
sayest thou, Who touched me ? ' Luke viii. 45). His eagerness
of faith and assurance is discernible throughout the whole
course of the Gospel narrative. It prompts his confession at
Caesarea Philippi (' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God' Matt. xvi. 16), his proposal on the Mount of Transfigura-
tion (' Lord, it is good for us to be here : if thou wilt, let us
make three tabernacles ' Matt. xvii. 4), his confidence on the
Sea of Galilee ('Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on
the water ' Matt. xiv. 28), his protestation on the night of the
betrayal (' Though all men shall be offended because of thee,
yet will I never be offended' Matt. xxvi. 33). After the arrest,
with a characteristic mixture of courage and of curiosity, he
follows Jesus into the high priest's palace 'to see the end'
(Matt. xxvi. 58). On the other side, we notice sudden revul-
sions of feeling, resulting, now in lack of faith (' Lord, save me'
Matt. xiv. 30), now in lack of courage (the three denials
Matt. xxvi. 69 sq.), now again in unexpected self-abasement

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 185

(' Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord ' Luke v. 8).
Accordingly we find our Lord in the Garden rebuking Peter
specially and by name (Matt. xxvi. 40, Mark xiv. 37), as though
implying that his actions had in the most signal way belied his
professions.

Such is St Peter's character as delineated in the Synoptic
Gospels. Before proceeding to test the record of the Fourth
Gospel, we must turn aside to notice a charge brought against
St John by M. Renan (Vie de Jesus p. xxviii. and p. 159) and
reiterated by other critics (e.g. Lampe III. p. 510). It is to the
effect that St John was jealous of St Peter's reputation and
endeavoured to undermine it in his Gospel. The charge is
false in every way. Compare St John's account of the third
denial (xviii. 27) with that of St Matthew (xxvi. 74) or of
St Mark (xiv. 71), the one Synoptist writing for the Jewish
Christians among whom St Peter was especially honoured, the
other ' the interpreter ' of St Peter. Or again, remember that
the rebuke ' Get thee behind me, Satan,' is confined to St
Matthew (xvi. 23) and St Mark (viii. 33), and is not recorded
by St John. These facts will show how gratuitous this offensive
insinuation is. On the other hand, another antagonistic critic
(Kostlm in Theol. Jahrb. for 1850-2, p. 293) has supposed
that the object of the twenty-first chapter is to glorify St Peter
and St Peter's see. Thus one criticism serves to neutralise the
other 1 .

\Ye return to St Peter's character, as portrayed by St
John. It is in thorough accord with what we have already
gathered from the other Evangelists. His curiosity comes out
in the eager question with which he interrupts his Master's
discourse in the upper room * Lord, whither goest thou ?'
(xiii. 36), in the expedient by which he endeavours to obtain
through the medium of the beloved disciple the traitor's name

1 M. Renan accepts the latter criti- proves chap. xxi. (though probably

cism, but supposes this last chapter to a postscript) to have been written by

be a later addition by some other hand, the author of chaps, i.-xx. (see the

in which amends are made to St Peter. additional note at the end of this

But the internal evidence of style Essay).

186 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

(xiii. 24 sq.), in the anxiety which he shows to learn his
brother apostle's destiny ('Lord, what shall this man do?'
xxi. 21). He will not rest content with dark forebodings and
mysterious intimations ; he will know the facts, and know them
definitely. Again, his ready profession of faith, which makes
him now the mouthpiece of the apostolic band ('Lord, to
whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life '
vi. 68), now the revealer of his own deepest heart-utterances
(' Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee '
xxi. 17), is in perfect keeping with what the Synoptic narrative
has led us to expect. His impetuosity shines out in every
action which is recorded of him. In Gethsemane, without a
thought for the consequences, he draws his sword and smites
the high-priest's servant (xviii. 10 sq.) ; at the tomb, while the
younger disciple stands awestruck and uncertain, he enters in
without a moment's hesitation (xx. 6) ; at the sea of Galilee, he
plunges into the lake (xxi. 7), he drags the net to land (xxi. 11).
And the sudden revulsion of sentiment, of which such striking
examples are recorded in the first three Gospels, has its complete
parallel in an incident peculiar to the Fourth Evangelist
the washing of the disciples' feet (' Thou shalt uever wash my
feet.' 'Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head '
xiii. 8, 9).

(b) Pontius Pilate. In the portraiture of the Roman pro-
curator there is much in common between the Synoptists and
St John. Thus in all we see the abstract love of justice,
inherent in a Roman magistrate, overborne by the desire of
securing popularity, natural to a provincial governor. But his
personal characteristics appear especially in the Fourth Gospel,
and it is not too much to say that we should not have appre-
hended his character as a whole without the light thrown upon
it from this fresh source of evidence. Here at last we get to
understand the man thoroughly in all the variety of his complex
nature his desire to purchase public favour at the expense of
justice and yet his unwillingness to condemn Jesus, his cynical
contempt of the subject-people, his sarcasm, his scepticism and

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 187

yet his fear. It is only when, fresh from studying him in the
Fourth Gospel, we turn once more to the pages of the Synop-
tists, that his scorn for the Jews as a nation is clearly discerned.
However, when once we have found the clue, that scorn is
evident enough. It appears in the form of his questions ' Art
thou the King of the Jews?' (Matt, xxvii. 11), 'What will ye that
I should do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?' (Mark
xv. 12) 1 ; and especially in the title placed over the cross 2 . Ap-
parently he could not lose the opportunity of insulting the Jewish
rulers, whom he was obliged to gratify nevertheless. But when
we read St John's account, we see these lurid features of Pilate's
character emphasized and lighted up under the glow which
issues from the narrator's master-pen. With what persistency
does Pilate evince his desire to shirk the responsibility of
condemnation! 'Take ye him, and judge him according to
your law' (xviii. 31). Baffled here by the logic of facts, the
inability of the Jews to condemn to death, he tries another
loophole to escape from his dilemma. ' Ye have a custom, that
I should release unto you one at the passover : will ye therefore
that I release unto you the King of the Jews?' (xviii. 39).
Foiled again by the malignant hostility of the crowd, he seeks
to appeal to their pity by exhibiting his prisoner scourged and
mocked. In vain. He is met by the cry, 'Crucify him.'
Once more he would shift the responsibility on the shoulders of
the chief-priests, ' Take ye him and crucify him, for I find no
fault in him.' From the furious, raging mob he turns to meet
the calm, impassive countenance of Jesus Christ. The sight
only increases his perplexity. ' From henceforth Pilate sought
to release him.' The struggle is ended by the twice-repeated
name of Csesar (xix. 12), and the dread image thus called up
before his mind of the suspicious, vindictive emperor prevails
at last over his sense of justice and of awe. He tries one last

1 The scorn is lost in the form in contempt is found in St John's version,
which the question appears in St 'Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the
Matthew (xxvii. 22). Jews'; see above, p. 159.

2 Though here again the climax of

188 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

appeal, ' Behold, your King,' and then delivers Him unto them
to be crucified. And if the wavering, vacillating temper of the
governor is drawn in clearer outline by St John than by the
Synoptists, no less is his cynicism, his sarcasm and unbelief
painted in deeper colours. ' Am I a Jew ?' (the English fails to
convey the withering scorn of the Greek original fjurfri, 70)
'louSo-to? elfju;), 'Art thou a King then?' (OVKOVV /3aai,\6vs el
(TV ; we can imagine the intonation of the voice upon the final
word av, as Pilate amuses himself with what he considered the
fanaticism of his prisoner), 'What is truth?' And so the
conversation ends, Pilate no doubt thinking that he had had
the best of it, had secured the last word. Notice too how he
repeats the expression ' the King of the Jews/ harping on the
title which he knows to be offensive to his Jewish audience
(xviii. 39, xix. 14, 15, 19, 22). And the Roman soldiers catch
up the spirit of the Roman governor, who sets the fashion, and
cry, ' Hail, King of the Jews' (xix. 3).

(c) Philip. Of the characters known only from St John's
Gospel the first in importance undoubtedly is Thomas ; but
there are others, which the Evangelist, with a few masterly
touches, depicts for us, and which deserve more than a passing
notice.

There is in Philip a certain cautious, business-like way of
looking at things which bespeaks much circumspectness of
disposition. We remark this at once when we are introduced to
him in the first chapter (i. 43 sq.). Unlike Andrew and the name-
less disciple, he does not make the first advances himself; but
he is found and summoned by the Saviour. Yet when found, he
accepts the call without hesitation, and finds a new adherent
in his turn. But the mode in which he announces his discovery
to Nathanael is characteristic. He keeps back the name as
long as possible, and the place to the last word in the sentence,
for Nazareth would prejudice any cause. When Nathanael
demurs, he does not argue ; he simply bids him try, ' Come and
see.' Philip appears again upon the scene in the sixth chapter
on the occasion of the feeding of the five thousand. Again it is

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 189

Jesus who opens the conversation : ' Whence shall we buy
bread, that these may eat (v. 5)?' The business question is put
to the business man. It is answered in a business spirit. He
makes the necessary calculation. ' Two hundred pennyworth of
bread is not sufficient for them that every one of them may
take a little/ But he does not reply to the question. It is
left for Andrew to suggest a remedy. We meet with him a
third time in the twelfth chapter, when certain Greeks come to
him with the request, 'Sir, we would see Jesus.' Here again he
does not take the initiative. He will not act without consulta-
tion. ' Philip cometh and telleth Andrew, and again Andrew
and Philip tell Jesus 1 / It has been suggested that Philip was
the steward, the purveyor of the little company, that he
managed the commissariat ; just as Judas was the treasurer,
the purser. Such a position at all events would suit his
business-like character. And it would account for strangers
(xii. 21) applying to him first, as they may have been brought
in contact with him in this capacity 2 .

(d) Andrew. In two places Andrew is associated with
Philip, and on both occasions he appears not merely in contact
with, but in contrast to, his brother- Apostle. He is as eager
and prompt as the other is slow and cautious. While Philip
is calculating the amount of bread required to feed the multi-
tude, Andrew has hit upon an expedient (vi. 8, 9). While
Philip cannot act alone in bringing the Greek strangers to
Christ, Andrew, as soon as he is consulted, goes with him
to tell Jesus. Thus he is quick alike to act and to speak.
It is this decision of character which made him the first to join
the Saviour himself, and the first to bring another to the
Saviour (i. 37, 40, 41). In short, he has much of his brother
Peter's eagerness, without that brother's tendency to grievous
falls. It is quite in accordance with this characteristic that

1 John xii. 2022. (Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 4. 25, p. 522).

2 An early tradition identified him This would be in keeping with Philip's
with the disciple who requested that hesitating faith.

he might first go and bury his father

190 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

we read in the Muratorian Canon that Andrew was the Apostle
to whom it was revealed that John should write his Gospel,
and that the revelation took place on the first night of the
three days' fast 1 .

(iii) The progress of events.

We cannot rise from the perusal of the characters as they
appear in the Fourth Gospel without the assurance that we
have been introduced to real, living persons, described by some
one who knew them well. Individuality is seen to be stamped
on every face. Exactly in the same way, as we mark the
progress of events gradually unfolded before us in the narrative,
our conviction becomes more and more settled that the guide
who conducts us has been an eye-witness of the incidents which
he records. In order to get the full effect of the extreme
naturalness of the description, we have only to read the his-
torical portions successively, and to remark how vivid is the
sequence of the narrative as it opens out from point to point.
Or we may take a conversation like that held in the fourth
chapter between our Lord and the woman of Samaria. We
notice, first of all, the development of the conviction in the
woman's mind. Starting with a contemptuous irony (v. 9),
she passes by gradual stages into a growing respect mingled
with curiosity (v. 11), then into wonder ripening into faith
(v. 15). The conversation now takes another turn. There is a
direct home-thrust at the vicious part of her character (v. 16).
This she disingenuously parries. Convinced by this time of her
questioner's spiritual insight, she attempts to divert into a
general theological channel the conversation which was taking
so inconvenient a turn (v. 19). Our Lord's answer contains a
tacit reproach (v. 24), but she still shows her unwillingness to
appropriate the lesson (v. 25), and quietly ignores all particular

1 Cohortantibus condiseipulis et epi- latum Andreae ex apostolis ut recog-

scopis suis dixit [Johannes] Conieiu- nescentibus cunctis Johannes suo no-

nate mihi hodie triduum, et quid mine cuncta describeret. Canon Mura-

cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum tor. p. 33 (ed. Tregelles).
nobis enarremus. Eadem nocte reve-

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 191

allusions (v. 25). Observe secondly, that the spiritual teaching
of our Lord, which is so prominent throughout, arises naturally
out of the external incidents. The presence of the woman with
the pitcher at the well (v. 7) leads to the subject of the living
water; the arrival of the disciples with provisions (w. 8, 27,31)
to the reference to the spiritual food. In these two cases the
point of connexion is distinctly stated ; in others it is mentally
supplied by the recollection of the eye-witness. Thus the
mountain of Gerizim towering above them, and the expanse of
corn-fields stretched out at their feet, are each in turn taken
advantage of as opportunities for inculcating spiritual truths.
And the whole is woven together with a naturalness which
defies all separation of its component parts ; for the teaching
and the incident are the woof and the web of the fabric.
Thirdly, the amount of local and special knowledge contained
in the incident is both considerable and varied. As we glance
through the chapter, we notice that it demands a particular
acquaintance with the well of Jacob (v. 5), the relations of
Jews and Samaritans (v. 9), the depth of the well (v. 11), its
history (v. 12), the mountain and the worship on its summit
(v. 20), the social position of women (v. 27), the corn-fields and
the harvest-time (v. 35). And all this intimacy with places
and customs is not an excrescence merely, but an integral and
essential part of the narrative. You cannot remove it without
the whole structure falling to the ground 1 .

Or take the scene enacted in the Judgment Hall (xviii. 28
-xix. 16). Observe at the outset the unartificial, the unsyste-
matic, character of the narrative. The incidents are not grouped
according to subject, but related in sequence as they actually
occurred. Hence the history of St Peter's denials is interrupted
by other matters. The third denial interposes between the
mention of the transfer from Annas to Caiaphas, and the
transfer from Caiaphas to Pilate. On the other hand St Luke
(xxii. 54-62) adds force to the episode by placing all three
denials together. With St John however dramatic propriety
1 [This whole incident has been already treated above, p. 33 sq.]

192 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

is sacrificed to chronological accuracy. Notice, in the second
place, the gaps in the narrative. Jesus is first examined before
Annas, then He is transferred to Caiaphas ; but nothing is
recorded of what happened at this second examination. We
may perhaps infer from the silence of the Evangelist that he
was not an eye-witness of this part of the scene. Again, we
cannot fail to be struck by the introduction of certain incidents
which have no direct bearing on the history, but yet are not on
this account excluded. A moment's consideration will explain
their presence in the narrative. The fire of coals kindled in
the hall (xviii. 18), the goings in and goings out of Pilate (xviii.
29, 33, 38, xix. 4, 9, 13), notes of place and of time (xviii. 28,
xix. 14) such would be just the kind of circumstances which
would impress themselves indelibly upon the memory of an
eye-witness, and would inevitably rise up again before him as,
years after, he recalled the memorable scene. Or consider the
respective attitudes of the chief-priests and of the Roman
governor. How natural the representation. On the one side,
the Jews, with their fear of ceremonial pollution (xviii. 28),
their appeals to the law (xviii. 30, xix. 7), their inability to
punish (xviii. 31), their affected loyalty (xix. 12, 15). On the
other, Pilate that masterpiece of portrait-painting to which
attention has been drawn already. Surely, whether we examine
the details, or regard the picture as a whole, we are constrained
to admit that all this is something more than 'ben trovato':
nay, we may say with confidence ' e vero.' And so we might
pass in review other incidents ; the calling of the disciples, the
marriage at Cana, the man at the pool of Bethesda, the scene
at Bethany and at the tomb of Lazarus, the washing of the
disciples' feet, the declaration of the betrayal all these bear
stamped upon their face the impress of trustworthy and con-
temporaneous testimony. I will conclude this part of my
argument by an appeal presented from a somewhat different
quarter. The writer of the Fourth Gospel often distinguishes
the facts which he records from his commentary upon those facts,
made when an interval of time had thrown fresh light upon

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 193

their spiritual import. Is it Christ's prophetic language,
'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up'?
We are told that 'when He was risen from the dead, His disciples
remembered that He had said this unto them ; and they be-
lieved the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said ' (ii. 22).
Is it the mysterious utterance, ' He that believeth on me, as the
scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water ' ? The Evangelist's comment, made subsequent to the
Pentecostal gift, explains it of ' the Spirit which they that
believe on Him should receive ; for the Holy Ghost was not yet
given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified ' (vii. 39). Is it
Christ's announcement of results to issue from His coming
exaltation, 'I, if I be lifted up, shall draw all men unto me' ?
It is explained as ' signifying what death He should die ' (xii.
33). The prophecy of Caiaphas (xi. 51), the triumphal entry
into Jerusalem (xii. 16), Christ's appeal on behalf of His dis-
ciples in the moment of the betrayal (xviii. 9) all form texts
for the conveyance of spiritual truths viewed from the stand-
point of the Evangelist's maturer experience. Some have
maintained that the commentary is wrong. I do not assert
this, nor do I allow it. But one thing at least is clear. If the
fact or the saying had been invented for the sake of the com-
ment, the fact or saying would in most instances have taken
a different form and the correspondence would have been made
more obvious. But the fact does not lead up to the comment,
for the simple reason that the fact was already there, in absolute
possession ; and as, in the light of a fuller and clearer know-
ledge, the Evangelist draws out its hidden meaning, he will not
venture to subserve the purpose of the application by diverging
one hair's-breadth from the exact letter of the record 1 .

1 [For the third section of this Essay, ZEBEDEE, the reader is referred to the
THE WRITER WAS JOHN THE SON OF first Essay in this volume, p. 39 sq.]

L. E. 13

194 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

A. On the twenty-first Chapter,

The Gospel was originally intended to end with the twentieth
chapter. The conclusion of the narrative is significant, ( Blessed
are they that have not seen, and yet have believed' (xx. 29,
fiaKaipLOL OL p.r] iSoVres KOL TrwrTeixravTes), and the writer's own addition
(vv. 30, 31) is evidently the original close to the whole. The
twenty-first chapter therefore is an after-thought. This distinction
is no refinement of modern theorists; it is as old as the time of
Tertullian 1 . But did it emanate from the same author or not?
Clearly yes. The style is essentially Johannine. There is the
same historic ovv, so characteristic of St John's narrative, and of
his alone (vv. 5, 6, 7 (bis), 9, 11, 15, 21, 23); the same comparative
absence in the narrative part of 8e (which is wrongly inserted by
the scribes in v. 12); the same tendency to place the verb first
(vv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 23, 25), especially with Xe'yet
(v. 15 sq.); the same abruptness of diction, the result of the
avoidance of connecting particles (vv. 3, 12, 13, 16, 17). Again
such sentences as VTrctyw dA.iveiv...epxo/t0a KOL ^/xets <rw crot (v. 3),
8cvT a/DMmy<ra,T...crv TI'S e?; (v. 12), a-KoXovOtL LLOL (v. 19), Kvpie,
ovros 8e rt; (v. 21), TI Trpos (re; <ru /xot aVoAovfoi (v. 22) etc. are
features which are familiar to us from previous chapters, and should
be compared with e.g. the narrative of i. 35 sq. or xx. 1 1 sq. We
find the same fondness for CKCM/OS (vv. 3, 7, 23), the same love of
definiteness, e.g. TO, 8eia /xepi; (v. 6), aVo Tn/xwv BiaKoorilav (v. 8),
CKarov TrevnjKOVTa rpwov (v. 11), TOVTO 17877 rpirov (v. 14), to which we
have already drawn attention ; the same vivid painting (e.g. vv.
7, 9 etc.) the same use of a parenthetic explanation (vv. 7, 8, with
which compare vi. 23). Favourite Johannine expressions are found,
as the doubled a'/ojv (v. 18), which is peculiar to this Gospel, TOVTO
tLTTfv crrjfjLaLVtDV Trout) $avara) K.r.X. (v. 19; cf. xii. 33, xviii. 32), /cat TO
oi^aptoi/ 6yw,ot<o5 (v. 13; cf. vi. 11 6/xotoos /cat e/c TOJV oij/apitav, which last
is a word only used by the Fourth Evangelist). We notice the

1 Ipsa quoque clausula evangelii He refers however in three places to

propter quid consignat haec scripta, the twenty-first chapter (see Konsch,

nisi Ut credatis, inquit, lesum Chris- p. 290).
turn filiumDei? Tert. adv. Prax. 25.

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 195

characteristic mode of designating places, TTfs flaAaVcrqg rfjs
(v. 1; cf. vi. 1), and of describing disciples, 'Thomas called Didymus'
(v. 2; cf. xi. 16), 'Nathanael from Cana of Galilee' (ib., his abode
specified as in the case of Philip xii 21), 'Simon, son of John'
(v. 15 sq.; cf. i. 42), 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (w. 7, 20;
cf. xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2) 1 . Again there is the suppression of the
author's own name, which would most certainly have been mentioned
by a continuator of the narrative. Lastly, the delineation of the
character of St Peter, and of his relation to St John, has all the
refinement of our Evangelist. This is the case in the two scenes in
which they appear in contact. The spiritual insight of St John
(v. 7) is matched by the impetuosity (vv. 3, 7, 11) and the curiosity
(v. 21) of St Peter 3 .

Thus, though an after-thought, this chapter was certainly written
by the author of the Gospel. How soon after, it is impossible to
say ; but there is nothing in the style which requires us to postulate
more than a few weeks or a few days. As all the manuscripts
without exception contain the chapter, and there is no trace of its
ever having been wanting from any copies, the probable conclusion
is that it was added before the Gospel was actually published.
After the Gospel was written and submitted to his friends, the
Apostle may have heard that some misapprehension was abroad
respecting himself, or that some disappointment had been expressed
because no mention had been made of an incident which they had
heard him relate, and which would naturally be interesting to his
admirers. He may have then consented to add it as a postscript.
Apart from the identity of style, it is hardly likely that the chapter
was written after the Apostle's death, for in that case an event which

1 The Evangelist is fond of marking and c^erdo-at (v. 12). Any writing or
his characters by some striking circum- portion of a writing might be set aside
stance which serves as a label. Ex- on the same grounds. Thus, to take
amples are the designation of Nico- ch. xx. 30, /j.ev ovv is a aira.% \fyb(j.evov
demus (xix. 39, vii. 50 from iii. 2), in St John, so is pipXiov, so is evwTriov.
and of Caiaphas (xviii. 14 from xi. 49). Indeed the first and third phrases are
From a different spirit and with a rather characteristic of St Luke ; but
different aim Carlyle exhibits the same the endeavour to press such arguments
tendency. would justly be scouted as fatal to all

2 Against such indications of iden- fair criticism. The chronological diffi-
tity of authorship, the objections com- culty of TOVTO -ijSr) rpirov (v. 14) re-
monly alleged (e.g. by Liicke) are mains unaffected by the question of
powerless, e.g. the use of new ex- authorship.

pressions, as tyavtputrev St OUTWS (v. 1)

132

196

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

threw so much light upon our Lord's mysterious utterance respect-
ing the beloved disciple would scarcely have been passed over in
silence.

The question of the integrity of the last two verses of the
chapter is an issue which has to be treated separately. The twenty-
fourth verse is a confirmation or attestation of the truth of the
narrative on the part of his friends and disciples, and it bears out
the traditional account, given in the Muratorian Canon, of the
origin of the Fourth Gospel 1 . The last verse is evidently a
scholium. Tischendorf declares that in the Sinaitic manuscript (&$)
it is written in a different hand from the rest of the Gospel, by the
Stopdconf? of the whole, and it is perhaps omitted in a valuable
cursive (63) 2 . However, as it occurs in all the other copies, and

1 See above, p. 190.

2 [Dr Gwynn kindly supplies (Oct. 4,
1892) the following information re-
specting this manuscript. 'I think
there is no room for doubt that Cod. 63
has lost a leaf (or more) at the end,
and that it when complete contained
John xxi. 25. At first sight, one
might be led to form an opposite
opinion. For the last page of the MS.,
as it now is, is the last of a complete
quaternion, and in it the text ends Kal
otdaficf on a\r)6r)s tariv 77 /map | rvpta
avrov- (the last ten letters being
arranged in the middle of a new
line). The final stop looks like a
colon, but may be a period; and one
might suppose that the scribe's reason
for placing rvpla airroC thus, was
because his text was at an end. But
on looking through the MS. , one would
find this supposition to be unfounded.
It frequently happens that he ends a
page with an incomplete line, longer
or shorter, not ranging with the pre-
vious lines, either at its beginning or
its end. Comparing the place with
the ends of the three preceding Gospels,
one finds a small bit of negative
evidence. Each of them has, after its
last word, the marks : These do
not appear after rvpia atirov. None

of them has any subscription, or even
reAoc subjoined.

So much for the text ; but when we
look at the surrounding scholia all
doubt is removed. The MS. has in
every page a body of continuous
scholia, some half-dozen lines in the
top margin, a pretty long column (in
continuation) all down the outer mar-
gin, and six or eight more lines at the
foot. As the scholia proceed, the
scribe denotes change of subject com-
mented on, by a numeral letter (some-
times), and always by beginning the
new matter with a capital letter, in
red. The last two lines of these
scholia run as follows: e^erd^eiv TO.
yeypa/j.fji.ei'a' A'T?re/)/3oXt/cu)s TOVTO <f)r)<rlf
etc fJLVpiwv yap | davfj-druv ra ^ova irpbs
Trlarriv (sic) /ecu dpeTTjv. Here you will
observe (1) that the scholium breaks
off in the middle of a sentence, showing
that there ought to be another leaf:
(2) that this broken scholium referred
to verse 25, as is proved by the word
vTrep/SoXtKws, the /mtipLa da^^ara being
the a\\a TroXXci of St John. These
facts seem to settle the question.'
Compare Scrivener, Collatio Cod. Si-
nait. p. lix., C. E. Gregory's prolego-
mena to Tischendorf, N. T. (ed. 8)
p. 479.]

THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS 3. 197

these come from very various sources, we may safely infer that, if
an addition, it was written by St John himself, or by one of his
immediate disciples.

B. On the conversational character of the Gospel.

The Fourth Gospel was addressed to an immediate circle of
hearers. In this respect it differs from the other three, St Luke's
Gospel approaching most nearly to it in this respect. But
Theophilus, if a real person, and not a nom de guerre, the type of
a God-loving or God-beloved Christian, soon disappears out of sight.
On the other hand, the Fourth Evangelist keeps his disciples before
his mind. He has to correct misapprehensions, to answer questions,
to guide and instruct a definite class of persons, and those persons
his immediate circle of acquaintance. Hence he assumes a know-
ledge of himself in the case of those for whom he writes. He does
not give his own name, because his hearers already know his
personal history.

For the most part however the reference to these disciples is
indirect. They are before the Evangelist, but he does not address
them in the second person. Instances of allusions to misapprehen-
sions or to questionings rife in those about him are i. 41 l He was the
first to find' etc., ii. 11 'This was the beginning of his miracles,'
iii. 24 'John was not yet cast into prison,' iv. 54 'This again was the
second miracle which Jesus did,' xviii. 13 'He (Annas) was father-
in-law to Caiaphas, who was high-priest of that year,' xix. 34 sq.
' There came out water and blood.' Great stress is laid upon this
last point, doubtless in allusion to some symbolism which is not
explained, because they would understand it. So xxi. 14 'This was
now the third time that Jesus manifested Himself,' xxi. 23 'The saying
therefore went abroad among the brethren that that disciple should
not die. Yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die' etc. Thus
we find the Evangelist clearing up matters which the current
tradition had left doubtful, or on which the popular mind wished to
be further informed. Through the main part of the narrative we
see these parenthetical additions, these conversational comments.
At length (xix. 35, xx. 31) there is a direct appeal to these
disciples, for whom the whole has been written. ' He knoweth that
he saith true, that ye might believe.' 'These things are written
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing ye might have life through His name.'

198 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN.

The Gospel however does not stand alone. Its connexion with
the First Epistle is both intimate and important. Its authenticity
and genuineness are still further confirmed by this consideration,
which brings out in clearer colours the circumstances under which
the Gospel was written, and sets more vividly before us the relation
of the Evangelist to his band of hearers. The Muratorian Canon
points to this connexion 1 . The close association of the two
Johannine writings warrants the inference that the author of the
Canon treated the First Epistle as an epilogue to the Gospel. And
this in fact is its true character. The Epistle was intended to be
circulated with the Gospel. This accounts for its abrupt commence-
ment, which is to be explained as a reference to the Gospel which in
one sense preceded it. This accounts likewise for the allusion to
the water and the blood (1 John v. 6 sq.) as the witnesses to the
reality of Christ's human nature, the counterpart of the statement
in the Gospel narrative (xix. 35).

The evidential value of all this cannot be over-estimated. It
presents us with a combination of circumstances which a forger
would not have had the ingenuity to invent; nor, if he had
invented it, would he have commanded all the circumstances
necessary to carry out to a successful issue so stupendous an under-
taking.

[1867, 1868.]

1 See above, p. 99.

IV.
ST PAUL'S PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY.

Printed from Lecture-notes.

IV.

ST PAUL'S PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY.

OT Paul dates the commencement of his preparation for the
ministry as far back as the day of his birth. He describes
himself as set apart for the Gospel of God, set apart from his
mother's womb (Rom. i. 1, Gal. i. 15). In his social position,
in his intellectual training, in his religious creed in all the
influences which wrought upon his childhood and youth there
was a schooling which eminently adapted him to fill the part
for which he was designed to gather the Gentiles into the fold
of Christ, to preach the universality of the new dispensation.
This was especially his work his Gospel.

And, when we come to piece together the notices preserved
of his early life, we find that this training was in itself very
remarkable, that it did in a way forecast his future destination,
furnishing him with a large store of varied experiences, idle
and unfruitful in Saul the Persecutor, but quickened suddenly
into life in Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, the Preacher to
the Gentiles, by the lightning flash which struck him on the
way to Damascus.

We are accustomed to look to three countries especially as
the great teachers of the modern world Rome, Greece, Judaea.
Rome, the foremost of all nations in the science of government,
has handed down to us the principles of law and order. Greece,
setting before us her rich treasures of thought and imagina-
tion, has been a schoolmistress in art and literature. Above all,
from Palestine we have learnt our true relation to God, which
gives higher significance to art and literature and an eternal

202 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION

value to the principles of law and order. If Rome supplied the
bone and sinew to our colossal man, while Greece clothed him
with flesh and gave him grace and beauty, it was Judaea that
breathed the breath of life into him. Now all these three
influences were combined in the great Apostle of the Gentiles.
He was a citizen of Rome. His native place, Tarsus, was the
great university of Greece. He was brought up in the Jew's
religion in its most rigorous and most typical form.

We are accustomed to dwell solely on the Jewish education
of St Paul when considering his preparation for the ministry,
not only as the most important, but also as the most prominent
in the notices preserved of his early history. But the other
elements in his training must not be neglected. It is not
probable that one whose maxim it was to ' become all things to
all men,' whose nature was eminently sensitive and impressible,
could have failed to be moved by these powerful influences, and
the traces of their working are sufficiently distinct in his life
and writings. On the other hand, exaggeration must be avoided.
It would be a grave mistake to picture to ourselves the Apostle
as an active politician, or an erudite philosopher and man of
letters. The sphere of his thought was far different. His life
was far otherwise spent. But he must have received from his
political status as a Roman citizen and from his residence in the
heart of a great Greek University impressions which enlarged
his sympathies and his views, and thus, enabling him to enter
more deeply into the thoughts aud strivings of others, and to
contemplate the Gospel from different points of view, rendered
him a fitter instrument in the hands of God for the special work
for which he was destined.

1. Let us consider St Paul as a citizen of Rome. The
extension of the franchise was the keystone of the Roman
system 1 . By this means a connexion and sympathy was kept
up in the remotest parts of the Empire. The blood of the
political body thus circulated freely by veins and arteries
through the great heart of the republic to its extreme
1 Cic. pro Balb. 13; Becker Handbuch der romischen Alterthiimer n. (1), p. 91.

FOR THE MINISTRY. 203

members, and any injury done to one limb was an injury done
to the whole. The metaphor which I have employed is not
my own : I am only expanding the image used by Cicero 1 to
express these relations. To the Roman his citizenship was his
passport in distant lands, his talisman in seasons of difficulty
and danger. It shielded him alike from the caprice of muni-
cipal law and the injustice of local magistrates. In Syria, in
Asia, in Greece wherever he went he bore about with him
this safeguard of his liberties. How valuable such a protection
must have been to St Paul, how often he must have invoked its
aid in a life spent in travel and in the midst of enemies, we can
well imagine. He had never known what it was to be without
this citizenship, for he had been born a citizen of Rome 2 . It
procured him an honourable discharge from the prison at
Philippi 3 ; it loosed his fetters in the tower of Antonia 4 ; it
rescued him from the lawlessness of a zealot mob, and sped
him on his way under escort to Caesarea 5 ; it transferred him
from the hearing of a provincial governor to the court of CaBsar
himself 6 . As he lived, so he died a citizen of Rome. It is
recorded that, while his brother- Apostle St Peter suffered the
punishment of a common malefactor on the cross, St Paul was
allowed to die by the sword, as the last recognition of his civic
rights conceded by the law, when everything besides had been
forfeited 7 .

In this way St Paul's position as a citizen must have been
of essential service in the spread of the Gospel. But this is
not exactly the point on which I wish to dwell. I am anxious
rather to point out that, having been so constantly in requi-
sition, it must have impressed itself upon his mind with
a corresponding force. And thus he must have been led to
appreciate, as far as it was necessary for him to appreciate,
the position which Rome occupied as a teacher of the world.

1 Cic. Verr. v. 67; Becker, n. (1), 5 Acts xxiii. 27.

p. 98. 6 Acts xxv. 12.

3 Acts xxii. 28. 7 Tertull. Scorpiace 15, de Praescr.

3 Acts xvi. 37 sq. Haeret. 36, etc. See Wieseler Chran.

4 Acts xxii. 25 sq. p. 542.

204 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION

I think there are very clear indications of this. It was no vulgar
pride or idle self-assertion, but a true political instinct, which
led St Paul to demand a practical apology from the magistrates
at Philippi. It is clear from his language on this occasion, as
on others, that he valued his position as a citizen of Rome. It
was something to be connected with that gigantic Empire, whose
presence he had felt everywhere, and which, in the restraints it
placed on the lawless opposition of his adversaries, presented
itself to him as a type and manifestation of that letting power
which keeps Antichrist in check till the last day (2 Thess.
ii. 7).

Nay, so strong is the impression left in his mind, that he
chooses the Roman franchise as the fittest image of the position
of the believer in his heavenly kingdom. I have already
referred to the language of Cicero in which he compares the
connexion of the different parts of the Roman empire by this
political tie to the circulation of the blood, language which
reminds us of the Apostle's own image of the Church as the
body knit together by its joints and ligatures (Col. ii. 19).
Another passage of the same writer suggests still more striking
points of comparison. ' I maintain it as a universal principle/
says Cicero (pro Balbo c. 13), 'that there is no nation any-
where so hostile or disaffected to the Roman people, none so
united by ties of faith and friendship, that we are debarred
from admitting them to the right of citizens 1 .' What wonder
then if the Apostle saw a peculiar fitness in this image ? In the
guarantee it offered to individual freedom, in its independence
of circumstances of time and place, in its superiority over
inferior obligations, in the sympathy which it established
between all the members of the community, in the universality
of its application, lying as it did within the reach of all, far or
near, friend or foe in all these points it expressed, as no other
eai'thly institution could do, the eternal relations of the kingdom
of Christ. Hence the language of St Paul, ' Our citizenship
is in heaven ' (Phil. iii. 20). * Only perform your duties as
1 Becker ii. (1), p. 93, note (18).

FOR THE MINISTRY. 205

citizens in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ ' (Phil. i. 27).
And in a third passage, where the image reappears, his
language seems to be coloured by the legal distinction of cives
and peregrini. ' Ye are no longer strangers and foreigners, but
fellow-citizens of the saints/ ov/ceri eare %evoi, (the recognised
Greek equivalent of peregrini 1 ) /cal irapoiKot, a\\a (rvpTroXirat
TWV ayiwv (Ephes. ii. 19). They were once peregrini, they have
been enrolled in the civitas caelitum.

All this shows the deep impression which the Roman insti-
tutions had made on St Paul. And this being so, we cannot be
wrong in recognising here a special training for the Apostleship
of the Gentiles, opening out this wider view of social life, and
suggesting to him the true relation between the ordinances of
men and the Gospel of Christ.

2. But secondly, he was a native of Tarsus, the capital of
Cilicia, ' no mean city,' as he himself styles it 2 . We have it on
the authority of Strabo 3 , a contemporary of St Paul, that
Tarsus surpassed all other universities, such as Alexandria and
Athens, in the study of philosophy and educational literature
in general. ' Its great pre-eminence/ he adds, ' consists in this
that the men of learning here are all natives/ Accordingly he
and others 4 have made up a long catalogue of distinguished
men who flourished at Tarsus in the late autumn of Greek
learning : philosophers of the Academy, of the Epicurean and
Stoic schools poets, grammarians, physicians. At Tarsus, one
might say, you breathed the atmosphere of learning. How far
St Paul may have availed himself of these opportunities of
cultivating a knowledge of Greek literature, how much of his
boyhood and youth was spent here and how much at Jeru-
salem, we cannot say. His Jewish teacher Gamaliel, who was
distinguished for his liberality in this respect, would at least
have encouraged him not to neglect this culture. It has
been the tendency of recent writers to underrate St Paul's

1 Plaut. Rudens, Prol. v. 2. 3 Strabo xiv. p. 673.

- Acts xxi. 39, OVK d<r^fjMv TroXews 4 Pauly Eeal-Encycl. der class. Al~

TroXiTTs. terthiimer s. v. Tarsus.

206 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION

attainments. The extravagant language of older writers has
produced a natural reaction. A treatise was even published
' On the stupendous erudition of St Paul ' \ Such exaggerations
would be ludicrous if they were not painful. The majesty of
the Gospel is not glorified by such means. St Paul's strength
lay in a widely-different direction. It was ' not with enticing
words of wisdom or philosophy (ov/c ev TreiOols aofyias A,o<yot<?),
but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power' (1 Cor. ii. 4),
that he won his way. There is no ground for saying that
St Paul was a very erudite or highly-cultivated man. An
obvious maxim of practical life from Menander (1 Cor. xv. 33),
a religious sentiment of Cleanthes repeated by Aratus, him-
self a native of Tarsus (Acts xvii. 28), a pungent satire of
Epimenides (Tit. i. 12), with possibly a passage here and
there which dimly reflects some classical writer, these are very
slender grounds on which to build the supposition of vast
learning. His style certainly does not conform to classical
models : his logic savours little of the dialectics of the schools.
But on the other hand he did get directly or indirectly from
contact with Greek thought and learning lessons far wider
and far more useful for his work than a perfect style or a
familiar acquaintance with the classical writers of antiquity.
Whoever will study carefully the picture of the gradual degra-
dation of the heathen world in the opening chapters to the
Romans, or, still better, the address to the philosophical
Athenians from the Areopagus, will see how thoroughly St
Paul entered into the moral and religious position of the
heathen world, and with what deep insight he traced its
relations, whether of contact or of contrast, with the great
message of which he was the bearer. These are only samples 2 .
If we recognise in such passages the voice of inspiration, in
union with that instinctive quickness of moral apprehension
which a tender love always inspires, we have still to look to
external influences to supply the material on which inspiration

1 Schramm De Stupenda Eruditione 2 See Jowett The Epistles of St Paul
Pauli (1710). i. p. 352 sq. (1859).

FOR THE MINISTRY. 207

might work. And foremost among these must be reckoned the
lessons derived from his residence in early life in the centre of
a great school the greatest of its day of Greek thought and
learning.

We are disposed indeed to think lightly of the literary
efforts of the Greeks at this late date: but though Greek
literature had now lost the freshness and beauty of the spring
and early summer of its existence, it had in the decline of its
autumn still a glory of its own. We must not forget that the
later schools of Greek philosophy exhibited a much greater
earnestness of moral purpose, whether for good or evil, and
achieved in consequence a much wider influence than the
earlier. And if later Greek literature was rather critical and
reproductive than original and imaginative, as the earlier had
been, this only rendered it a fitter handmaid for the diffusion
of the Gospel. It was required that the great Apostle of the
Gentiles should be able to understand the bearings of the
moral and religious life of Greece as expressed in her literature,
and this lesson he could learn more impartially and more fully
at Tarsus in the days of her decline, than at Athens in the
freshness of her glory. Greece in her old age was now summing
up, as it were, the experiences of her past life.

3. I have dwelt hitherto on the Gentile side of St Paul's
training. The most important feature in his education has
still to be considered. He was a Jew in the strictest sense of
the term. Let us take his account of himself. 7repLTo/j,fj
, etc yvov<$ *I(rpar}\ <f>v\fjs Heviafj,eiv, 'E/Spato? ef
(Phil. iii. 5). ' I was not admitted to the privileges of
the covenant late in life, as a proselyte. I was circumcised on
the earliest day sanctioned by the law. I was not even the
son of proselyte parents, but of the race of Israel Israel the
chosen of God. I was not descended from the rebellious
Ephraim, who had played fast and loose with the covenant, as
many Jews are, but from the select tribe of Benjamin, always
faithful to Jehovah. I had no admixture of alien blood in my
veins, for my ancestors from first to last were Hebrews.' Thus in

208 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION

respect of these four points, (1) the covenant, (2) race, (3) tribe,
(4) lineage, he was identified most closely and narrowly with
the chosen people of God. He includes himself in the inmost
circle of Judaism.

And not only this, but in sect, education and conduct
nothing was wanting to identify him fully with Jewish feeling
and Jewish life in its most rigid and trenchant form 1 . He was
a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. He had been instructed at
Jerusalem in the strictest principles of the law by Gamaliel,
one of the seven great doctors, ' the Beauty of the Law,' whom
all the Jews revered. He had carried out these principles with
the utmost zeal and devotion. He was surpassed by none.

And the lessons which he learnt in this way, and which
he could not have learnt so well in any other way, were two-
fold.

First of all, there was the negative lesson of what the law
could not effect. He had borne in his own person the burden.
He had felt its galling pressure, striving earnestly, with all
the intensity of his nature, to meet its exactions. In propor-
tion as he increased his efforts, he had to confess his weakness
and inability. Who can read his pathetic description in the
Epistle to the Romans of the helplessness and despair of one
struggling under the weight of this load, without feeling that
the Apostle is drawing from his own personal experiences, that
these are the words not of a vague theorizer, but of a painful
sufferer. And here too it is important to observe the influence
of the sect to which he belonged. Of the three great parties
who shared the empire of Jewish thought the Essenes, the
Sadducees, the Pharisees the last alone could teach him the
lesson in its completeness. On the Sadducee the law sat
loosely ; he could not entirely divest himself of it, for it was the
national badge, but he would wear it as lightly as he could.
The Essene indeed was a most strict observer of ordinances, but
the law was to him the starting-point of his mystical reveries, the

1 The chief passages relating to St 13, 14 ; Phil. iii. 5, 6 ; Acts xxii. 3,
Paul's Jewish experiences are Gal. i. xxiii. 6, xxvi. 4, 5; 2 Cor. xi. 22.

FOR THE MINISTRY. 209

foundation of an ascetic practice by which he hoped to extricate
the soul from the defilement of matter. Thus the Essenes
could abandon the law where it seemed to interfere with their
aspiration after purity, e.g. in sacrifice. To the Pharisee, on the
other hand, the law presented itself in a different light. He
regarded it as an end, as an absolute rule of conduct. He
respected it in and for itself. 'Fulfil the law and you shall live/
was his motto. His vision did not extend beyond the law
the law as laid down by Moses, and as enlarged and interpreted
by tradition. It was to him a compact strictly binding on
the contracting parties in its minutest details. And thus it
became to him, what it could scarcely have been to the Essene,
the means of righteousness (Si/caioa-vvr) e/c vbfiov). This is just
the point which St Paul seizes upon as the important feature
of the law regarded as an instrument of training. It is in
contrast to, and in consequence of, it that he develops the
doctrine of grace, essentially the cardinal point in the Gospel
of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

But secondly, the positive influence which St Paul's Jewish
education exercised upon him was equally great and important.
Notwithstanding the opposition he met from his countrymen,
in spite of all the liberal and the awakened sympathies which
he derived from his work, despite the necessity of contending
daily and hourly for the freedom of the Gospel among
the Gentiles, he never ceased to be a Jew. From his
repeated denunciations against the Judaizers we are apt to
forget this feature in the Apostle's character until we are
startled to find by some passing allusion how deep-seated is this
feeling in his heart. The Apostle's whole nature was made up
of contrasts, and this was one. * The strength of sin is the law,'
and 'the law is holy and righteous and good/ these two
maxims 1 he could hold together and repeat in one breath. The
most ardent patriot could not enlarge with greater pride on the
glories of the chosen race than he does in the Epistle to the
Romans. His care for the poor in Judaea is a touching proof

1 1 Cor. xv. 56; Eom. vii. 12.
L. E. 14

210 ST PAUL'S PREPARATION

of the strength of this national feeling. His attendance at the
great annual festivals in Jerusalem is still more significant.
'I must spend the coming feast at Jerusalem 1 ' (Aet /-te iravTws
Ti)v eopTrjv TTJV ep%ofjbevr]V 7roifjo"ai, et? '\epocro\vfjia). This
language becomes the more striking when we remember that
he was then intending to open out a new field of missionary
labour in the far West, and was bidding perhaps his last farewell
to the Holy City, the joy of the whole earth.

And here again it is important to remark on his connexion
with the Pharisees. Whatever may have been their faults, they,
and they alone, entered into the religious feeling of the nation.
Hence their influence with the people. They were the true
historical link with the past, they represented the growing
consciousness of the chosen people, in the two all-essential
points in which it prepared the way for the Gospel in their
belief in the immortality of the soul and in the cherished
expectation of the Messiah. In more senses than one they
sat in Moses' seat. The pure negativism of the Sadducee lent
no aid here. Even if he did entertain some faint Messianic
hopes, which is more than questionable, he deprived them of
all religious value by denying a future state. And so again
with the Essenes. Whatever importance we may attach to the
reveries of the mystic Essene recluse, as testifying to the
reality of a spiritual world, when all around was frozen and
stiffened into formalism, still in his isolation from the national
life of the Jews he lost that true historical instinct which was
the life-blood of the people, and with it the vivid anticipations of
the coming of Messiah.

It is not the spirit of the Sadducee, or of the Essene, but of
the Pharisee, the son of Pharisees, which breathes in these
glorious words, 'And now for the hope of the promise made by
God to our fathers I stand at the bar as a criminal, unto which
promise our twelve tribes, instantly ministering day and night,

1 Acts xviii. 21, cf. xx. 16. If St not affect the fact of his visit to Jeru-
Paul's words quoted above are to be salem at this crisis (Acts xviii. 22).
rejected as an interpolation, this does

FOR THE MINISTRY. 211

hope to attain : for this hope I am accused, king Agrippa, by
Jews ' (Acts xxvi. 6, 7). And whatever shadow of worldly policy
may for a moment be supposed to have overclouded the
Apostle's conscience, as by his timely appeal he divided the
two rival sects on the question of the resurrection of the dead 1 ,
still the appeal in itself was perfectly justifiable, because
perfectly true. His cause was the cause of the Pharisees,
while between them and the Sadducees a great gulf was
fixed.

I have thus traced the three threads which were in-
woven into the texture of the Apostle's mind, to strengthen
its fabric and so to prepare him for his great work. It may
be said indeed that when he is first brought before our notice,
he bears no traces of any other than Jewish influences. He is
a bigoted zealot, a narrow-minded persecutor. There is even
a strong contrast between the cautious liberality of Gamaliel the
master, and the persecuting rage of Saul the pupil. But is it not
a matter of common experience, that the lessons of youth often
lie for a time dormant and unnoticed, till they are suddenly
kindled into flame by some electric stroke from without ? The
miraculous appearance on the way to Damascus produced in
St Paul a change far greater indeed but analogous to that
which the more striking incidents of life have produced on
many another. It flashed a new light on vast stores of
experience laid up unconsciously in the past. It quickened
into energy influences long forgotten and seemingly dead.
The atoms of his nature assumed a fresh combination. The
lightning fused the Apostle's character and moulded it in
a new shape, and the knife of the torturer was forged into
the sword of the Spirit.

1 Acts xxiii. 6.

[1863.]

142

THE CHRONOLOGY OF ST PAUL'S LIFE AND
EPISTLES.

Printed from Lecture-notes.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF ST PAUL'S LIFE AND
EPISTLES.

ON the subject of the chronology of St Paul's life originality
is out of the question. Unless new documents are dis-
covered to throw fresh light upon the period, little or nothing
can be added to our present stock of knowledge. Recent
writers have treated the matter with a fulness which may be
considered exhaustive, and it only remains for those who are
later in the field to repeat and to sift the results at which their
predecessors have already arrived.

It may be as well to premise at the outset that as regards
the exact dates in St Paul's life absolute certainty is unattain-
able. An approximation to the truth is the most that we can
expect, but this approximation is all that is necessary for my
main object, which is to place his Epistles in connexion with
his life. This impossibility of arriving at definite chronological
results arises from the fact that there are very few points of
contact between the Acts of the Apostles and contemporary
history, and such points of contact as exist are of a vague
kind chronologically. Indeed there are only two events in
secular history which help us primarily in our search, though
there are other allusions of a more uncertain character which
can be appealed to as secondary and corroborative evidence.
The two events to which I refer are, (1) the death of Herod
Agrippa, (2) the procuratorship of Felix. We will proceed to
investigate them in turn.

1. The death of Herod Agrippa, which is recorded in
Acts xii. 23, is known to have fallen in 44 A.D. For Josephus

216 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

says that at the time of his death he had already completed the
third year of his reign over the whole of Judaea (Ant. xix. 8. 2).
Now this dignity was conferred upon him by Claudius soon
after the commencement of that Emperor's reign, which took
place on January 24th, A.D. 41. He died after the Passover, for
it was during that festival that St Peter was imprisoned by him,
and soon after Herod left Jerusalem for the last time. Now
Herod's persecution of the Church and his subsequent death
are related by St Luke in connexion with St Paul's second visit
to Jerusalem. The account is inserted between the notices of
St Paul's journey thither and his return to Antioch. It must
not be assumed however that they exactly synchronized with that
visit. St Luke's language is indefinite, 'about that time,' and as
his object in digressing is to describe the state of the Church at
Jerusalem when St Paul arrived, the incidents which are then
interpolated in the narrative may be supposed to have happened
previously to that visit. In this case St Paul's second visit
to Jerusalem may be placed at the end of 44, or in 45.

St Paul's object in visiting Jerusalem on this occasion was
to carry relief to the Jews suffering from a dearth which extended
'over the whole land,' or, as others would translate, 'the whole
world ' (e<' oki]v rqv olKov/jLevrjv), and happened in the reign
of Claudius 1 . Unfortunately contemporaneous history does not
furnish us with the exact date of this dearth : but so far as we
can draw any conclusion, it is quite in accordance with the
result already obtained. We read of several famines occurring
at different times in different parts of the Roman Empire
during this reign, but of no general dearth. Among these, one
(and one only) is recorded as having happened in Judaea.
Whatever interpretation therefore is to be put upon the words
e<j) oXyv rrjv ol/covpewjv, this must be the occasion in question,
as history supplies no other.

Now Josephus states 2 that this famine in Judaea fell in the
procuratorships of Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander.
Cuspius Fadus was appointed soon after the death of Herod
1 Acts xi. 28. 2 Jos. Ant. xx. 5. 2.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 217

Agrippa, i.e. probably in 44, and Tiberius Alexander ceased to
be procurator about 48. During this period then (44-48) the
famine must have raged. Cuspius Fadus was still procurator
at the end of June 45, but the close of his office is uncertain.
If we suppose him to have been succeeded by Alexander in 46,
the famine may have broken out in 45, and spread over the
following year at least.

This date is further confirmed by another incident recorded
by Josephus 1 . Helena, Queen of Adiabene, having recently
embraced the Jewish religion, paid a visit to Jerusalem and,
finding the famine raging, purchased food for the sufferers.
This incident is inserted among events of 45, and the historian
immediately adds that about this time (Kara TOVTOV rov fcaipov)
Fadus appeared in his province. It seems highly probable then
that the famine broke out in 45, and as the Christians of
Antioch had been prepared beforehand by the prophecy of Agabus,
and were ready with the means of relief, it may be presumed
that Paul and Barnabas would be sent to Jerusalem as soon as
the pressure began to be felt, i.e. in the year 45.

2. The date of the recall of Felix and the succession of
Festus to the procuratorship is not directly known, but may be
ascertained with a tolerable degree of accuracy.

Pentecost had already passed when St Paul was imprisoned
at Jerusalem 2 , and he remained in captivity two years before
Festus reached his province. Festus therefore did not arrive
before Pentecost. Again, at the great fast of the same year,
which fell in October, St Paul was as far as Crete on his way
to Rome. Festus therefore must have entered upon his pro-
curatorship between Pentecost and October, i.e. some time in
the summer or autumn of the year. We have now to deter-
mine this year.

The following considerations show that it could not well
have been earlier than A.D. 60 :

(a) St Paul pleading before Felix (Acts xxiv. 10) says :
' I know that thou hast been of many years (etc 7ro\\ouv e

1 Jos. Ant. xx. 2. 6, xx. 5. 2. 2 Acts xx. 16, xxi. 27.

218 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

a judge unto this nation.' Now Felix entered upon his procura-
torship at the close of 52, and, if we allow between five and six
years for the period designated Tro\\d err), this will give 58 as
the date of St Paul's imprisonment, and 60 as that of Felix'
recall. We can scarcely allow less, and on the other hand, con-
sidering the rapid succession of the procurators at this time,
a period of five or six years might fairly be considered a long
term of office.

(6) Nero came to the Imperial throne in October 54. Now
Josephus 1 mentions several incidents which happened during the
procuratorship of Felix subsequent to Nero's accession, and
these together must have occupied a considerable time. These
events include the death of Azizus, king of Emesa, the succession
of Aristobulus to the kingdom of Chalcis, and the readjustment
of the dominions of the younger Agrippa. They cover the period
of the 'great quarrel' between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants
of Caesarea, which was closed by the armed intervention of the
Roman procurator. Describing the jealousy which arose at
this time between Felix and the high priest Jonathan, and
which led to the assassination of Jonathan in the streets of
Jerusalem by the governor's order, Josephus speaks of the
reign of terror which, as the result of this dark deed, prevailed
at festival times from the bands of assassins, who infested the
capital, murdering their private enemies with impunity, even
inside the sacred precincts. He devotes two long chapters to
an account of the various robbers and impostors who flourished
during this period of Felix's procuratorship, beginning with
Eleazar, son of Dinseus, who was treacherously slain by Felix,
and culminating in the formidable insurrection of the Egyptian.

(c) This last-mentioned incident, the rebellion headed by
the Egyptian, is alluded to by Claudius Lysias (Acts xxi. 38),
on the occasion of St Paul's imprisonment, as having happened
some time before (irpb TOVTMV TWV rj/jbepwv). We may fairly
allow five or six years for the events which happened previously
(as enumerated in the last paragraph), for the duration of this
1 Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 18, B. J. ii. 13.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 219

rebellion itself, and for the period which elapsed; and this again
will bring the date of St Paul's imprisonment to A.D. 58.

If this consideration leads to the year 60 as the earliest
probable date of the recall of Felix, there are other circumstances
which show that it cannot well have been later.

(1) Felix was the brother of Pallas, the notorious favourite
of the Emperor Claudius, and after he had been removed from
the procuratorship to make room for Festus, was only saved
from the clamours of the Jews by the intercession of his brother.
As Pallas was poisoned A.D. 62 (Tac. Ann. xiv. 65), Felix must
have been recalled before this. It might have been supposed that
this incident occurred before the removal of Pallas from power,
A.D. 55, related by Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 14), but the considerations
already adduced preclude this supposition.

(2) Again St Paul, after his arrival in Rome, preaches two
whole years unmolested (Acts xxviii. 30, 31). The great fire at
Rome broke out in July 64, and the persecution of the Christians
commenced immediately after. Thus the Apostle cannot have
arrived in Rome later than 62, and Felix must have been re-
called in the summer of 61 at the latest.

(3) But there are other considerations which lead to the
previous year 61 as the probable date of St Paul's arrival at
Rome, for in Acts xxviii. 16 his fellow-prisoners are given
up to the prefect of the prsetorium (ro> o-rparoTreBapxp)- Now
Burrus held the office of prefect alone, but after his death it
was shared by two, as had been the case also before his appoint-
ment. As the plural is generally used in similar cases, the
singular here would seem to imply that there was but one
prefect at this time, i.e. that Burrus was still living. But Burrus
died early in the year 62 (in February at the latest) 1 , and St Paul
can scarcely have arrived in Rome before the end of March.
The great fast, which fell on the 10th of Tishri (corresponding
roughly to October), had already passed when the ship left
Lassea in Crete. The voyage thence to Malta occupied four-
teen days, and there they stayed three months, leaving for

1 Tac. Ann. xiv. 52.

220 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

Puteoli by an Alexandrian vessel, that had wintered at Malta
(Acts xxviii. 11). The season at which the seas became navig-
able is stated by Vegetius 1 to be the sixth before the Ides
of March. For long voyages Pliny 2 places it at the vernal
equinox. Taking the earlier date we have to allow three
days for the stay at Syracuse, one for the delay at Rhegium,
two for the voyage thence to Puteoli, and seven for the stay at
Puteoli (Acts xxviii. 12 14). Besides this we have to account
for the voyages from Malta to Syracuse and from Syracuse to
Rhegium, with the journey from Puteoli to Rome, St Luke not
having stated the time occupied by these. If therefore Burrus
was still living when St Paul reached the metropolis, he must
have arrived in the preceding year 61, and Felix must have
been recalled in the summer of 60.

(4) This date is further borne out by another considera-
tion. Felix was succeeded by Festus, Festus by Albinus. Now
Albinus was already procurator at the Feast of Tabernacles A.D.
62. For the Jewish war broke out in 66, and Albinus was at
Jerusalem at the season of this festival four years before. How
long he had held office at that time we are ignorant. At most
however this would allow only a year and a quarter for the
procuratorship of Festus, supposing him to have entered on
his office in the summer of 61. But the number of incidents
which Josephus records as having taken place during his pro-
curatorship can scarcely be crowded into this short space of
time ; and we are thus led to the year 60 as the more probable
date of his appointment.

We have thus ascertained two fixed dates in the chronology
of St Paul's life A.D. 45 for his second journey to Jerusalem
and A.D. 60 for his voyage to Rome. The former of these being
an isolated event in St Luke's narrative is of little value com-
paratively for our purpose ; but from the latter the whole of the
known chronology of St Paul's life is determined, by means
of the notices in the Acts of the sequence of events and the

1 Vegetius de re militari iv. 39. 2 Pliny N. H. ii. 47.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 221

time occupied by them, together with occasional allusions in the
Epistles.

These notices in St Luke's narrative are much more exact in
the latter part of the history, commencing with the third
missionary journey, than in the former : and it will be seen from
the following table how the dates of the Apostle's life are
ascertained by a backward reckoning from the date of the
procuratorship of Festus.

A.D.

34. St Paul's conversion.

Cf. Gal. i. 15 sq. Three years after his conversion he went up to
Jerusalem, for (1) the point of time is obviously his conversion, for
the argument depends on that, and (2) pera rpia errj must mean
three whole years, or substantially so, for the preposition /*era, to
say nothing of the argument, excludes the supposition of a Judaical
reckoning, by which a term of a little more than a year might be
so designated 1 .

He visits Arabia, and returns to Damascus (Gal. i. 17, Acts ix. 20-25,
2 Cor. xi. 32, 33).

37. First visit to Jerusalem (Acts ix. 26, Gal. i. 18).

Cf. Gal. ii. 1. Between the first and third visit to Jerusalem a period
of 14 years elapsed, for (1) the visit recorded in this passage of the
Galatians must be identified with the third of the Acts, (2) 8ia
SfKaTfo-o-dpwv erS)v must be reckoned from the first visit, not from
the date of the Apostle's conversion, because St Paul's object is to
show how long a period elapsed without his holding communication
with the Apostles of the Circumcision, (3) TraXti/ dvefirjv refers back
to the previous visit.

37-44. To Csesarea and Tarsus, visit to Syria (Acts ix. 30, Gal. i. 21).

44. St Paul brought by Barnabas to Antioch. He stays there a year
(Acts xi. 26).

45. Second visit to Jerusalem with alms (Acts xi. 29, 30).

46. 47. At Antioch.

48. FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY (Acts xiii. 1-xiv. 26) with Barnabas.

He visits Cyprus, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and
returns to Antioch.

1 [In his commentary on the Gala- version in A.D. 36, and the first visit to
tians, however, Dr Lightfoot adopts the Jerusalem in A.D. 38 ; see note on Gal.
Jewish reckoning, and places the con- ii. 1, 2.]

222 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

A.D.

51. Third visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas (Gal. ii. 1 sq., Acts xv. 1 sq.).
The Council of Jerusalem.

Returns to Antioch. The interview with Peter (Gal. ii. 11 sq.).
SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY (Acts xv. 36-xviii. 22) with Silas.
First visit to Galatia.

52. Crosses into Europe. First visit to Philippi, Thessalonica, and
Corinth.

[1 Thessalonians.]

53. At Corinth.

[2 Thessalonians.]

54. (Spring) Leaves Corinth for Ephesus.

(Summer) Fourth visit to Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts xviii. 21, 22).

Returns to Antioch.

(Autumn) THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY (Acts xviii. 23-xxi. 15).

Second visit to Galatia (Acts xviii. 23, Gal. iv. 13-16).

To Ephesus again.

55. At Ephesus.

Second visit to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1, 2).

56. At Ephesus. Sends a letter (now lost) to the Corinthians (1 Cor.
v. 9).

Reply from the Corinthians (1 Cor. vii. 1).

57. (Spring) At Ephesus. Mission of Timotheus to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi.
10-12, Acts xix. 22).

[1 Corinthians.]

First Mission of Titus to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 18).
St Paul leaves Ephesus, overtaking Timotheus (?).
Visits Troas and Macedonia.
Second visit to Philippi and Thessalonica.
(Autumn) Titus rejoins St Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 6).

[2 Corinthians.]

Second Mission of Titus to Corinth.
(Winter) Third visit to Corinth (Acts xx. 2).
[Galatians 1 .]

58. (Spring) At Corinth.

[Romans.]

Third visit to Philippi ; meets the elders of Ephesus at Miletus.
(Summer) Fourth visit to Jerusalem : arrested and sent to Caesarea.

59. At Csesarea.

60. (Autumn) Voyage to Rome, and shipwreck at Malta.

61. (Spring) Arrival at Rome.

1 The Epistle to the Galatians may have been written in the early spring
of A.D. 58.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 223

A.D.

62. (Spring) At Home.

[Philippians.]
(Autumn) [Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon.]

63. (Spring) Release of St Paul.

St Luke's narrative mentions ' two whole years ' (Acts xxviii. 30) as
the period of St Paul's sojourn at Rome. The notice implies a change
at the end of this period, hence we fix the release in the spring of 63.

63-66. First journey Eastward.

(?) He revisits Macedonia. Fourth visit to Philippi (ra^e'tos e'Xevo-o/icu,

Phil. ii. 24).

(?) Revisits Asia and Phrygia. Visit to Colossee (Philemon 22).

Journey Westward.

(?) Founds the Church of Crete.

Visits Spain, Gaul (?) (2 Tim. iv. 10), and Dalmatia (?) (2 Tim. iv. 10).

Second journey Eastward.

Revisits Asia and Phrygia (2 Tim. i. 15 sq.). Visits Ephesus (1 Tim.

i. 3) ; here probably he encounters Alexander the coppersmith (1 Tim.

i. 20, 2 Tim. iv. 14). Leaves Timothy in charge of the Ephesian

Church.

67. Revisits Macedonia (1 Tim. i. 3). Fifth visit to Philippi.
(?) Revisits Achaia (Athens and Corinth).

[1 Timothy.]

Visits (perhaps revisits) Crete, and leaves Titus in charge of the
Church there (Titus i. 5). Returns to Asia.

[Titus.]

Visits Miletus (2 Tim. iv. 20), sails to Troas (2 Tim. iv. 13), is at
Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 20) on his way to Nicopolis to winter (Tit. iii. 12).
(Autumn) Arrested (probably at Corinth) 1 , and carried to Rome.
Titus joins him there.

[2 Timothy.]
Timothy shares his imprisonment (Heb. xiii. 23).

68 (?). (Spring) Martyrdom of St Paul (Jerome de vir. illustr. 5 ' in the
fourteenth year of Nero ' 2 ).
June. Death of Nero.

The table of the events of St Paul's life given above has
been drawn up with the special object of presenting a record
of the Apostle's association with the Churches to which he wrote

1 Nero was in Greece fromA.D. 66 to 2 Eusebius (Chronicon) places it 'in
August A.D. 67 (Suet. Nero 19 sq.; Jos. the thirteenth year of Nero' i.e. before
B. J. ii. 20. 1). Oct. 67.

224

THE CHRONOLOGY OF

letters, and of the periods of his epistolary activity. It remains
for us now to consider in their mutual relations the letters
which have come down to us.

The Epistles of St Paul may be divided into four chrono-
logical groups, each group being separated from the next by an
interval of about five years, each group again corresponding to
a marked epoch in the Apostle's life, and representing a distinct
phase in his teaching. To make my meaning clear, I give the
scheme in a tabulated form :

PERIOD

EPISTLES

DATES

CHARACTERISTICS

1. Second Missionary
Journey

land 2
Thessalonians

A.D. 52, 53

Christ the Judge
or
The Tribunal

2. Third Missionary
Journey

1 and 2
Corinthians
Galatians
Romans

57,58

Christ the Redeemer
or
The Cross

3. First Roman
Captivity

Philippians
Ephesians
Colossians
Philemon

62, 63

Christ the Word
or
The Throne

4. After the Release,
including the Second
Roman Captivity.

1 Timothy
Titus
2 Timothy

67, 68

Church Organisation
or
The Congregation

These dates are in some cases approximate only. Thus
there is a possibility that 1 Thessalonians was written in
A.D. 51, and 2 Thessalonians in A.D. 52 ; a possibility also that
the Epistles of the First Roman Captivity should be antedated
a year throughout ; but upon the whole the above is the result
which falls in best with the chronology of St Paul's life as given
above ; and the phenomenon which this result presents throws
much light upon the way in which we should approach the
study of Holy Scripture as the vehicle of Divine revelation.

In every inspired writing there are two elements, the human
and the Divine, or, as it is sometimes expressed, the letter and
the spirit ; and the different views held of the doctrine of
inspiration depend upon the prominence given to one or the
other of these elements, and the judgment formed of their

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 225

mutual relations. Hence it will be seen that no conceivable shade
of opinion is excluded, and every attempt at classifying these
views must be more or less fallacious. But it will be sufficiently
exact for our present purpose roughly to assume a threefold
division in the attitude taken by writers on this question in
the first of these the Divine element being too exclusively
considered, in the second this undue prominence being assigned
to the human agency, and in the third, and only adequate view
of inspiration, each of these elements being recognised in
its proper sphere and the two harmoniously combined. The
first of these views is irrational, the second is rationalistic,
the third alone is in accordance alike with the highest reason
and the fullest faith.

The irrational view that which loses sight of the human
agency is prior in time (I am speaking now of modern
criticism) to the rationalistic. It refuses to recognise any
peculiarities in the individual writer who is under the guidance
of the Spirit ; it is insensible to any varieties in style, any
difference in the method of treatment in different books of
Holy Scripture. It reduces the whole Bible to one uniform
colour. It is needless to say that such a view must fall at
once before the assaults of criticism. If this were all, it might
be borne patiently, but unhappily it has dragged down the
tottering faith of not a few in its fall. It may also be said
that it is derogatory to the majesty of God, that it has no
support from analogy in His workings elsewhere, and no
authority from Holy Scripture itself.

This theory of inspiration provokes a reaction. The rational-
istic view is the natural consequence of its exaggerated form.
In this the human element is put so prominently forward that
the Divine is obscured. The Divine agency is perhaps not
actually denied, but it is so virtually. By indefinitely extending
the action of inspiration, it is in fact rendered meaningless. It is
allowed that Moses and David, that St Paul and St John, were
inspired, but then the same privilege is claimed for Homer and
^Eschylus, for Pythagoras and Plato. Now I should be the last
L. E. 15

226 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

to deny that whatever is good, whatever is beautiful, whatever
is true in the heathen writers is derived from the primal source
of all beauty, truth and goodness. I have been taught and I
fully believe it that every good gift and every perfect gift
cometh from above. But practically there is such a vast
difference between the illumination of the apostle and prophet,
and the illumination of the philosopher and poet, that to call
both by the same term 'inspiration/ instead of tending to clear
our conceptions, does in fact leave a very erroneous impression
on our minds. Inspiration is thus emptied of its significance.

The true view is a mean between these extremes, or rather
it is a combination of the two. It recognises the element of
truth which each contains, adopting and uniting the elements.
And it recognises them too in all their fulness. It does not
assign less power to the Divine agency, nor does it ignore any
of the characteristics of the human instrument. The truth is
one, but it has many sides. One man is more fitted than
another by natural endowments to appreciate it from some
particular point of view. No man is capable of seeing it from
every side, else he becomes more than a man. The Holy Spirit
has chosen His instruments, as Christ chose His Apostles, for
their natural gifts, whether intellectual or spiritual, and has
inspired them for our instruction and guidance. But He has
not destroyed their individuality. Each with his special
message to deliver, they become fit instruments under Divine
guidance to develop a particular aspect of the truth, and we
may suppose, without presumption, that they had each their
part assigned them, according to their natural capabilities and
acquirements, in penning the volume of Holy Scripture, as we
know that they had in rearing the fabric of the Church.

To sum up and to apply what has been said. Inspiration is
not a mechanical power or a magical agency. It does not use
men merely as its instruments. It is a moral arid spiritual
power. It does not transmute its agents : it moulds them.
Hence, as a natural result arising from the varied circumstances
and training of the inspired writers, it is not uniform. And,

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 227

for a right appreciation of the lessons of Holy Scripture, three
stages in this absence of uniformity must be recognised. First,
there is a growth from age to age. From the Law we advance
to the prophets ; from the prophets to the Gospels. Thus
inspiration is developed. Secondly, there is a diversity of in-
spiration in different persons in the same age. One sacred writer,
St Paul, views the Gospel as the abrogation of the Law; another,
St James, as its fulfilment. They are not contradictory, but
complementary the one to the other, for the Gospel is at once
the abrogation and the fulfilment of the Law. One Evangelist,
St John, dwells chiefly on the Eternal Sonship of the Saviour ;
another, St Luke, on His human tenderness and His sympathy
with our infirmities. They are both true, for He is very God
and very Man. Thus they have different functions to perform ;
their office is to set forth the Gospel message from different
points of view, which are determined by their respective positions
and characters. Thirdly, there is a diversity in the same writer
in different stages in his career. When we apply this principle to
St Paul, we discover on examination that he exhibits a historical
development in his teaching. By the word 'development' is
meant, not that St Paul added to his doctrines, but that he
altered the lights in which he placed them, making one point
more prominent at one time than at another. The whole
doctrine is there from the first implicitly involved in the funda-
mental conception of the person of Christ, but the particular
aspects are brought into special prominence, as they are called out
at different times by the exigencies of external circumstances.

These external circumstances are twofold ; first, the varying
requirements of the Church at large, secondly, the altered con-
ditions of the Apostle's own life. These are the two forces
through which inspiration acts upon the development of St
Paul's teaching; and the progress in his case I have endeavoured
to express in the watchwords which I have attached above to
the four groups of Epistles ' The Tribunal/ 'The Cross," The
Throne,' ' The Congregation.'

For the sake of convenience we will set aside the chrono-

152

228 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

logical order, and consider, at the outset, the first and the fourth
group of his Epistles. The doctrine of the Epistles to the
Thessalonians throughout is the Second Advent, ' Christ the
Judge.' This is the one prominent idea which runs through
this pair of letters from end to end. Similarly, the purpose of
the Pastoral Epistles is ecclesiastical organization. In the light
of the external circumstances of the Church at the two periods
involved, the reasons for this striking difference between the two
groups are hardly less obvious than the fact of its existence.

It is only natural that the doctrine of the Second Advent
should occur early in the Pauline Epistles. And this for several
reasons. The Resurrection was the central point in the
teaching of the Twelve after the day of Pentecost, and the
Resurrection naturally suggested its necessary correlative, the
Second Coming of Christ. Again, the doctrine of the Second
Advent involved the doctrine of rewards for faithful service in
the infancy of the Church. When persecution was rife, the
disciples would need the necessary incentive to steadfastness
under trial which such a promise brought with it. Thirdly, the
expectation of the Second Advent implied the call to repentance,
and therefore found its natural place in the forefront of St
Paul's early teaching, just as the Baptist's cry ' Repent ' pre-
ceded our Lord's ministry. Thus, in his discourse on the
Areopagus, St Paul, after drawing attention to God's presence
in nature, goes on to point the moral of the special doctrine of
revelation as repentance resulting upon Christ's coining to
judgment 1 . Lastly, Messianic hopes had to be satisfied.
Hitherto, externally everything had ended in disappointment.
The King had suffered a malefactor's death; and the Ascension,
which followed upon the triumph of the Resurrection, was, to
Jewish Christians, if not a negation, at least a deferring, of the
promised kingdom of God. Thus the Second Advent became
the answer to Messianic expectations.

And if the Second Advent furnished the natural theme for
St Paul's earliest Epistles, not less obvious is it why his latest

1 Acts xvii. 30, 31.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 229

utterances should have been devoted to the question of the
organization of the Church. A study of the history of the
Church at this period shows a growing restlessness both in
thought and action, synchronizing with the withdrawal of the
teachers most competent to check these disorders. Schisms and
heresies were starting into life within the fold, and meanwhile
the apostolate was dying out. Therefore a double necessity was
laid upon 'Paul the aged' to meet this danger by strengthening
and developing the Church's system of government. If we look
at the Pastoral Epistles, we find no new doctrine inculcated.
The two notes which are struck again and again are (1) 'Hold
fast the tradition' (rrjv TrapaOiJKrjv <j>v\aj;ov I Tim. vi. 20,
2 Tim. i. 14), and (2) 'Preserve order in the Church.' In short,
this group of Epistles constitutes St Paul's last will and
testament, in which he gives his final instructions for the
maintenance and continuity of the faith.

Thus the two letters to the Thessalonians and the Pastoral
Epistles may be entitled the preface and the postscript re-
spectively to the Pauline literature, its prologue and its
epilogue. We have now cleared the ground, and may pass
on to consider the second and third of the groups of Epistles,
which contain the main substance of the Apostle's doctrine.
And here a somewhat fuller explanation will be necessary. The
ancient Greek Fathers divided what we call by the general
name of 'Theology' into two distinct provinces, olicovofjiLa and
Oeo\oyia. The first of these two terms points, as its deriva-
tion implies, to a Divine dispensation. The Church is, in effect,
the household (o ot/eo?) of God, and rj OLKOVO/JLLO, is the plan by
which God rules His household. It is the means whereby
God ransoms from sin. It includes the dispensation of the
gifts and graces of the Spirit which form part of the Divine
' household-stuff.' On the other hand, as understood by the
Fathers, 77 6eo\oyia directed itself to the contemplation of
Christ's Eternal Being His relation to the Father and the Holy
Spirit before the worlds were made. It was in this technical
sense of the word that Gregory of Nazianzus and St John

230 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

alike procured the title of o #60X0709. Thus the spheres in
which the two sciences move are different. The one centres
round the Incarnation and embraces all that flows therefrom ;
the other, taking for its theme the Divine attributes of Christ,
pierces behind the Incarnation to the Eternal, Pre-existent
Word. This twofold division in the province of Theology has
its counterpart in the two groups of St Paul's Epistles with
which we are now concerned. The distinctive feature of the
Epistles of the Third Missionary Journey is the stress laid
upon oiKovo^ia ; on the other hand, the Epistles of the First
Roman Captivity deal mainly with OeoXoyia. I have therefore
given as its leading characteristic to the one group, ' the Cross/
to the other, ' the Throne. 7

Justification, Atonement, Sacrifice the vast majority of
passages which bear upon these doctrines are to be found in the
Epistles of the second group. And if we turn to the circum-
stances of the Church at the period at which they were written,
the reason becomes obvious. This was the time of St Paul's
great conflict with Judaism on the one hand and Hellenism on
the other. The Cross of Christ contains the complete answer
to the error of both, to the formalism of the one and the anti-
nomianism of the other. ' Christ died for us ' here is the
reply to the legalism of the Jew, setting forth that the true
ground of Christian hope is faith, not works ; ' we must die
with Christ' here is the reply to the license of the Greek,
exhibiting as it does the true motive of life. In short, there
is a work done for us, and a work done in us. The two must
not be separated. Christ's righteousness, so St Paul tells us,
cannot become our righteousness, unless we become one with
Christ, unless we live in Christ. It is this repose in Christ
which makes sin impossible. This is St Paul's doctrine. He
never sacrifices the one proposition to the other. When he
dwells on the truth * Christ died for us/ he is ever mindful of
its correlative ' We must die with Christ/ i.e. die to self and to
sin. He never separates the religious belief from the moral
change. Nay, he cannot conceive of the two as separated. For

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 231

faith in Christ is a moral as well as an intellectual state, and
with St Paul its moral aspect is in fact the more prominent of
the two. So that not 'justification by faith' so much as 'dying
and living with Christ,' ' oneness with Christ/ may be regarded
as the central point of his Gospel. This is the meaning of his
constantly repeated phrase 'in the Lord/ 'in Christ' (ev Kvpiw,
ev X/Mo-TG)) 1 , and this fact it is which, when once realised, makes
it impossible even to suspect an opposition between St Paul
and St James in their fundamental views, though the verbal
statement of them is at first sight different 2 . The two proposi-
tions of the antithesis contain the answer to the two fundamental
errors of the Jew and the Gentile. The Jewish error, which was
dogmatic, rested upon a false ground of hope. The Hellenic
error, which was practical, sprang from a false theory of life.
The Jewish convert said/ We are saved by the works of the law.'
St Paul's answer is, ' No : Christ died for us. A work has been
done for us by God; and we are saved by faith in Christ'
(meaning thereby, faith in Christ, with all that the idea conveys
with it). The Gentile convert said, ' We are no longer under
the works of the law. We are free to do as we like ; let us sin
that grace may abound.' c No/ replies the Apostle, ' we must
die with Christ ; Christ's work must be done in us.' Thus the
danger of the one was bondage ; the danger of the other
license. These respective errors he meets separately in writing
to the Galatians and to the Corinthians. The watchword of

1 'Ev Kupt'y Kom. xiv. 14, xvi. 2, 8, Hence Luther's saying ' Sin, and sin
11,12,13,22; 1 Cor. iv. 17, vii. 22, 39, boldly,' though Luther himself was
ix. 1, 2, xi. 11, xv. 58, xvi. 19; 2 Cor. anything but antinomian. Mr M.
ii. 12 etc.; iv XpurTy Kom. iii. 24, vi. Arnold justly protests against this
11, 23, viii. 1, 2, 39, ix. 1, xii. 5, xv. 17, perversion, this one-sided view, of St
xvi. 3, 7, 10; 1 Cor. i. 2, 4, 30, iii. 1, Paul's doctrine, and all its dangerous
iv. 10, 15, 17, xv. 18, 19, 31 ; 2 Cor. ii. consequences, dangerous to practice
17, v. 17, xii. 2, 19 etc. and dangerous to belief, for it has

2 Some modern teachers however, done more than almost anything else
alleging his name, have forgotten the to repel the moral sense. On the
one proposition or the other. Taking other hand, Mr M. Arnold himself, it
justification by faith and by faith alone seems to me, has thrown the other
as their watchword, they have produced, proposition ' Christ died for us' a little
as an extreme result, antinomianism. too much into the background.

232 THE CHRONOLOGY OF

the one Epistle is ' Liberty, not bondage ' ; of the other ' Not
license, but liberty/ though in neither is the antithetical pro-
position suppressed 1 . Finally iu the Epistle to the Romans
the composite character of the Church which he addressed
compelled him to combine the two aspects, and to treat them
in a full exposition.

And side by side with the special questions which were
agitating the Church at large at this crisis of her history, must
be set the particular circumstances of the Apostle's life. This
was its most tumultuous period, a time of constant travel, of
bitter personal opposition, of ceaseless activities of every kind.
All this combined to fit him at this time to be the exponent of
this particular side of Gospel truth.

We turn to the third group of Epistles, and at once we
notice a change of subject-matter. The metaphysical, mystical,
contemplative aspects of the Gospel are brought out into special
prominence. In place of the lessons of soteriology and re-
demption which we meet with in the Epistles of the Third
Missionary Journey, Christ is exhibited as the Eternal Word,
as God manifest in the flesh 2 , and, as the corollary upon this
teaching, is set forth the union of the individual and the Church
with God through Christ 3 . Christ's reign in heaven, His p re-
existence, His omnipotence, form the Apostle's theme rather
than His life on earth, His humiliation, the example of His
perfect character. The Church militant is for the time lost in
the Church triumphant. As before, the secret of this change
of thought is to be found in the altered conditions of the
Apostle's life and the Church's needs. A lengthened term of
imprisonment, first at Csesarea, then at Rome, had succeeded
upon a period of bustling, strained activity. In God's good

1 Contrast generally Gal. ii. 15 sq corrective), ix. 19, 21, x. 14, 16, 23, 32,

(vv. 19, 20 supply the corrective), iii. 2, xi. 3, xii. 12, 27, 2 Cor. i. 5, iv. 10 12,

10 sq, v. 36, 11 (vv. 13 sq, 16 sq v. 1720 (v. 21 corrective),
corrective), vi. 14, with 1 Cor. v. 6, 7 2 Cf. Eph. i. 10, 2023, iii. 15, iv. 15,

(v. 7 Kal yiip rb 7rd<rxa corrective), vi. vi. 9; Phil. ii. 6 sq; Col. i. 15 sq,

9 sq (v. 11 corrective), 15 sq (v. 20 ii. 9 sq, iii. 1, 4, etc.
corrective), vii. 19, 23, viii. 8, 9 (v. 11 3 Cf. Phil. iii. 20; Eph. ii. 19, etc.

ST PAUL'S LIFE AND EPISTLES. 233

providence St Paul was enjoying a season of uninterrupted rest,
which gave the opportunity for a contemplation of the highest
mysteries of the faith. The most tranquil period of his life
supervened upon the most tumultuous. The Epistle to the
Ephesians is the expression of the one period, the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians is the reflection of the other. But
the consideration that the Apostle's frame of mind at this time
would naturally lead him to the study of metaphysical specu-
lation must not blind us to the propriety of this study in
relation to the altered conditions of the Church. The foe from
which she had most to fear now was no longer Judaism or
Hellenism, but Orientalism, that mystic, theosophic speculation
with regard to angelic, intermediate beings between God and
man which was afterwards known as Gnosticism and reached
its climax in the fantastic systems of Basilides and Valentinus.
That this was the case is evident when we consider the character
of the heresy in the Colossian Church, against which St Paul
argues in his Epistle to that Church. In order therefore to
confront these false doctrines, it was necessary for the Apostle
to show that there was only one link between God and man,
Christ manifest in the flesh, and that there was no room for the
successive emanations, in the creation of which his opponents
delighted to indulge their elaborate fancy.

[1863.]

VI.
THE CHUKCHES OF MACEDONIA.

VI.
THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

O T PAUL'S first visit to Macedonia was the dawn of a new
era in the development of the Christian Church. The
incidents, which ushered it in. spoke significantly to himself
and his fellow-labourers ; and, in St Luke's record, they stand
out in bold relief. The entrance into Macedonia and the visit
to Rome are the two most important stages in the Apostle's
missionary life, as they are also the two most emphatic
passages in the historian's narrative the one the opening
campaign of the Gospel in the West, the other its crowning
triumph. It is no surprise therefore that St Paul years after-
wards should speak of his labours in Macedonia, as 'the beginning
of the Gospel 1 ,' though his missionary course was now half run.
The faith of Christ had, as it were, made a fresh start.

This portion of St Luke's narrative 2 is emphasized not by
any artifice of the writer, but by the progress of the incidents
themselves which all converge to one point. St Paul having

1 Phil. iv. 15 iv apxa rov evay- 8ir)\0ov..,e\06vTes St... be correct, the
ye\iov. complexion of the incident will be

2 Acts xvi. 6-10 Ate\06j>res 8e TT\V slightly, but not materially, altered.
Qpvylav Kai TaXaTiKrjv x^/* 1 "* fw\u- But, though the preponderance of
Qtvres virb TOV aylov Trj/eifytctTos \d\i)<rcu authority is considerably hi its favour,
TOV \6yov tv rrj 'Affta, e\66vres Kara rrjv it is open to suspicion as an attempt

weipaov els rrjv Bidwiav Tropev- to simplify the grammar of a sentence

KOL OVK etao-ev cuprous TO irvev^a. rendered awkward by the accumula-

- irapeXQovTes 8t rrjv 'M.va'iav xart- tion of participles.
els Tpydda K.T.\. If the reading

238 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

passed through the country of Phrygia and Galatia is driven
forward under the Divine guidance and in spite of his own
impulses towards the shores of the Hellespont. Attempting to
diverge on either side, he is checked and kept in the direct
path. He first looks wistfully towards the country lying on his
left, wishing to preach the Gospel in the populous district of
Proconsular Asia. 'The Holy Spirit forbids him' to do so.
He next turns his steps towards Bithynia situated on his right,
doubtless with the same purpose. This attempt is as futile as
the former. ' The Spirit of Jesus ' will not permit it. Thus
hemmed in on either side, he has no choice but to go forward,
and so he arrives on the coast of the JEgaean. Here at length
the meaning of those strange hindrances, which had thwarted
his energetic purpose, becomes apparent. God's providence has
destined him for a nobler mission-field. While at Troas gazing
on the sight of the opposite shores of Europe, he receives an
intimation which decides him. He sees a vision in the night.
A man of Macedonia stands before him and entreats him :
' Come over and help us.' He considers this as an indication of
the will of God, and in obedience thereto he crosses the narrow
sea which separates Asia from Europe.

In this way St Luke forces upon our notice the importance
of this visit to Macedonia. When he comes to narrate the
visit itself, he does so with a greater minuteness of detail than
is usually found in his narrative. The incidents of St Paul's
preaching at Philippi especially, the first European town which
hears the truths of the Gospel from the lips of the Apostle, are
dwelt upon with singular fulness. Of these incidents the his-
torian was himself an eyewitness. He had but lately joined
St Paul's company for the first time, and the scenes, in which
he now moved, would naturally dwell in his memory with all
the force of fresh and unwonted experiences. But beyond this
personal reason we can scarcely doubt that the fulness of detail
in this part of his narrative is due also to the conviction in his
mind that this visit heralded a new and important era in the
history of the Christian Church.

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 239

It was not only that the Apostle had surmounted the sea-
barrier which separates two tracts of country bearing different
names, and conventionally regarded as distinct continents 1 .
The real significance of his journey lay in this, that it brought
him in contact with new interests, new associations and ideas,
or at least into closer contact with them than hitherto. He
now occupied the ground which from its geographical position
was the natural high road between the East and the West, and
was mixing with that people whose mission it had been to fuse
the whole civilised world, to bring the arts and intelligence of
Greece and the political capacities of Rome into alliance with
the nobler spiritual instincts and sublimer theological conceptions
of Asia above all, with the one specially revealed religion of
Palestine and thus to pioneer the way for the Gospel. The
great Macedonian conqueror had appreciated the task which
its natural position imposed upon his country. He can have
been no mere selfish tyrant or vain profligate, who when advised
by the wisest philosopher of the day to treat the Greeks as free
subjects, the Orientals as slaves, repudiated the narrow counsels
of his teacher, declaring that he had been ' sent by God to
unite, pacify, and reconcile the whole world 2 .' This generous
sentiment of Alexander was an anticipation, however feeble, of
the work of that great Reconciler, who broke down the partition
walls between castes and nations 3 , and may well recal the loftier
utterance of St Paul, who proclaimed that there was now
' neither Greek nor Jew, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free/
but all were 'one in Christ 4 .' And when again we read of the

1 It is interesting to observe that rjyefjLoviKuis, rots de fiapfidpois

' Europe' is never once mentioned in /ccSs x/ 3 ^A te " OJ '---aXXa Koivbs TJKCIV

the New Testament, and that 'Asia' apuoaTTjs Kal StctXXa/trrjs TWV

denotes not the continent, but the vo^ifav K.T.\. The whole passage is

Eoman province. The words of the worth reading.

man in St Paul's vision are not 'Come 3 See Ephes. ii. 14, 15; and corn-

over into Europe,' but 'Come over pare the expressions dTro/caraXXd^ai ra

into Macedonia,' Acts xvi. 9. iravra Col. i. 20, and Kara\\ayi] /c6cr-

2 Plut. de Alex. Fort. 1. 6. Op. pov Bom. xi. 15.

Hor. p. 329 B -yAp, &s 'Ap^rror^s 4 Col. iii. 11, Gal. iii. 28.
airry, rots ptv '"EI\\TI<TIV

240 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

taunts levelled at the Macedonian king by narrower-minded
Greeks, because he strove to conciliate the Oriental peoples
whom he had vanquished, by conforming to their dress and
habits as matters of indifference 1 , we seem to trace the shadow
of that large-hearted policy of the Apostle of the Gentiles, who
in a like spirit, but with a nobler aim, braved the fierce hatred
of his countrymen, consenting to be reviled as a subverter of
the laws and institutions of his fathers, and, himself a Jew,
became as a Greek to the Greeks that he might win them to
Christ 2 .

Alexander had not entertained this grand purpose in vain.
Though he died young, he had accomplished a vast task, the
importance of which to the future history of the world it is
scarcely possible to overrate. If he had not realised his project,
he had prepared the way for its realisation in a far higher sense
than he himself could have imagined. He had diffused the
literature and life, the habits and institutions, of Europe through
the East. He had made the language of Greece a common
instrument of communication throughout the civilised world.
Now, at length, the completion of his great design, though very
different, no doubt, from that which he himself had contemplated,
was drawing near. And as his country had borne the chief
part in preparing the way for this universal pacification of the
world, so now in turn she was herself to receive the earliest
and most striking earnest of its fulfilment. The tide, which
had once flowed eastward through Macedonia bearing with it
the civilisation of the West, was now rolled back through the
same channel, laden with a nobler treasure, by which Asia more
than discharged her debt of obligation to Europe.

Each successive station at which he halted might have
reminded the Apostle of the great services rendered by Mace-
donia as the pioneer of the Gospel. The very names of the

1 See Plutarch 1. c. p. 329 C and ws ph 0i\6<ro0os TOLS d5ia<f>6pois XP&-

p. 330 A 'Ex rov M.a.Ke8oviKov KO.I nevos K.T.\.

Hep<riKov rp6irov /te/tu'y 'fi^vrjv nva oro\V 2 1 Cor. ix. 19 sq, Gal. ii. 14 sq.

t<p6pei Ka.0d.Trep 'EpaTOffdevrjs Iffrbprj^v '

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 241

places bore testimony to the part she had played in history.
The seaport whence he embarked on leaving the Asiatic shore
was surnamed, after the great conqueror of the East, Alexandria
Troas. In Philippi, the first European city which he visited,
was perpetuated the memory of the monarch, who, by organizing
the armies of Macedonia and establishing the supremacy of his
country over Greece, prepared the way for the vast projects of
Oriental conquest carried out by his greater son. The name of
the next town in which he planted the standard of the cross
spoke of a later stage in the progress of events. It recalled the
partition of Alexander's empire, having been founded by one of
his successors Cassander, in honour of his wife Thessalonica, the
half-sister of the conqueror himself. Whether St Paul, while
visiting these scenes, recalled the past glories of Macedonia,
whether he traced in this marvellous page of her history the
hand of God moulding the selfish counsels of men to His own
great purpose, it is vain to speculate ; but we may at least be
assured that he did in a measure forecast the future, and that
he felt, when he entered Macedonia, that the Gospel was on the
eve of some new and striking development. The Divine voice,
which had first driven him coastward and then beckoned him
across the seas, was a significant token. The rapid and pro-
sperous voyage to the European shores seemed the presage of a
coming triumph 1 . The strange scenes, the new and varied
types of character which he encountered there, the contact
with purer forms of Western civilisation, the more direct
influence of Greek and Roman institutions all these fresh
experiences crowding upon him spoke to him of more brilliant
victories yet to be achieved, of wider and fairer provinces to be
annexed to his Master's kingdom. All the incidents of this
epoch seem to assume vaster proportions, to be cast on a
grander scale. A success unparalleled in his previous career

1 Acts xvi. 11, v6vdpofj,-riffaiJiv. The sion (Acts xx. 6). See Conybeare and

distance, which on this occasion seems Howson Life and Epistles of St Paul

to have been accomplished in two p. 219 (ed. 1870).
days' voyage, took Jive on a later occa-

L. E. 16

242 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

both in extent and durability crowns his preaching in the first
European city. A marvellous deliverance, a more signal
interposition in his behalf than any elsewhere recorded,
assures him of the protecting hand of God. The first visit to
Macedonia stands out in the Apostle's history as an eventful
epoch in a career singularly crowded with incidents and fertile
in results.

I propose to call attention to a few points bearing on the
history and character of the Macedonian Churches collectively.
They are so closely linked together in the circumstances of their
foundation, and present so many features in common, that it is
especially instructive to consider them together.

1. The three stations in Macedonia, which St Paul selected
for his missionary labours, are Philippi, Thessalonica and
Bercea. A glance at any good map of this country will show
at once the reasons which may have influenced this choice.
The whole region of Macedonia Proper exclusive of the Chalcidic
peninsula is divided by its natural barriers into three portions
corresponding respectively to the water-courses of the Strymon,
the Axius and the Haliacmon. Philippi stands on a tributary
of the Strymon ; Thessalonica, though planted on the banks of
another less considerable river, occupies the most important
position in the valley of the Axius ; while Berrea, lying more
inland, represents the third district watered by the Haliacmon
near to which it is situated. In the first Roman partition of
Macedonia now long abandoned these three towns had
belonged to distinct provinces called respectively Prima,
Secunda, and Tertia. Thus standing sufficiently wide apart
from each other and commanding three separate districts, they
recommended themselves to the Apostle by their geographical
position, as good missionary centres.

2. But he was guided also by another consideration. It
was necessary that there should be a sufficient Jewish population
in those towns which were marked out as the mother Churches
of their respective districts. Around the few believers of the

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

243

house of Israel, as a nucleus, the Gentile majority of the Church
must gather. All three places satisfied this condition. At
Philippi indeed there was no synagogue, but every Sabbath-day
the faithful Jews met together for prayer by the riverside 1 .
Their numbers appear to have been scanty, yet there was a
sufficient body of them to render it necessary for the Apostle to
warn his converts against 'the concision 2 ,' though in the ad-
monition ne may have been thinking more of Rome than of
Philippi 3 . At Thessalonica, at all events, a synagogue existed 4 ,
and the Jews play a prominent part in the narrative of the
Acts 5 . This city appears to have been a favourite resort for
Jews in the middle ages, and a recent writer, who gives the
whole population as seventy thousand, sets down the Jewish
element at fifty thousand souls 6 . At Bercea also was a synagogue 7 ,
and the conduct of the Jews there is highly commended by the
historian of the Acts 8 .

1 Acts xvi. 13, 16. The use of the
word TrpocrevxTj here does not necessarily
imply a building.

2 Phil. iii. 2 0\^7rere rrjv Ka.Ta.ro-
MV.

3 [See Philippians, p. 52.]

4 Acts xvii. 1, oirov r^v avvaywyT] ruv
'lovSalwv. Textual criticism requires
the suppression of the article before
the word trvvaybrrf.

5 See esp. Acts xvii. 5 sq., 13 sq.

6 W. G. C. in Jlacmillan's Maga-
zine for Feb. 1863 (vii. p. 313).
This is the highest estimate I have
seen, and I suspect some mistake in
the numbers. Other estimates are
given by Conybeare and Howson,
p. 250.

7 Acts xvii. 10 sq.

8 If we are tempted to ask why St
Paul chose Philippi and Bercea rather
than Amphipolis or Pella for the scene
of his preaching, the true answer may
be somewhat of this kind. Philippi
was the first town which he reached.
He would naturally be anxious to

commence his missionary work at
once. An opportunity offered, and he
availed himself of it. Though there
was no regular synagogue here, there
was, as we have seen, a nucleus of
Jews, and in this respect Amphipolis
would offer no greater facilities, for
there certainly was no synagogue there.
Besides, even if Philippi was not the
chief town of the district, it was a
place of great importance, and would
command the Eastern districts better
than Amphipolis.

Bercea was probably chosen in pre-
ference to Pella on account of the
synagogue there. It is improbable
that there should have been syna-
gogues at both places. Besides this,
Pella was on the decline ; see Dion
Chrysost. Or. xxxiii. (p. 460 ed. Emper.),
vvv et TIJ ditpxoiro IIAXai', ovde <njfj.eiov
6-^fTdi ir6Xea>s ovtitv 3ix<* TOU iro\vv
KepafjMV elvcu (rvvTCTpinfJ-evov ev rt$ rbirq).

It seems a mistake to suppose that
St Paul went to Beroaa as an out-of-
the-way town, a sort of hiding place,

162

244

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

Alexander himself had shown great favour to the Jews, and
his successors in the Macedonian dynasties abroad seem to have
inherited his policy in this respect. The Syrian kings admitted
them to equal privileges with the Macedonians and Greeks 1 .
And the liberality of the Alexandrian princes 2 in this respect is
witnessed by the LXX. translation of the Scriptures, by the
building of the Temple at Leontopolis and by the large Jewish
population at Alexandria. There were occasional exceptions
indeed to this wise liberality, but on the whole it seems to have
remained the traditional policy of the successors of Alexander.
Both in Egypt and Syria the Romans left the Jews in posses-
sion of the privileges which they enjoyed. We may well suppose,
though we have no direct evidence, that the like spirit prevailed
at home, and that the Jews were at least protected, if they were
not encouraged, by the rulers of Macedonia. At all events, we
may gather from the New Testament history that at the time of
the Christian era they had settled there in considerable numbers,

as Alford seems to imply. Cicero says
of Piso, escaping from Thessalonica,
where he was pestered with com-
plaints, that he 'took refuge ' in Bercea,
'in oppidum devium Beroeam profu-
gisti ' (in Pison. c. 36). Piso's course
would naturally have been along the
Egnatian road, and therefore to him it
was ' devium.' But Beroea was a most
important city (see Lucian Asin. 34 ep-
els 7r6\iv rrjs McuceSov/as B^potai'
/cat TroKvavdpuirov], and would
have been very ill-chosen as a lurking
place, since there was a Jewish syna-
gogue there, which doubtless kept up
constant communication with that of
Thessalonica, as the result seems to
show. It also lay near the road that
he must ultimately take for Achaia.

It is not probable that St Paul on
any subsequent occasion preached in
other Macedonian towns. In Eomans
xv. 19 it is true he speaks of having
preached ' as far as Illyricum,' but if
his visit to Beroea may not be con-

sidered to justify the expression, the
Gospel may well have been spread
southward through the labours of his
companions Silas, Timotheus and Luke
between his first and second visits to
Macedonia. In the scanty fragments
of his Apology which survive, Melito,
addressing M. Antoninus, appeals to
the fact that his father wrote letters
to the people of Larissa, Thessalonica
and Athens forbidding them to molest
the Christians (6 5 Trar-qp ffov..,rals
7r6Xecri Trept rod fArjdfr ve&repi^ew irepi
i)fj,&i> eypa\J/ev tv oh KO.I irpbs Aa/oicr-
ffaiovs Kai irpbs ecro-aXoJU/cets /ecu 'A0?;-
vatovs /ecu ?rp6s Trdvras "EXX^j/as Melito
in Eus. H. E, iv. 26. 10, see Kouth R.S.
i. p. 112). The establishment of Chris-
tianity at Larissa is an interesting fact ;
see below, p. 267.

1 See the curious illustration which
Josephus gives (Ant. xii. 3. 1).

2 See Winer's article on the Jewish
Dispersion in his Bibl. Realworter-
buch, n. p. 727 sq. (1847).

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 245

and that the synagogue organisation was established in full
force. The historical connexion of Macedonia with Syria and
Palestine was of some centuries standing, and the Syrian cities
of Edessa and Berrhoea, which had far outstripped their older
namesakes, not to mention the Palestinian town of Pella, testify
to the intimate relationship between the countries.

3. St Paul's communications with the Macedonian Churches
were very close and frequent. This was partly due to their
position on the high road between Asia on the one hand and
Greece and Rome on the other, partly to other causes. These
communications are of various kinds. Firstly, there are personal
visits made by the Apostle. During his second missionary
journey in the year 52 he founds the Macedonian Churches 1 .
Five years or so later, on his third missionary journey he visits
them twice, as he goes and again as he returns 2 . Another
interval of five years elapses, and again he seems to have paid
them another visit, immediately after his return from captivity,
in fulfilment of his declared intention 3 . Lastly, once, probably
more than once, we find him there again at the very close of
his life 4 . Secondly, we read of constant communications made
with the Macedonians through his disciples. When he departs
after his first visit, he leaves Silas and Timotheus behind 5 , and
possibly after joining him at Athens they were despatched
thither again 6 . But these are not the only companions dele-
gated to watch over the infant Churches of Macedonia. It
would appear that St Luke also remained at Philippi for a
period of five or six years 7 . On his third missionary journey
again the Apostle sends Timotheus and Erastus into Mace-
donia 8 . During the imprisonment at Borne, this intercourse is
of the most intimate character. The narrative of the Epistle
to the Philippians implies four journeys between Philippi and

1 Acts xvi. 9-xvii. 15. 7 This is inferred from the fact that

2 Acts xix. 21, xx. 1, 3. the first person in the narrative is

3 Phil. ii. 24. dropped after Acts xvi. 17 and resumed

4 1 Tim. i. 3 ; cf. 2 Tim. iv. 13, 20. at ch. xx. 5.

5 Acts xvii. 14, 15, xviii. 5. 8 Acts xix. 22.

6 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2, 6.

246 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

the place of St Paul's captivity, before the writing of the letter 1 ,
and mention is made of the Apostle's intention of despatching
Timotheus thither shortly 2 . And to this constant association,
sustained, as far as we can trace it, throughout St Paul's life,
must be added the frequent interchange of messages consequent
upon the contributions made by the Macedonian Churches both
towards the relief of the brethren in Judaea 3 , and towards the
Apostle's personal maintenance*. Thirdly, we find several
Macedonian Christians in more or less constant attendance upon
St Paul. These men are representative, and are taken from
the three Churches of Macedonia. Thessalonica sends Aris-
tarchus 5 , a Jewish convert, to endanger his life with the Apostle
at Ephesus and to share the captivity at Home. Another Thessa-
lonian, Secundus 6 , is mentioned with Aristarchus as accompany-
ing the Apostle during his voyage to the Capital. On the same
occasion Beroaa is represented by Sopater ' the son of Pyrrhus 7 /
the patronymic being added perhaps to distinguish him from
the Sosipater who sends his salutation to the Church of Rome 8 .
From Philippi comes Epaphroditus, whose sickness at Rome
aroused such a tender interest in the Church of which he formed
a member 9 . Another Macedonian, Gaius, is mentioned as St
Paul's companion in the tumult at Ephesus 10 , unless indeed (as
is possible, though hardly probable) he is to be identified with

1 [Aristarchus however may have hear in this passage, but the name
parted from the Apostle at Myra. is found in Macedonian inscriptions;
See Philippians p. 37.] thus in Boeckh G. I. G. n. no. 1957

2 Phil. ii. 19. (Pydna) Kd<riov Se/coC>5oi'. So in Thes-

3 2 Cor. viii. 1 sq. , ix. 2 sq. salonian inscriptions L. Pontius Secun-

4 Phil. iv. 15 sq. ; 2 Cor. xi. 9. dus is the name of one of the politarchs

5 Acts xix. 29, xx. 4, xxvii. 2 ; Col. (Boeckh no. 1967), cf. no. 1969 OtdX-rjs
iv. 10 ; Philemon 24. His nationality Kal Se/coD^Sos (where compare the name
appears from Col. iv. 11 where he is 'Valens' in Polycarp's Epistle to the
coupled with Mark and Jesus called Philippians 11), no. 1988 [Se<|oO>5os,
Justus, as being ' of the circumcision.' no. 1988 6, 'IovMaSe/cotfj'[5a]...[S]eA:oi'i'-
He was a constant companion of St diuv.

Paul who calls him 6 <rwcux/uci\wT6s 7 Acts xx. 4 Swrarpos IWppov Be-

fM>v (Col. iv. 10). The name occurs potato?.

in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum for 8 Eomans xvi. 21.

Aug. 4. 9 Phil. ii. 25 sq.

6 Acts xx. 4. Of Secundus we only 10 Acts xix. 29.

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 247

Epaphroditus 1 . Lastly, there is some reason for the supposition
that Demas 2 , whose desertion of the Apostle in his second
imprisonment contrasts so painfully with his faithful companion-
ship at an earlier period, hailed from Thessalonica 3 .

But the most permanent result of St Paul's intercourse with
the Macedonian Churches is embodied in the three letters which
have come down to us addressed by the Apostle to his converts
there. His two earliest Epistles the two Epistles to the Thes-
salonians were written to one Macedonian Church, a later
Epistle the Epistle to the Philippians to another. Nor are
we to suppose that these three extant letters exhaust the
Apostle's literary activity in the case of congregations in which
he took so special and so affectionate an interest. Even admit-
ting that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant us in
postulating a lost letter to the Philippians 4 , yet his language
in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians becomes meaningless
unless it presupposes more than one previous communication
with the Church of Thessalonica 5 .

The outward condition of the Macedonian Churches stands
fully revealed in the Pauline Epistles which survive to us.
They were baptized with the baptism of suffering, and this
suffering was the result both of poverty and of persecution 6 .

1 The two names are borne together deserted St Paul he went to Thessalo-
in an inscription of Thessalonica nica (2 Tim. iv. 10), probably home.
(Boeckh C.I. G. no. 1987 Taty KXwSi'y The name Demetrius, of which Demas
'E7ra0po5etT^ [KJXwSt'a $i\r)fj.dTioi> r$ is a contract form, occurs twice among
[7rct]Tpwn TO fu^fia). OrigeninEom.xvi. the list of politarchs of that city (Boeckh
23 states a tradition that the Gaius no. 1967).

there mentioned was a bishop of Thes- 3 To complete the list of Mace-

salonica. The Gaius however in ques- donian Christians we must add Jason

tion was a Corinthian. There may how- (Acts xvii. 6 sq.).

ever have been some confusion with the 4 [On the question of lost letters of

Gaius of Acts xix. 29. [On Epaphro- St Paul see Philippians p. 138 sq.]

ditus see Philippians pp. 61, 62.] 5 2 Thess. iii. 17 6 ianv awtiov iv

2 On the name Demas see the refer- IT aery ^TTKTTOXT; : cf. also 2 Thess. ii. 15.
ences in Meyer on Col. iv. 14, Lobeck 6 2 Cor. viii. 2 ev TroXXfl dou^y
Pathol. 505; cf. Boeckh C.I.G. in. no. 0Xtyeo>j...T? Kara jSdfloi's TTT^X^O- of the
3817 (ATj/ias /ecu Tat'os). Demas is men- Macedonian Churches. And yet there
tioned next to Aristarchus the Thes- must have been sufficient wealth both
salonian in Philemon 24, and when he at Philippi and at Thessalonica. Were

248

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

There is no warning against the temptations of wealth, no en-
forcement of the duties of the rich, in the Epistles to the
Thessalonians or Philippians 1 . The former especially are
addressed as those who have to work for their living 2 . On the
other hand, the allusions to persecution undergone are prominent
in all three Epistles 3 . And side by side with the external
dangers which beset these infant communities we can discern
the presence of a more subtle peril to which they were exposed
from the tendencies of their national character. The old
Macedonian spirit of independence showed itself in a factious
self-assertion, a contempt for authority, to which the Apostle is
constrained to draw attention with a significant and emphatic
iteration 4 .

But the better side also of the Macedonian character 5 made

the gold and silver mines at Philippi
[see Philippians p. 47] still worked ?

1 The case is different in Polycarp's
Epistle to the Philippians. Probably
Christianity had by that time extended
to the wealthier classes ; see esp. 4,
5,6.

2 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 7-
12.

3 Thessalonica (1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14,
iii. 2, 3, 4 ; 2 Thess. i. 4-7) ; Philippi
(Phil. i. 28-30).

4 Cf. 1 Thess. v. 12-14; 2 Thess. iii.
6, 7, 11, 14.

5 The Macedonians were to Greece
what the Piedmontese are to Italy, the
rude highlanders speaking a mongrel
dialect, regarded with a proud but
impotent scorn by the pure bred Greeks,
but in the highest moral qualities far
their superiors, with a more genuine
love of freedom and a stubborn per-
severance. They were the one people
which made the power of Greece felt
throughout the world. On the Mace-
donian spirit of independence see especi-
ally Flatte Gesch. Mac. i. 45. Flatte's
summary of the Macedonian character

is very striking and accurate. They
appear to have had that peculiarly
English virtue of not knowing when
they were beaten. An excellent illus-
tration of this sturdy perseverance and
indomitable buoyancy of character
which the Apostle commends (1 Thess.
i. 6) is the passage of Mommsen (History
of Rome Bk. in. ch. 8, Vol. ii. p. 229
Dickson's transl. 1868). ' In steadfast
resistance to the public enemy under
whatever name, in unshaken fidelity
towards their native country and their
hereditary government, and in per-
severing courage amidst the severest
trials, no nation in ancient history
bears so close a resemblance to the
Eoman people as the Macedonians;
and the almost miraculous regenera-
tion of the state after the Gallic in-
vasion redounds to the imperishable
honour of its leaders and of the people
whom they led.'

A curious parallel to St Paul's lan-
guage occurs in Dion Chrysost. Or.
xxv. 'A\eav5pos [rous Ma/ceSoi/as] ei's
TTJV 'A<riav e^ayayuv afj.a fih TrXoimw-
rdrovs curdvTwv avOpuiruv dirtdeit-ev a/j.a

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA. 249

itself felt in the converts gained for Christianity from that
region. The Macedonian Churches are honourably distinguished
above all others by their fidelity to the Gospel and their affec-
tionate regard for St Paul himself. While the Church of
Corinth disgraced herself by gross moral delinquencies, while the
Galatians bartered the liberty of the Gospel for a narrow
formalism, while the believers of Ephesus drifted into the wild-
est speculative errors, no such stain attaches to the brethren of
Philippi and Thessalonica. It is to the Macedonian congrega-
tions that the Apostle ever turns for solace in the midst of his
severest trials and sufferings. Time seems not to have chilled
these feelings of mutual affection. The Epistle to the Philip-
pians was written about ten years after the Thessalonian letters.
It is the more surprising therefore that they should resemble
each other so strongly in tone. In both alike St Paul drops
his official title at the outset, not wishing to assert his Apostolic
authority where he could appeal to the higher motive of love.
In both he opens his letter with a heartfelt thanksgiving ex-
pressed in terms of highest commendation. In both Epistles
he speaks of his converts as his 'crown and joy 1 ': in both he
appeals freely to his personal example : and in both he adopts
throughout the same tone of confidence and affection. In this
interval of ten years we meet with one notice of the Macedonian
Churches. It is conceived in terms of unmeasured praise. The
Macedonians had been called upon to contribute to the wants
of their poorer brethren in Judsea, who were suffering from
famine. They had responded nobly to the call. Deep-sunk in
poverty and sorely tried by persecution, they came forward
with eager joy and poured out the riches of their liberality,
straining their means to the utmost in order to relieve the
sufferers. * They exceeded our expectations/ says the Apostle ;
1 they gave themselves to the Lord, and to us by the will of

5e TrevixporaTovs, /cat apa fj.ev i<rxvpoti$ and the beginning of the second cen-

o>a de affdevels, <j>vyd8as re Kal a<ri- tury A.D.

Xe'as TOL-S airrouy, comp. 2 Cor. vi. 10. J 1 Thess. ii. 19 ; Phil. iv. 1.
Dion flourished at the close of the first

250 THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA.

God 1 .' We may imagine that the people still retained some-
thing of those simpler habits and that sturdier character, which
triumphed over Greeks and Orientals in the days of Philip and
Alexander, and thus in the early warfare of the Christian Church
the Macedonian phalanx offered a successful resistance to the
assaults of an enemy, before which the lax and enervated ranks
of Asia and Achaia had yielded ignominiously.

1 2 Cor. viii. 1-5.

[1863.]

VII.
THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.

Printed from Lecture-notes.

VII.

THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.

rilHE ancient name of Thessalonica 1 was Therme or Therma 2
- 'the hot-spring,' and there are still warm springs in the
neighbourhood, though not at Thessalonica itself 3 . At the
time of the Persian invasion it was apparently only a small
town 4 , but it gradually grew in importance and appears
occasionally in history. It was at all events sufficiently
influential to give its name to the bay on which it stood 5 .

On the site of Therma, the city of Thessalonica 6 was
founded by Cassander. It was probably at the same time that
he rebuilt the city of Potidaea 7 . If so, the date of the

1 On the geography and antiquities
of Thessalonica, see Cousinery Voyage
dans la Macedoine i. p. 23 sq. (1831);
Leake Northern Greece in. p. 235 sq.
(1835) ; Koch Comm. ill. den ersten
Brief an die Thessalonicher (1855)
Einleit. 1, 2 ; Tafel Historia Thessa-
lonicae (Tubing. 1835) and de Thessa-
lonica dissertatio geographica (Berl.
1839) ; Pococke Description of the East
n. (2) p. 148 sq. (1743) ; Belley Obser-
vations sur I'histoire et sur les monu-
ments de la ville Thessalonique; Texier
Description de VAsie Mineure (1839-
49) ; and for its ecclesiastical history
Texier Byzantine Church p. Ill sq.
(1864). I have not been able to in-
vestigate the work by Burgerhoudt de
coetus Christ. Thessalonicensis ortu
(1825), referred to by Koch, p. 8.

a ^Ischines (de Fals. Legat. 31,
36) calls it e^p/xo, Herodotus (vii. 121,
123 etc.), Thucydides (i. 61, ii. 29)
and Scylax (Geog. Min. p. 26 ed.
Hudson) Qtp/j.1).

3 See Tafel H. Th., p. 3, and Pococke,
p. 149, quoted by Koch, p. 2. For the
name compare Crenides, 'Wells,' the
ancient name of Philippi.

4 So Tafel (p. 13), but Herodotus
(vii. 127) speaks of it as a Tr6\is.

5 Herod, vii. 121.

6 The Greek form is Qea-o-aXoviicr]
(Steph. Byzant. s.v.), or -/ceia (Strabo
vii. 10).

The name Thessalonica first occurs
in Polybius (xxiii. 4. 4, 11. 2, xxix. 3.
7).

7 Diod. Sic. xix. 52.

254 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.

foundation of the new city was apparently about the year B.C.
315 l . Therma was named Thessalonica after Cassander's wife,
the daughter of Philip and half-sister of Alexander : Potidsea
he called Cassandreia 2 after his own name. Of the twin cities
Thessalonica was destined far to outstrip her rival 3 .

Its natural advantages were indeed great, both as regards
the sea and as regards the land. It was situated, as Pliny
describes it 4 , in the middle of the bend of the Theraiaic gulf.
It had a good natural harbour, so excellent indeed that Xerxes,
when on his march against Greece, had chosen it as his naval
station 5 . Its dockyards are mentioned by Livy 6 . Nor did its
excellence as a military and commercial centre fall short of the
prominence which its situation as a seaport gave to it. It was
the key to the whole of Macedonia. It commanded by a
good land route the two levels the level of the plain of the
Strymon on the one hand, and on the other the level of the con-
verging plains of the Axius, Haliacmon and Echedorusl It was
likewise conveniently situated with respect to that excrescence
of Macedonia, the Chalcidic peninsula. For the purpose of
inter-communication with more distant centres its situation
was all that could be desired. The Via Egnatia 8 , that great

1 See Niebuhr Ethnol. i. 293. salonica. All three are given in a pas-

2 Cassandreia was probably his capi- sage of Tzetzes quoted by Tafel (p. 5).
tal. Tafel (p. 8) quotes a coin KACAN- 4 Pliny N. H. iv. 10. 17 'medio
Apoy Oecc<\AONiKHC. Both however litoris flexus [sinus Thermaici].'
attained great prominence ; thus Livy 5 Herod, vii. 121.

xlv. 30 says ' Secunda pars celeberrimas c Livy xliv. 10. In a moment of

urbes Thessalonicam et Cassandream despair Perseus had ordered them to

habet.' be burnt. Five centuries later Con-

3 Another account of the city is that stantine the Great, on the eve of his
it was founded by Philip to commemo- conflict with Licinius (A.D. 322), had
rate a victory over the Thessalians. the harbour enlarged for the reception
This does not deserve any credit. It of nis fleet (Zosimus Hist. ii. 22).
appears first in Julian Orat. iii. about 7 On the fertility of the Macedonian
seven centuries after the event, and it P lain see Cousine'ry n. p. 5, Perrot in
is there given as a conjecture. In tne Revue Archeologique (1860) n. p.
later writers it takes its place with the 49 and compare Appian Bell. Civ.
other account, e.g. Steph. Byzant. s.v. iv - P- 105 > Athen. xv. p. 682 B.

A third story combines the two former. 8 On this g reat military road see a
It represents the city as founded by treatise of Tafel De via militari Roma-
Philip in honour of his daughter Thes- norum Egnatia (Tubing. 1837).

THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 255

highroad between Italy and the East which spanned the
peninsula, passed through its walls an advantage the full
force of which is appreciated only when we recollect that
owing to the imperfect knowledge of navigation of the ancients,
communication by sea was at all times precarious, and at some
seasons of the year entirely closed. Such advantages fully
justified Cicero's description of its inhabitants as ' lying in the
lap ' of the Roman Empire 1 .

The city grew and flourished. In Strabo's time, a genera-
tion or two before St Paul, it was the most populous of the
Macedonian cities 2 . A century later than the Apostle, Lucian
speaks to the same effect 3 . And in spite of invasion, misrule
and disaster, it has enjoyed from that time to this a continuous,
if comparative, prosperity ; fully bearing out Meletius' dictum
upon it ' So long as nature does not change, Thessalonica will
remain wealthy and fortunate 4 .' It narrowly escaped being
made the capital of the world 5 . At one time its population
seems to have risen above two hundred thousand. At present
it has fallen to about a third of that number. It still retains
its ancient name, corrupted in Turkish into Selanik, in vulgar
Greek into ^akovUrj, but the educated continue to call it, as of
old, e(To-d\ovifC7) 6 .

In illustration of the history of St Paul's labours in these
parts, two points deserve to be considered (1) its political
status, (2) its moral and religious condition.

1. The political importance of Thessalonica commences
with the decline of Greece. It was the capital of the second of

1 Cic. de prov. consul. 2 ' Thes- Constantinople, Thessalonica is men-
salonicenses positi in gremio imperii tioned by Cedrenus (p. 283), and Sar-
nostri.' Cicero resided at the place dica by Zonaras, as the intended
when in exile (pro Plane. 41). capital.'

2 Strabo vii. 6. 4 rj vvv /idXio-ra rwv 6 Leake in. p. 238. In the West it
dXXwv evavSpei. was called by the early German poets

3 Lucian Asinus 46 ii.. p. 613 (ed. Salneck, Salonicia occurs in a twelfth
Hemsterhus.) 7r6Xews ruv ev yiaKedoviq. century Italian chronicle (Muratori
TTJJ /i7to-T?7s Qtaffo.\ovuir)s. Script, rer. Ital. vii. 875), but Sa-

4 Cousinery L p. 24. lonichi is the name by which it is

5 Gibbon ch. xvii. (n. p. 183, ed. now known in Western Europe: see
Bohn) * Before the foundation of Koch Einl. p. 3.

256 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.

the four districts in the first quadripartite division of Mace-
donia 1 . At a later re-arrangement of the province it would
seem to have been made the capital of Macedonia.

Its native poet Antipater about the time of the Christian
era 2 says of it

Sot x

On coins (though of a much later date) it is styled the
metropolis. In the civil wars it had the good fortune to take
the winning side, espousing the cause of Octavius and Antony 3 .
It would appear that it owed its privileges as a free city to the
services thus rendered to the future master of the world 4 .

Pliny speaks of it as liber ae conditionis 5 , and there are coins
with the inscription OeccAAoNiKecoN eAeySepiAc (or -pi A) 6 . In
the enjoyment of this constitution we find it at the time of
the Acts.

Its chief magistrates are 7ro\iTdp%cu 7 , a word not known
elsewhere in classical literature, but the account of St Luke is
remarkably confirmed by an inscription still to be seen at
Thessalonica on an arch at the western end of the town 8 . The
Politarchs appear to have been seven in number 9 . There is

1 Livy xlv. 18. Geographical Society, July 4, 1866, and

2 Jacobs Anthol. Gr. ii. p. 98, no. a photograph of it produced.

xiv. 9 Not six, as stated by Tafel, p. 21,

3 Appian Bell. Civ. iv. p. 118, followed by Dean Howson in Smith's
Plutarch Brutus 46. Brutus before Dictionary of Geography. The latter
Philippi appears to have held out to is correct in his article 'Thessalonica 'in
his soldiers the sacking of the city as Smith's Dictionary of the Bible and
an incentive to their valour in action. in his life of St Paul (p. 259). At

4 Tafel, p. 20. least there must have been seven, if

5 Pliny, N. H. iv. 10. 17. Boeckh's copy of the inscription is

6 See CousinSry i. p. 28 and the reff. correct, but no two copies that I have
in Tafel, p. 20. seen agree.

7 Acts xvii. 6. This inscription illustrates St Paul

8 The inscription is given in Boeckh and St Luke in other respects ; first,
C. I. G. ii. p. 53, no. 1967 ; Leake in the prominence given to women, a
in. p. 236 ; Cousin6ry i. p. 27 ; Cony- fact noted elsewhere [see Philippians,
beare and Howson (p. 258), and else- p. 54 sq.]; secondly, in the names, Se-
where. Quite recently a paper was cundus, Gaius, Sosipater, see above,
read on it by Mr Vaux before the Eoyal p. 246.

THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 257

mention also in this inscription of a steward (rayiua?) of the city,
and a gymnasiarch (yv/jLvacndp^^) 1 . There was likewise a
popular assembly (8fj/j,o?) 2 . The whole city then is essentially
Greek, not Roman as Philippi was. As a free city it was spared
the ignominy of a permanent Roman garrison within its
walls 3 .

2. The moral and religious condition of Thessalonica was
probably not worse than that of any ordinary Greek town,
perhaps better, for there was a more sterling moral basis in the
Macedonian character than in the Greek 4 . Still it would be
open to all the ordinary temptations of a Greek city and
especially of a Greek seaport. Against such St Paul had to
warn his converts both orally and by letter 5 . But no inference
of especial immorality in Thessalonica can be drawn from the
expressions which he employs. Scarcely a single Epistle of
St Paul is without similar warnings.

There was however one element of immorality in Thessa-
lonica which must not be passed over of immorality which
shielded itself under the protection of religion the worship of
the Cabiri, the mystic deities of Samothrace 6 . This worship

1 The date of the inscription is un- it also twice in the analogous case of
certain. As read by Boeckh, it has Ephesus (Acts xix. 30, 33).

the name P. Flavius Sabinus, which, 3 See Dirksen Versuche zur Kritik

as he truly remarks, points to a date iv. p. 140 sq. (Lips. 1823).

not earlier than Vespasian. As read 4 The story in Lucian (Asinus 49

by others, only the Sabinus remains. -56) has been put in evidence, as

Cousin6ry (i. p. 28) on very insuffi- showing a very low state of morals in

cient grounds assigns the arch to the Thessalonica. This is unfair, as Tafe]

age of Augustus, supposing that it was justly remarks (p. 25).

erected to commemorate the battle of 5 1 Thess. iv. 3-6.

Philippi. Leake (m. p. 236) considers 6 On the Cabiri see especially Lobeck

it to be later. The writer of the article Aglaoph. m. c. 5, p. 1202 sq. (and

in Macmillan'8 Magazine alluded to esp. p. 1256 sq., where he treats of

already (see above, p. 243) informs their worship in Macedonia), Creuzer's

me that it was his impression that the Symbolik und Mythologie m. p. 17-

inscription need not be part of the 36, p. 159 sq. (3rd ed.). The article

original arch. in Pauly Eeal-Encycl. der class. Alter-

2 The word 5%tos likewise occurs in thiim. n. p. 2, by K. W. Miiller, con-
St Luke's narrative in reference to tarns an abstract of the opinions of
Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 5 tffrovv av- the principal writers on this subject.
TOUS irpoayayeii' ei's TOV 8rjfj.ov). He uses

L. E. 17

258

THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.

had been patronised by Philip 1 , and by Alexander 2 . It is
especially identified with the Macedonians 3 , and more particu-
larly still with the Thessalonians 4 . About the time of St Paul
a political sanction was given to the worship or rather, a
religious sanction to the political system as derived from the
worship by deifying the Emperor as a Ka/3etpo<? 5 .

To these Cabiric rites, in which gross immorality was
promoted under the name of religion, we may suppose that
St Paul alluded, when he deprecated any connexion between
his gospel and uncleanness 6 , a disclaimer which happily
would sound strange from the lips of a minister of any religious
denomination now, but which is quite intelligible in St Paul's
day, when read in the light of the foul orgies of the Cabiric
worship or of similar rites 7 .

1 Plut. Vit. Alex. c. 2.

2 Philostr. ii. 43. 94.

8 Lactant. Div. Inst. i. 15, Summa
veneratione coluerunt...Macedones Ca-
birum.

4 Firmicus de Err. Prof. Eel. c. 11,
Hunc eundem Macedonum colit stulta
persuasio. Hie est Cabirus, cui Thes-
salonicenses quondam cruento [ore]
cruentis manibus supplicabant. Ca-
biric coins of Thessalonica are not in-
frequent (see Cousine'ry i. p. 28, PL i.).
On the Cabiric games see Tafel, p. 24.

Cousinery supposes that this wor-
ship was not introduced into Thes-
salonica before the reign of Claudius,
on the very insufficient ground that
no Cabiric coins are found at an earlier
date (i. p. 35 sq.). It is in the highest
degree improbable that a worship which
is especially connected with the Greek
kings of Macedonia should not have
found its way into the principal city of
Macedonia earlier.

On more slender grounds still he
finds a temple of the Cabiri in an
ancient building still existing (I.e.).

6 See the coins and esp. Cousine'ry
i. p. 38.

6 1 Thess. ii. 3.

7 On the Jewish population of Thes-
salonica something has been said al-
ready ; see above, p. 243. In the pre-
sent day the Jews are probably the
most numerous section of the inhabi-
tants. They have a quarter of their
own. Various estimates of their num-
bers are given (see Conybeare and
Howson, p. 383), the largest being that
of W. G. C. in Macmillan's Magazine
Feb. 1863, see above, p. 243. The
writer of the article informs me that
he heard it on the spot, on authority
that he cannot question. He adds
moreover that the Jews have an in-
terest in representing themselves as
fewer than they are, owing to the poll-
tax. Many of the Jews of modern
Thessalonica settled there in the fif-
teenth century, having been driven
out of Spain by the persecution in that
country, but they must have been in-
duced to settle there by the fact that
there was already a large Jewish popu-
lation. On the Eabbinical school at
Thessalonica see Milman History of
the Jews in. p.419 (ed. 1866), and on the
whole question see Cousinery i. pp. 19,
49 ; Leake in. p. 249 sq.

THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 259

Fresh from the insults and sufferings he had undergone at
Philippi, but nothing daunted, he arrives at Thessalonica 1 .
With the Jews he commences his labours 2 . On the Sabbath
day he enters the synagogue. The details may be supplied
from the similar scene recorded as having taken place at an
earlier period in Antioch of Pisidia 3 . The law and the prophets
read, he is invited, we may suppose, by the rulers of the
synagogue to offer a word of exhortation. He avails himself of
the opportunity, and preaches, arguing from the Scriptures.
He sets himself to prove two things : (i) That it was ordained
that Messias should suffer ; (ii) that Jesus whom he preaches
is the Messias. For three successive Sabbath-days (eVl rpia
<rd@/3aTa*) he preaches 5 .

Of his missionary labours in the course of the week St Luke
says nothing. We may supply the omission from his conduct at
Athens (Acts xvii. 17). He would appear in the market place,
engaging in conversation and trying to interest persons in his
message. The account of St Luke however is silent as to his
labours beyond the first three weeks of his stay. Had we merely
the historian's narrative we might have supposed that he only
stayed so long. It is plain however from the Epistles that the
length of his sojourn was much greater 6 . At the close of these
three weeks we may suppose that he devoted himself more
exclusively to the heathen 7 .

1 1 Thess. ii. 2. found favour with the ruler of the

2 Acts xvii. 1 sq. synagogue, as at Corinth. From what-

3 Acts xiii. 15 ; and cf. Luke iv. 16 sq. ever cause, however, he was allowed to

4 It matters little whether we trans- repeat his message.

late o-dppaTa ' weeks ' or ' sabbath-days.' We gather this (1) from the success

The meaning is the same, viz. that for of his labours among the Gentiles ; (2)

three weeks he repeated his preaching from the mention of the way in which

hi the synagogue on the sabbath. he was engaged, especially his working

5 We may imagine him doing so, as 'day and night' ; (3) from the notices
at the Pisidian Antioch, at the request given in Phil. iv. 16 of contributions
of some of the congregation who, inte- sent to him more than once (S.ira Kal
rested in his teaching, thronged about 8ls).

him as he left the synagogue (Acts 7 The incidents at the Pisidian An-

xiii. 42), and requested him to resume tioch are here again a parallel (Acts
his preaching ; or he may even have xiii. 45, 46).

172

260 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.

But meanwhile it was necessary that he should find means
of support. He did not wish to hinder the Thessalonians.
He did not wish to clog his message with the suspicion that
would attach to it, if he sought any return for his labours. He
would not appear to preach under 'a cloke of covetousness 1 .'
His wants were supplied in two ways, by the labours of his own
hands 2 , and by contributions received from Philippi 3 .

Meanwhile he preached zealously. He alludes more than
once to the subject of his preaching in the Epistles : and thus
we are enabled to supplement the notice in the Acts, already
alluded to, which refers mainly to his labours in the synagogue.

His preaching seems to have turned mainly upon one point
the approaching judgment, the coming of Christ. They
had been invited at their conversion to await the Son of God
from heaven 4 . They were warned that He would come, as
a thief in the night 5 . At the same time they were told that
many things must happen first, that Antichrist must gather
strength, that ' the Restrained must be removed 6 . Around this
one doctrine the Apostle's practical warnings and exhortations
had clustered. He warned them that they must suffer tribu-
lation 7 , the tribulation which was to usher in the end of all
things, the persecution from the power of Antichrist. He bade
them abstain from impurity lest they should find vengeance in
the day of the Lord's coming 8 . He had charged them to walk
worthily of God who was calling them to His kingdom and glory 9 .

But the flood of new experiences, poured in upon them,
threatened to unsettle the foundations on which the social
structure was built. In the immediate presence of the great

1 1 Thess. ii. 5, 7rpo0d0-ei ir\eoi>ej;la.s. preceding note) ; cf. rb v<rT{prj/u.a 2 Cor.

2 1 Thess. ii. 5, 6, 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. xi. 9.

8. The notice in Acts xviii. 3 refers 4 1 Thess. i. 10.

indeed to another town and to a few 5 1 Thess. v. 2, avroi yap d/f/3i/3<2s

months later, but will show what the otdare.

nature of these labours was. 6 2 Thess. ii. 5 sq.

3 Phil. iv. 15-18. This however 7 1 Thess. iii. 4.
was not the main means of support, 8 1 Thess. iv. 6, 7.
and is not inconsistent with the Apo- 9 1 Thess. ii. 12.
stle's language given above (see the

THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 261

crisis which was to change all things, why should they attend
to the petty details, the common avocations, of daily life ? In
the flush of fresh and glorious hopes, was it right, was it possible,
to care for the things of this world ? There were some, doubt-
less, who honestly drew this inference from the Apostle's teaching.
There were many who, without examining their own motives,
would greedily seize hold of so lofty a pretext for shirking the
manifold responsibilities of their social position. This restless
and feverish spirit had appeared while the Apostle was still at
Thessalonica ; and he had set himself to counteract it. He
told them that their true ambition should be to keep quiet, to
attend to their business, to labour with their own hands 1 . The
bread of the Church was not for those who refused to work 2 .
Laborare est orare is the true maxim of the Christian, be the
Advent far or near.

In such spirit the Apostle preached. Of the results of his
preaching we have ample evidence. ' His entrance in to them
was not in vain 3 .' They received the word in much affliction
with joy of the Holy Ghost*. The fame of their conversion
spread throughout Macedonia and Achaia, and 'in every place 5 .'
Among the Jews indeed his success appears not to have been
great 6 , yet among these two are mentioned by name, whose
faithful adherence to the Apostle is placed on record. Jason,
whose correct name was Jesus 7 , but who had assumed the
heathen name which most nearly resembled it, calls down the
wrath of his countrymen upon himself by entertaining the
Apostle while at Thessalonica. Aristarchus, another convert
from the Circumcision 8 , is his constant companion, suffering for
him at Ephesus, and apparently sharing his imprisonment at

1 1 Thess. iv. 12. 'louScuW, eireiffOrjo-av,

2 2 Thess. iii. 10. 7 Cf. Joseph. Ant. xii. 5. 1, 6 /*& ofo

3 1 Thess. ii. 1. 'bjcroDs 'I6.<rwva eavrbv fjifruvb^affev ; cf.

4 1 Thess. i. 6. also Aristo of Pella in Eouth R. 8. i.

5 1 Thess. i. 8. This is an indirect pp. 97, 107 ; and see the article by
testimony to the central position of B. F, W. in Smith's Diet, of the Bible
Thessalonica noticed above (p. 254). s. v. Jason.

6 Acts xvii. 4, rives <? O.VTW, i.e. ruv 8 Col. iv. 10, 11 ; see above, p. 246.

262 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.

Rome. With the proselytes and with the heathen his success
was greater 1 . It was from the last-mentioned however that the
vast majority of the new disciples were drawn 2 . They turned
from idols to serve the living and true God 3 . Among his
converts were many ladies of the first rank 4 .

These successes provoke the hatred of the Jews. They
enlist on their side the profligate idlers of the city, of which in
a seaport town there would be many, the lazzaroni of Thessa-
lonica 5 . They besiege the house of Jason, where Paul and his
companions were lodged, wanting to drag them before the
people, probably in the theatre 6 . Not finding them there, they
carry Jason and certain converts before the Politarchs. They
accuse them of high treason. They are setting up a rival to
the Roman Emperor, a king Jesus 7 . The main topic of the
Apostle's preaching had given the handle to their accusation.
He had, as we saw, laid great stress on the coming judgment,
on the kingdom of Christ. Ignoring or misapprehending his
true meaning, they represented him as setting up a temporal
kingdom 8 .

1 Acts xvii. 4, T&V re atfiontvuv \K.o.l\ occurred had he been addressing Jews
"EXXTrjvuv ir\7J0os TroAtf. The received chiefly or proselytes.

text is T&V re (repopfrw 'EXXfyuv 'of 3 1 Thess. i. 9.

devout Greeks ' i.e. of Greek prose- 4 Acts xvii. 4.

lytes (so also K). For this TUV re 5 Acts xvii. 5 'certain lewd fellows

ffepofjifrw Kal ' E\\7)i>wv is read by AD of the baser sort ' (A. V. ). This archaic

vulg. copt., but not by B, as Koch use of the word 'lewd,' as equivalent

states. This brings the account into to 'ignorant,' is not uncommon in

more direct agreement with the Ian- early English literature : ' the leude

guage of the Epistles ; and in its man, the grete clerke Shall stonde upon

favour may be urged (Koch Einl. p. his owne werke ' Gower Con/. Am. i.

8) that cre6yct'oi elsewhere stands by 274; 'the lered and the lewed' Piers

itself (Acts xvii. 17) for proselytes. Ploughman' 's Vis. 2100, and other in-

Koch refers to Burgerhoudt (p. 93) ; see stances given by W. A. Wright Bible

also Paley Horce Paul. p. 281. Word-book, s.v.

2 This appears from the evidence of 6 As in the riot at Ephesus, Acts
the Epistles. For (i) he addresses his xix. 29, 30, 31.

readers distinctly as having been con- 7 The exact parallel to John xix. 12,

verted from idol-worship, 1 Thess. i. 9, 15 is worth noticing.

quoted below, cf. ii. 14, 16 ; (ii) he 8 This is rightly regarded as an

refrains from any direct allusion to undesigned coincidence of a striking

the 0. T., which would certainly have kind. The history supplies the ac-

THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 263

The magistrates no less than the populace are alarmed at
these representations. They take securities from Jason and
the rest, as persons who had disturbed, or were suspected of
disturbing, the public peace. The Apostle had hitherto lain
concealed. Seeing that events had taken a turn so unfavour-
able to the continuance of his labours, he left Thessalonica in
company with Silas under cover of night.

These events occurred on St Paul's second missionary journey
probably in the year 52. From Thessalonica he went to
Beroea. Thence he was driven out at the instigation of some
Jews from Thessalonica, who, hearing of his successes there,
followed him. From Beroea he went to Athens, and from
Athens to Corinth. As he does not seem to have remained
long at either of these intermediate places, it was not many
months probably not many weeks after he left Thessalonica
that he entered Corinth.

But meanwhile his anxiety for his Thessalonian disciples
was increasing daily 1 . He had made more than one unsuccessful
attempt to revisit them 2 . The storm of persecution was
gathering while he was yet at Thessalonica. He knew that he
had left to his new converts a heritage of suffering. He had
warned them of what awaited them. Would they yield to
persecution and renounce their allegiance 3 ? At length the
suspense became too terrible. He could no longer contain
himself 4 . He denied himself the services of Timothy, and des-
patched him whether from Bercea or from Athens is uncertain
to visit Thessalonica and report to him of the condition of
his new converts.

The Apostle is now at Corinth; Timothy returns. The
report of the Thessalonian Church is most favourable. Their
personal affection for the Apostle is as strong as ever; and
undaunted by persecution they had remained steadfast in the

count of the charges brought against l 1 Thess. ii. 17.

him. The Epistles supply the matter 2 1 Thess. ii. 18 a,ira. KOI 5ts.

of his preaching (see esp. 1 Thess. ii. 3 1 Thess. i. 6 ; ii. 14, 15 ; iii. 3, 5, 7.

12 ; 2 Thess. i. 5). The two coincide 4 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2, 5.

in a very remarkable way.

264 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.

faith and in deeds of love 1 . It was as new life to the Apostle
to hear these glad tidings 2 . In the first flush of joy and
gratitude he wrote to the Thessalonians to encourage them to
persevere and to advise them on certain matters, where they
seemed to need his advice. This is the First Epistle to the
Thessalonians.

For notwithstanding that Timothy's report was so cheering,
there were some points on which they required correction or
instruction.

These points were as follows :

(1) The error, of which he had discerned the beginnings
while he was still in Thessalonica, and which he had striven to
check, had gained ground meanwhile. The very intensity of
their Christian faith, dwelling too exclusively on the day of the
Lord's coming, had been attended with evil consequences. A
practical inconvenience of some moment had arisen. In their
feverish expectation of this great crisis, some had been led to
neglect their ordinary business 3 . There was a spirit of restless-
ness manifest in the Thessalonian Church. The Apostle re-
bukes this.

(2) In connexion with the doctrine of the Lord's advent
another difficulty had arisen not a practical one, but a theo-
retical one which had troubled the minds of many. Certain
members of the Church had died, and there was great anxiety
lest they should be excluded from any share in the glories of
the Lord's advent 4 . The Apostle sets himself to quiet this
anxiety.

(3) An unhealthy state of feeling with regard to spiritual
gifts was manifesting itself. Like the Corinthians at a later
day 5 , they needed to be reminded of the superior value of
'prophesying,' compared with other gifts of the Spirit which
they exalted at its expense 6 .

1 1 Thess. iii. 6 ; cf. i. 5 sq. ; iv. 10. 4 1 Thess. iv. 13-18.

2 1 Thess. iii. 8 vvv fw/uej/ eav fyiets 5 1 Cor. xiv. 3, 4, 5, 22, 24.
<rr/iKTe. 6 1 Thess. v. 19, 20.

3 1 Thess. iv. 11.

THE CHCTRCH OF THESSALONICA. 265

(4) There were symptoms of a tendency to despise lawfully
constituted authorities, and generally a spirit of unruliness was
showing itself not unconnected, as I have already hinted, with
that independence of temper which was characteristic of the
Macedonians 1 .

(5) There was the danger, which they shared in common
with most Gentile Churches, of relapsing into their old heathen
profligacy 2 . Against this the Apostle offers a word in season.
We need not suppose, however, that Thessalonica was worse in
this respect than other Greek cities.

The letter was written partly to correct these errors, but
still more to express his satisfaction with his converts, and to
cheer them under persecution 3 .

Between the First and the Second Epistles no long interval
seems to have elapsed. Some information as to the state of the
Thessalonian Church has reached the Apostle meanwhile, by
what source it is not known. Some of the vicious tendencies,
which he had endeavoured to check, were still further developed.
And some misunderstanding as to his teaching had arisen.

To meet these he wrote the Second Epistle. The two
prominent points in the Epistle are as follows:

(i) Misapprehension had spread as to the nearness of the
Advent. It was maintained that the Apostle had declared it to
be imminent 4 .

(ii) The restless and unruly spirit, which he had before
rebuked, was gaining ground 5 .

At the same time, and not unconnected with these errors,
St Paul's personal relations with the Thessalonians had become
less satisfactory. His authority bad been tampered with, and
an unauthorised use was made of his name. It is difficult to
ascertain the exact circumstances of the case from casual and
indirect allusions, and indeed we may perhaps infer from the

1 1 Thess. v. 12-14 ; see above, p. s 1 These, ii. 14 ; iii. 2, 4.
248. * 2 Thess. ii. 1 sq.

2 1 Thess. iv. 3-8. 5 2 Thess. iii. 6-12.

266 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.

vagueness of the Apostle's own language that he himself was
not in possession of definite information ; but at all events his
suspicions were aroused. Designing men might misrepresent
his teaching in two ways, either by suppressing what he actually
had written or said, or by forging letters and in other ways
representing him as teaching what he had not taught. St
Paul's language hints in different places at both of these modes
of false dealing. He seems to have entertained suspicions of
this dishonesty even when he wrote the First Epistle. At the
close of that Epistle he binds the Thessalonians by a solemn
oath, ' in the name of the Lord,' to see that the Epistle is read
'to all the holy brethren' 1 a charge unintelligible in itself,
and only to be explained by supposing some misgivings in the
Apostle's mind. Before the Second Epistle is written, his
suspicions seem to have been confirmed, for there are two
passages which allude to these misrepresentations of his teach-
ing. (1) In the first of these he tells them in vague language,
which may refer equally well to a false interpretation put upon
his own words in the First Epistle, or to a supplemental letter
forged in his name, ' not to be troubled either by spirit or by
word or by letter, as coming from us, as if the day of the Lord
were at hand.' They are not to be deceived, he adds, by any
one, whatever means he employs (/cara /jirjSeva rpoTrov, ii. 2, 3).
(2) In the second passage at the close of the Epistle he says,
' The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is a token
in every Epistle: so I write' (iii. 17), evidently a precaution
against forgery 2 .

And not only so. If there were unscrupulous persons, who
tampered with his authorit}^ there were also unruly ones who
denied it, or were disposed to deny it. St Paul asserts his office

1 1 Thess. v. 27. j86\ou air6crTo\Oi ^t^aviiav yey{/J,iicav a

2 That such precautions were not /ntv eZaipovvres, a de TrpoffTidtvres ots TO
unnecessary is proved by the complaint oval KCITCU. ov davnavrov apa el /cat rdv
of Dionysius of Corinth (in Eus. H. E. KVpiaK&v padiovpyTJ<rai rtves tiriptftXyvTai
iv. 23, see Kouth R. S. I. p. 181), tin- ypa(j>wt>, O7r6re Kal rats ov rotavrais tiri-
irroAas yap a5e\<p&v a^Ldxravruf (J.e

ypd\f/ai Zypa\f/a. xai ratfras ot TOV dta-

THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 267

much more strongly in this Epistle than in the former 1 . Yet
still these were but slight blemishes on a Church with which
generally the Apostle was thoroughly satisfied. The errors were
confined to a few, and had not assumed a virulent form. The
Apostle is bound to thank God for the exceeding growth of
their faith and the abundance of their love 2 .

The Thessalonian Church is now but a very few months old
a little more than a year at most. From this time forward it
disappears from the Apostolic history. As regards the Churches
of Macedonia generally we have the Apostle's testimony to their
satisfactory condition, and we can well believe that the Thessa-
lonians were included in his commendation. But of Thessalonica
especially we know absolutely nothing. Even the name occurs
but twice in the New Testament at a later date 3 . One of these
passages refers to incidents within the period of its infancy
which I have already considered : in the other it occurs quite
incidentally. Neither throws any light on its condition.

And this is true of its subsequent ecclesiastical history.
The Church of Thessalonica passes through a period of thick
darkness, from which it emerges at length in the fourth century.
So far as I know, there are but two notices of it during two
centuries and a half or more, and these are of the briefest and
most meagre character 4 . From Melito's Apology it appears that
the Emperor Antoninus Pius had written to the people of Thessa-
lonica, among other places, telling them to take no new steps
against the Christians 5 . This would seem to show an important
and a struggling Church at Thessalonica in the middle of the
second century. At the beginning of the next century,
Tertullian 6 couples it with Philippi as a Church where the

1 2Thess. iii. 14, 15; cf. ii. 15, iii. 4. 5 Melito Apology, pqltev

2 2 Thess. i. 3. -n-epl w&v (i.e. ruv XpurTiavuv). The

3 Phil. iv. 16, 2 Tim. iv. 10. passage is given above, p. 244, from

4 On the other hand Conybeare and Eus. H. E. iv. 26 : it has escaped the
Howson (p. 250) speak of Thessalonica diligence of Tafel, pp. 9, 30.
'boasting of a series of Christian annals 6 Tertull. de praescr. 36, 'apud quas
unbroken since the day of St Paul's ipsae authenticae literae eorum reel-
arrival. ' tantur. '

268 THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.

letters of the Apostles are read in the original. Of its early
bishops two are mentioned, Aristarchus in Bede's martyrology 1 ,
and Gaius by Origen 2 , if this latter be not a confusion with
Gaius of Macedonia 3 . It could boast of a martyr in the Dio-
cletian persecution 4 , and the church raised in his honour, the
church of St Demetrius, now a mosque, is the most splendid in
Thessalonica 5 . Nor does Demetrius appear to stand alone, if
an epithet ((friXo/jidpTvpes) applied to the congregation at large
be something more than a complimentary title 6 . More than
once the names of its bishops appear on the records of eccles-
iastical councils, and at the Council of Sardica (A.D. 343) its
bishop Aetius claimed for the metropolis of the people of Thessa-
lonica the consideration due to its importance and its population 7 .
While the glories of Antioch and Alexandria gradually pale,
Thessalonica rises into splendour. In the fourth century Theo-
doret in a striking passage 8 points to the city as the greatest
and most populous in the district. Its resistance to the suc-
cessive attacks of the barbarian hordes whether Goths or

1 On Aug. 4; see Le Quien Or. Chr. Roman. Vet.), by the Eastern Church
n. p. 27. on Oct. 26. His cult sprang rapidly

2 Origen on Bom. xvi. 23 ; see above, into prominence in the fifth century.
p. 247. He received the title of fAvpopXijTys

3 Acts xix. 29. from the streams of holy oil, which

4 The year of the martyrdom of were said to issue from his relics and
Demetrius must be fixed at A.D. 303 to cure diseases.

or 306, according as the Maximianus 5 Cousinery i. p. 41, Leake in. p.

mentioned in the acts of his martyr- 242.

dom (Anastatius Bibliothecarius p. 88; 6 It occurs in an anonymous writer

Photius Biblioth. 255) is considered quoted by John of Thessalonica (Act.

to be Herculius or Galerius. Simeon Sanct. iv. 48, p. 121). A little lower

the Metaphrast (for Oct. 8, pp. 90, down, one saint, a virgin called Ma-

96) and an anonymous biographer of trona, is mentioned by name,

the sixth century call him Maximianus 7 Canon, xvi. 'A^rtos e-rriffKoiros direv '

Herculius, but on the other hand he OVK dyvoeire otrola /cat ^77X1/07 rvyxdvei

is represented as having conquered ^ ruv Qeo-o-aXovtKtwv /^r/^TroXis /c.r.X.

the Sarmatiaus, which was done, not (Mansi Condi, in. p. 17; cf. Hefele

by Herculius, but by Galerius (Oros. Condliengesch. i. p. 577).

Hist. vii. 25; see Cornelius Byeus Theodoret H. E. v. 17, Qe<r<ra\o-

Acta Sanctorum Octobris iv. Brussels VIKT) 7r6Xts earl neyiffri) Kal Tro\vdvdpu~

1780). Demetrius' festival is kept by TTOS. The whole passage is impor-

the Western Church on Oct. 8 (Martyrol. tant.

THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 269

Sclavonians and the noble share which it took in the con-
version to Christianity of each successive tribe of invaders won
for it the proud title of ' the orthodox city 1 .'

At present its population represents more fully the creed of
the adversaries of St Paul than the creed of St Paul himself
the Jewish than the Christian faith. Only a minority of the
inhabitants are Christians 2 . But the memory of the great
Apostle lives and is honoured by those who deny the truths
which he first taught within its walls. Two pretended relics
of St Paul the city possesses in two rival pulpits which stand
in two of the principal mosques, and contend for the honour of
having been the place from which the Gospel was first preached
by the Great Apostle of the Gentiles 3 .

1 This title was given to it by (A.D. 1430).

Cameniata in the tenth century (rb 2 For a most interesting account of
6pd68ooi> avr^v KO.L elvat KCU ovo/juifetr- Jewish life in those parts, and on the
0cu 3). Tafel, who has studied the general relation of Judaism and Chris-
medieval history of the city with great tianity, see Eenan Les Apotres p. 284 sq.
care, couples it with Constantinople (ed. 1866). On the present ecclesiasti-
as the twin bulwark of Eastern Chris- cal organization of the district see
tendom. Though frequently besieged, Leake in. p. 250.
the city was only captured three times, 3 Macmillan's Magazine Feb. 1863
by the Saracens {A.D. 904), the Nor- pp. 314, 5.
mans (A.D. 1185), and finally the Turks

[1867.]

VIII.
THE MISSION OF TITUS TO THE CORINTHIANS.

Reprinted from the l Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology?
Vol. II. p. 194 sq. (1855).

VIII.
THE MISSION OF TITUS TO THE CORINTHIANS.

rilHE mission of Titus which occupies so prominent a place
in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, has been the
subject of much discussion with regard to its object and relation
to other communications of St Paul with the same Church,
especially the similar and almost contemporaneous mission of
Timotheus. The explanation here offered has not, as far as
I have seen, been anticipated ; it is certainly not the view main-
tained by the most recent critics, English or German. At the
same time it seems so far to recommend itself by its simplicity,
and to offer so adequate a solution of all the difficulties which
the problem presents, that it can scarcely have failed to suggest
itself to the minds of others besides myself 1 .

But perhaps it may not be superfluous to say a few words
on the previous communications of St Paul with the Church
of Corinth, not only by way of introduction to my immediate
subject, but also because they offer considerable difficulties in
themselves.

It must have been some time during St Paul's three years'

1 This paper had been partly writ- results were obtained independently,

ten and the substance of the whole and, where they agree with those of

collected, before Mr Stanley's book ap- Mr Stanley, are worked out more fully

peared. It was no slight satisfaction than his plan admitted,

to me to find that with regard to one I have alluded several times to Mr

main point, the identification of the Stanley's book in my notes, chiefly

mission of Titus with that of the bre- where I have had occasion to differ from

thren mentioned in the First Epistle, him ; but I would not be thought to dis-

the distinguished editor supports the parage so valuable a contribution to the

view here maintained. Though so far history of the apostolic times. I would

anticipated, I have ventured to send wish the same remark to apply to my

this paper to the press, because the mention of other distinguished names.

L. E. 18

274 THE MISSION OF TITUS

residence at Ephesus (from A.D. 54 to 57), that he received
information of the critical state of the Corinthian Church,
which he had himself founded a few years earlier. His presence
seemed to be required, and he accordingly crossed the ^Egsean,
and paid a short visit to the capital of Achaia, returning to
Ephesus to complete his missionary work there. This seems
to be the most probable account of St Paul's second visit to
Corinth, of which little more than the fact is recorded. For
though the circumstance is not noticed by St Luke, yet his
silence is easily accounted for, supposing it intentional, when we
reflect that his object was not to write a complete biography of
St Paul, but a history of the Christian Church, and that he
has accordingly selected out of his materials such facts only as
throw light upon Christianity in all ages representative facts, as
we might call them ; while on the other hand, if it be supposed
that he was unacquainted with the circumstance, this supposition
again is easily explained from the short duration of St Paul's stay
at Corinth, and the facility of intercourse between the two coasts
of the ^Egsean. At all events, there are passages in the epistles
(e.g. 2 Cor. xii. 14 ; xiii. 1, 2) which seem inexplicable under any
other hypothesis, except that of a second visit the difficulty
consisting not so much in the words themselves, as in their
relation to their context 1 . It appears necessary therefore to

1 I cannot think, for instance, that say nothing of the ambiguity of ex-
Mr Stanley's explanation of the context pression. His interpretation of 2 Cor.
of 2 Cor. xii. 14, rplrov TOVTO ero^ws xiii. 1 in relation to its context is
ex<> \0fw "7>ds vfj.as, on the ground of scarcely less objectionable,
the designed visit, is at all satisfactory. At all events, admitting Mr Stanley's
And yet he calls attention to the oppo- explanations as possible, it must seem
sition between the tenses KarevapK-rfffo. strange that the Apostle should twice
and KaravapK^ffu, which leads to the have veiled his mention of his designed
true solution, ' I have not been bur- visit under language which applies at
densome to you... I am on the eve of least as well (in 2 Cor. xiii. 1 rpirov
paying you a third visit, and I will not TOVTO fyxopai, far better) to an actual
be burdensome,' i.e. I will observe the visit, and in both cases have intro-
same practice as on the two former duced it in a manner which so rudely
occasions. But the appeal to his pro- interrupts the obvious train of thought,
jected visit as a proof of his affection On the other hand, 1 Cor. xvi. 7
(for this is Mr Stanley's explanation) is has been unjustifiably pressed into the
quite out of place in this connexion, to service. The words ov 6\u yap u/taj

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

275

abandon the opposite view, chiefly known to the English student
through the advocacy of Paley, who seeks to explain these
passages on the ground of a visit designed, but never actually
paid.

The Apostle's visit seerns not to have been effectual in
checking the evils which called for his interference. It would
appear that the shameless profligacy, for which the city was
proverbial, had already found its way into the Christian com-
munity. He therefore wrote to the Corinthians, warning them
to shun the company of offenders in this kind. This letter,
which was probably brief and of no permanent interest to the
Christian Church, has not been preserved, and we only know
that it was written, from a passing allusion to it in a subsequent
epistle 1 the First to the Corinthians in our Canon. It was
probably in this lost letter that he informed them of the design,

apn kv TrapbSy ISelv have been inter-
preted ' I will not now pay you a pass-
ing visit ' ; implying that he had done
so before, and, as St Paul on his first
visit to Achaia stayed eighteen months
(Acts xviii. 11), necessarily alluding to
a second and shorter visit. Against
this Meyer alleges the order of the
words, and de Wette repeats this
argument. So far as I can see, the
order would admit this interpretation
well enough, and Wieseler (Chron. p.
240) has a right to make use of the
passage in spite of this protest. The
real objection seems to be that the
natural, if not the necessary, antithe-
sis to dpri ' just now ' (when used of
present tune) is the future, and not
the past. On this ground I should
object to Mr Stanley's explanation,
* now according to my present, as dis-
tinguished from my late intention.'

1 1 Cor. v. 9 "Eypa\f/a V/MV ev TTJ
iri<TTO\T) /j.rj <rvvava.[j.i'yt>v<r6ai Trbpvots :
but as undue weight has been assigned
to these words, as showing that a pre-
vious letter had been written, it will be
as well to see how far they favour such

a view. (1) No such conclusion can be
drawn from the aorist eypa.\l/a.. That
this word is frequently used in refer-
ence to the letter in which it occurs,
any concordance will show ; I must
also confess myself unable to discern
the latent ' philosophical ' objections
to its being so employed, even at the
commencement of a letter (Davidson,
Introd. n. p. 140, ed. 1) ; the grammar,
at all events, seems unexceptionable.
Cf. Martyr, Polyc. c. 1 : typdif/a/j.cv
vfjuv, a5e\<pol, TCI, Kara TOVS /MipTvpri<ra.v-
ras, where the words occur immedi-
ately after the salutation. (2) It is
unnecessary to accumulate instances
to show that TJ tirurToXri may refer to
the letter itself. (3) It has been found
difficult to explain the allusion by
anything which has preceded. This
difficulty must be allowed: verses 2,
6, 8, do not supply what is wanted:
but is it necessary to seek any refer-
ence beyond the passage itself ? Would
it not be quite in accordance with this
epistolary usage of the aorist to look
for the explanation in the same sen-
tence, so that the corresponding English

182

276 THE MISSION OF TITUS

which he at this time entertained but was afterwards obliged to
abandon, of paying them a double visit, on his way to and return
from Macedonia (1 Cor, xvi. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 15).

How long an interval elapsed before St Paul again com-
municated with the Corinthian Christians, we cannot ascertain ;
but it was towards the close of his stay at Ephesus, that
he despatched Timotheus through Macedonia on his way to
Corinth, though apparently with some apprehensions that he
might not reach that city, and not long after addressed a second
letter to them the First Epistle of our Canon. This he
placed in the hands of certain brethren, whom he expected to
arrive at Corinth a little before or at any rate not later than
Timotheus (1 Cor. xvi. 10-12), so that they might return
together, and rejoin the Apostle in company. Have we any
means of discovering who these brethren were ?

It seems more than probable in the first place, that Timotheus
never reached Corinth, but was detained in Macedonia so long,
that he had not advanced beyond this point, when he was over-
taken by St Paul on his way from Ephesus to Achaia. At all
events he must have been in St Paul's company when the
Second Epistle was written, as his name appears in the salutation,
and there are sufficient grounds for concluding that this Epistle
was sent from Macedonia. But there are numerous reasons for

to the words Zypa\(/a V/MV ^ ffwava^iy- p. 35 sq.), but it is perhaps worth

vvffdtu would be, 'I write to you not while observing how completely his

to keep company'? argument founded on 1 Pet. v. 12 di'

The only substantial argument in 6\Lywv Zypa\f/a, which he finds it neces-

favour of a previous letter seems to be sary to refer to a former and shorter

contained in the words tv rfj eiri<TTo\rj, letter, is met by such passages as

which are quite superfluous in refer- Hebr. xiii. 22 dia ppaxtuv ^crretXct

ence to the First Epistle itself, and the fy*S Ignatius ad Polyc. c. vii. (shorter

comparison with 2 Cor. vii. 8 makes Greek) 5i' 6\iyuv upas ypa/j./j.a.Twi> irape-

the allusion to a previous letter even KaXeo-a. For not only is the aorist

more evident. This argument appears used in both these passages in a way

to be insuperable. which M. Bunsen seems to think inad-

I suppose that the Chev. Bunsen' s missible, but the writers have also

* Eestoration ' of the ' Former Epistle ventured to characterize their epistles

of Peter ' will carry conviction to few as brief, though they considerably ex-

German and still fewer English minds ceed in length that to which he con-

(Hippol. i. p. 24, ed. 2, inAnal.Anten. i. siders such a term inappropriate.

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 277

supposing that this was the limit of Timotheus' journey. In the
first place : St Paul himself in announcing this projected visit
of Timotheus to Corinth, has evidently some misgivings as to
its fulfilment, and consequently speaks of it as uncertain, ehv Se
<l\0rj TipoOeos (1 Cor. xvi. 10). Probably he foresaw circum-
stances which would detain his missionary on the way. Secondly,
Timotheus is represented in the Acts (xix. 22) as being sent
with Erastus into Macedonia, as if the sacred historian were not
aware of his journey being continued to Corinth. Thirdly : if
Timotheus had actually visited Corinth, he must have brought
back some information as to the state of the Church there ; and,
if he arrived, as was expected, subsequently to the receipt of the
First Epistle, he must also have been able to report on a subject
which lay nearest to the Apostle's heart the manner in which
his letter was received by the Corinthian Christians. But we do
not find this to have been the case. For while in the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians St Paul dwells at great length on
information derived from another source the epistle in fact
arising entirely out of this there is not the slightest inkling
of any knowledge obtained through Timotheus on any subject
whatever. And fourthly, in one passage where St Paul is
enumerating visits recently paid to the Corinthians by the
Apostle himself or by his accredited messengers, the name of
Timotheus does not occur, though it could scarcely have been
passed over in such a connexion (2 Cor. xii. 17, 18).

For these reasons we may infer with extreme probability,
that Timotheus, finding it advisable to prolong his stay in
Macedonia, was prevented from carrying out his original inten-
tion of visiting Achaia, before he joined St Paul. For, though
each of these arguments separately is far from conclusive, they
seem when combined to form such a body of circumstantial
evidence, as fully to justify this verdict. Again, if this con-
clusion be admitted, it simplifies the problem, and the subsequent
communications of the Apostle with the Church of Corinth
become easily explicable. This consideration is of course not
without weight.

278 THE MISSION OF TITUS

On the other hand attempts have been made to impugn
some of these arguments. It will be as well to dispose of these
before proceeding.

In answer to the second argument, it has been maintained
that the journey of Timotheus to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22) was
different from, and subsequent to, his mission to Corinth. If
such a method of reconciling the accounts can in any way be
avoided, it should not be resorted to. The philosopher's rule
with entities should be the historian's with facts. They should
not be unnecessarily multiplied. Here so far is there from
being any necessity, that it is not easy to account for these
repeated journeys, which moreover in some degree perplex the
chronology, there being a difficulty in compressing all the events
within the given time.

In the statement on which my third argument is based,
I am at issue with Wieseler (Chron. p. 58) in a matter of fact.
I can therefore only state the case and leave it for the judgment
of others. He argues thus. The language with which the
Epistle opens (i. 12 ii. 11) was evidently prompted by St Paul's
distress at the opposition which his former letter had occasioned.
Now this language describes his state of mind before the arrival
of Titus. Therefore some other messenger must have reached
him meanwhile from Corinth. Who can this messenger have
been but Timotheus ? With Wieseler's hypothesis as to the
composition of the Second Epistle, built upon the argument
here given, I have no concern. The argument itself too is
unexceptionable, if the premise be once allowed. But does not
his statement arise from an entire misconception ? I believe
ordinary readers will discern no such traces of tidings received
before the arrival of Titus. They will read in the opening of
the Second Epistle nothing more than the vague apprehensions
and misgivings, which would naturally arise in the Apostle's mind
as to the manner in which a condemnatory letter, expressed in
such fearless and uncompromising language written moreover
in much affliction and anguish of spirit (2 Cor. ii. 4) would be
received in a community where the most flagrant irregularities

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 279

prevailed, and where his own apostolic authority was denied by
a considerable number, and perverted to factious purposes by
others. Surely the language would have been far different ; his
fears would have been far more clearly defined, if he had actually
received tidings ; especially if these tidings had been brought
by a messenger as trustworthy as Timotheus.

The fourth argument has been answered on the supposition
that St Paul in 2 Cor. xii. 17, 18 is only speaking of those who
took part in the collection of alms, and that, as the mission of
Timotheus was quite independent of any such object, his name
is properly omitted. But where does it appear that the list of
names is so restricted ? The word 67r\eovKTr)<rv, judging from
the context, seems to refer rather to the abuse of the Corinthians'
hospitality, than to the gathering of the contributions. Meyer
again accounts for the omission of Timotheus' name on the
ground that only the most recent visits to Corinth are here
alluded to. Yet granting that his view is true, as probably it
is, still the visit of Timotheus must have preceded that of Titus
by a few weeks at most, and could not have been omitted on this
account. The same able critic even considers that any mention
at all of Timotheus in the third person would be quite out
of place, when his name is found in the superscription of the
letter (on 2 Cor. xii. 18, cf. EM. 1); and Mr Alford urges
the same argument, though less strongly (Vol. II. Prol. p. 56).
It is a sufficient reply to Meyer to observe that, whether
out of place or not, it is what St Paul has done elsewhere
(e.g. 1 Thess. iii. 3, 6), and what therefore he might be sup-
posed to do here.

On the other hand, the direct arguments which have been
employed by those who consider it improbable that Timotheus
should have abandoned his design, do not seem to have much
force. Mr Alford for instance considers the purpose of his
mission as stated in 1 Cor. iv. 17, to be 'too plain and precise
to be lightly given up/ That the mission should have been
entirely abandoned is certainly unlikely. That it should have
been transferred to other hands, when it was found incompatible

280 THE MISSION OF TITUS

with the discharge of Timotheus' duties in Macedonia, so far
from being an improbable supposition, seems to commend itself
by its very probability. Again it is suggested by Meyer, and
here too Mr Alford endorses the suggestion, that the abandon-
ment of the intended journey of Timotheus would have furnished
another handle for the charge of fickleness against St Paul, and
that we should have found the charge rebutted in the Second
Epistle. This reason will probably not be considered of suffi-
cient weight to counterbalance the amount of evidence on
the other side. For if we take into account that the charge
would lie primarily at the door of Timotheus, and not of the
Apostle himself that St Paul in announcing the design had
expressed some doubts as to the possibility of its fulfilment
that the objects of the mission were not abandoned when it was
found impossible for Timotheus to carry them out and lastly,
that the messengers sent by St Paul in his stead had a satis-
factory explanation to offer to the Corinthians of this change of
purpose we can hardly suppose that the most captious of
St Paul's enemies would have thought it worth their while to
employ such a lame expedient to injure his credit. In short,
this case is no parallel at all to the circumstance of which his
opponents did avail themselves to bring him into disrepute
(2 Cor. i. 17).

On the whole then, so far from finding anything conflicting
in the evidence with regard to this mission of Timotheus, it
seems that, combining the hint of the possible abandonment of
the design in the First Epistle, the account of the journey to
Macedonia in the Acts, and the silence maintained with regard
to any visit to Corinth or any definite information received
thence through Timotheus in the Second Epistle, we discover
an ' undesigned coincidence ' of a striking kind ; and that it
is therefore a fair and reasonable conclusion that the visit was
never paid.

By whom then was this mission fulfilled ? At the close of the
First Epistle (xvi. 11, 12) certain 'brethren' are mentioned, who
appear to have been the bearers of the letter, and whom St Paul

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 281

expected to rejoin him in company with Timotheus. The Apostle
had urged Apollos to accompany this mission to Corinth (v. 12),
but he for reasons easily intelligible had declined, considering
that his visit would be unseasonable. Now there is no mention
of the names of these brethren in the First Epistle, but we find
St Paul subsequently after his departure from Ephesus at Troas
awaiting the return of Titus from Corinth with tidings of the
reception of his letter there (2 Cor. ii. 12), and falling in with
him at length in Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 6). From this we might
have supposed that Titus was alone. But from another allusion
to this mission in the Second Epistle we find he was accompanied
by a ' brother,' whose name is not given (2 Cor. xii. 18) 1 . What
more probable than that Titus and ' the brother ' accompanying
him of the Second Epistle, are ' the brethren ' of the First ?

But why is Titus not mentioned by name ? Might we not
rather ask, why he should be so mentioned ? His name never
occurs in the Acts. His influence on the interests of the Church
at large was probably not so great as that of Tychicus or
Trophimus, certainly not as that of Apollos or Timotheus. He
is brought into prominent notice in reference to the Churches of
Corinth and Crete in particular; but we should doubtless be
wrong in judging of his position in the Christian Church by the
special importance with which he is invested in regard to indi-
vidual communities. The fact that an Epistle of St Paul bears
his name leads us almost unconsciously to assign a rank to him
which he probably did not hold in the estimation of his con-
temporaries. Titus then does not appear to have had a church-
wide reputation at this time, and there is no reason to suppose
that he was known specially to the Christians at Corinth. If so,
the omission of his name presents no difficulty, and it is in

1 I am at a loss to discover why Mr rity, though I have not found any

Stanley says, ' This mission was com- confirmation), but this has evidently

posed of Titus and two other brethren ' arisen from a confusion with the sub-

(on 1 Cor. xvi. 12). The Syriac ver- sequent mission, mentioned 2 Cor. viii.

sion indeed in 2 Cor. xii. 18 reads the 16. Mr Stanley does not give his

plural ' the brethren ' (I assume this reasons elsewhere (2 Cor. viii. 16 ; xii.

to be the case on Mr Stanley's autho- 18).

282 THE MISSION OF TITUS

accordance with St Paul's manner to speak thus of his fellow-
labourers (2 Cor. viii. 18, 22). No doubt Titus' strength of
character was well known to the Apostle when he despatched
him upon this difficult mission, but it only approved itself to the
Corinthians during his stay among them ; and his earnestness
and devotion, while there, raised him so far above his colleague,
that St Paul in writing to the Corinthians subsequently speaks
in such a manner as to show that 'the brother' who accompanied
him had sunk by his side into comparative insignificance.

Titus then, we may suppose, had been selected by St Paul as
one of the bearers of the letter, that in the event of Timotheus
being unable to prosecute his mission to Corinth, it might be
fulfilled by one who would act in the same loving and devoted
spirit. But there is one link yet to be supplied. How did Titus
communicate with Timotheus ? How was it known that Timo-
theus would be detained in Macedonia ? Here we are left to
mere conjecture ; but it seems not improbable that Titus and
his companion took the less direct route to Achaia by way of
Macedonia. They certainly returned that way, and there was,
as far as we can see, no more reason for haste in the one case
than in the other. And if it was the apprehension of danger
which deterred them from crossing the open sea at that early
season of the year, they would have much more cause to enter-
tain such fears on their journey thither than on their return, when
the season was farther advanced. Probably the greater security
of the indirect route was thought to compensate for the ad-
vantage, in point of time, gained by sailing straight across the
-cEgsean 1 ; while the opportunity of communicating with Timo-
theus would be an additional motive in influencing their choice.

If the view here taken be correct, it will overthrow all
Wieseler's chronological results with regard to the interval

1 The movements of St Paul in the and he went by way of Macedonia,

following spring throw some light on apparently on account of the early

this point. He had intended to sail season of the year. He left Philippi

direct from Corinth to Syria. His de- /j-era ras ij/j-^pas T&V d^ua>j> (Acts xx.

parture however was hastened by the 6). Cf. Conybeare and Howson, n.

discovery of a conspiracy against him, p. 206.

TO THE CORINTHIANS, 283

between the writing of the First and Second Epistles. The facts
are few and lead to no satisfactory conclusion; but as far as
they go, they do not conflict with anything I have advanced.

The data for determining the relative chronology of this
period are these; (1) St Paul stayed at Ephesus 'for a season' after
sending Timotheus into Macedonia {eirea^ev 'xpovov, Acts xix.
22). (2) Timotheus had left before the First Epistle was written
(1 Cor. iv. 17 ; xvi. 10). (3) There is an allusion which makes
it not improbable that the First Epistle was written shortly
before Easter (1 Cor. v. 7, 8). (4) St Paul here declares his
intention of setting out to visit Corinth quickly (iv. 19). (5)
We also learn from the same source that he expected to stay at
Ephesus till Pentecost (xvi. 8) : and lastly (6) there is reason
to suppose that he was subsequently led to hasten his departure.
It is not evident indeed that his life was endangered by the
tumult at Ephesus 1 , but such an outbreak must have interfered
with his preaching, and rendered his further stay there useless.
At all events the language of St Luke places his departure in
immediate connexion with this disturbance, in such a manner
as scarcely to leave a doubt that it was determined by this
circumstance (Acts xix. 41 ; xx. 1). It is probable, therefore,
that he left before he had intended ; and this explains another
incident. We find St Paul, after his hurried departure from
Ephesus, expecting to meet Titus at Troas, and when he was
disappointed of this hope, advancing into Macedonia, where he
was ultimately joined by him. Wieseler (Chron. p. 59) uses

1 Wieseler considers it necessary to persecution at Ephesus, which must

bring Timotheus back from Macedonia have begun before the departure of

to Ephesus, because the plural in 2 Cor. Timotheus, and may have been shared

i. 8 seems to show that he shared the by him. St Paul speaks in the First

danger with St Paul on the occasion Epistle of his many adversaries (xvi. 9),

of the outbreak. The question of the and compares his struggles at Ephesus

use of the plural is beset with difficul- to a contest with wild beasts in the

ties; but, waiving this, the language arena (xv. 32). It is strange that

of St Paul (6\i\f/ews, fiapridr}/j.ev, ^|- edr]piofj.dx'ncr a should ever have been

airoprjdrjvcu) must refer to something understood literally, when the same

more than the mere momentary danger image is used 1 Cor. iv. 9 ws

arising from the uproar. St Paul seems various, on Qtarpov eyevridr}fji.ev .
to have been subjected to a continuous

284 THE MISSION OF TITUS TO THE CORINTHIANS.

this as an argument, that St Paul's departure cannot have
taken place much earlier than he had originally intended ; for
otherwise he could not have expected to find Titus so soon at the
place of meeting determined upon. This seems to be a mistake.
There is no reason for supposing that they had agreed to meet
at Troas. The true state of the case appears to be this.
St Paul had intended to await the return of Titus and his
colleague at Ephesus. Subsequently being obliged to hasten
his departure, he calculated they would have advanced as far as
Troas before they met. In this calculation he proved to be
wrong.

If this view be correct, the hurried departure from Ephesus
will obviously not affect the chronological question, which thus
assumes a very simple form. We have the period from the
writing of the First Epistle, shortly before Easter (if we may
lay so much stress on a doubtful allusion), till after the feast
of Pentecost, when St Paul expected to leave Ephesus, for the
double journey of Titus, to Corinth and back. I have supposed
that he went and returned by way of Macedonia. Even assuming
that he travelled from Macedonia to Achaia by land, the interval
is sufficiently great. Hug (Introd. II. p. 381) calculates the
single journey from Corinth to Ephesus at thirty-one days, but
then he allows a wide margin which is quite superfluous. But,
if it be thought that in this case more time would be required,
we may suppose that Titus took ship at some port of Macedonia
(Thessalonica for instance), as St Paul seems to have done on
one occasion on leaving Bercea (Acts xvii. 14 ; Wieseler's Chron.
pp. 42, 43), and returned the same way. This would be a
considerable saving of time, and the perils of the open sea
would in great measure be avoided.

[1855.]

IX.

THE STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION OF THE
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

A.
M. KENAN'S THEORY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS.

Reprinted from the * Journal of Philology ',' Vol. II. p. 264 sq. (1869).

ON THE END OF THE EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS.
BY DR HORT.

Reprinted from the 'Journal of Philology? Vol. in. p. 51 sq. (1871).

C.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Reprinted from the 'Journal of Philology? Vol. in. p. 193 sq. (1871).

IX.

THE STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION OF THE
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

IN the introduction to his recent volume on St Paul, M. Renan
has offered a novel theory to account for certain phenomena
connected with the Epistle to the Romans. If, for reasons which
I shall give hereafter, this theory seems to me to be unsatis-
factory, it is yet sufficiently ingenious and striking to claim a
fair discussion ; and, as the subject itself possesses great critical
interest independently of M. Renan's views, I gladly avail myself
of the opportunity to investigate it in detail.

The documentary facts which demand explanation, and
which have served as the foundation for several theories more
or less allied to that of M. Renan, are the following :

(1) In Rom. i. 7 one MS. (G) for rofc ovcriv ev 'Papy aya-
Trrjrot? eou reads rot? ovaiv ev ayaTrrj eoi) ; while in i. 15 it
omits the words rofc ev 'Papy. Again the cursive 47 contains
the following marginal note on i. 7, TO ev ( Pa)fj,rj, ovre ev rfj
egrjyijo-ei ovre ev rco prjr^ fjivrj/jLovevet, where however it is not
clear to what authority the scribe refers, though apparently he
is speaking of some commentator. Moreover I seem to see
other traces of the omission (at least in i. 7), which hitherto
have not been recognised. Though Origen elsewhere quotes
the common reading (n. p. 301, IV. p. 287), and though it is
given as the text in Rufinus' translation of his commentary on
this very passage, yet the comment itself, even as disguised by
its Latin dress, still appears to me to indicate that Origen here
had before him a text in which the words eVPayifl were omit-
ted ; ' Benedictio haec pacis et gratiae quam dat dilectis Dei ad

288 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

quos scribit apostolus Paulus ' (iv. p. 467). The same inference
also, if I mistake not, is suggested by the language of the Am-
brosian Hilary : ' Quamvis Romanis scribat, illis tamen scribere
se significat qui in caritate Dei sunt ' ; though here again the
text has ' qui sunt Romae dilectis Dei,' but with the important
various reading (in one MS.) of * in caritate Dei ' for ' dilectis
Dei/ These, it will be remembered, are the two oldest extant
commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans. Still further ; I
am disposed to think that the reading ev ajd-rrrj eou (for
ayaTnyrofc eoO), which is found in several other authorities,
has arisen out of a combination of the two readings rot? ovcriv
ev r Pft)yu.?7 ayaTTijTois eoG and TO? ovatv ev a^aTrrj eoi), and
thus bears indirect testimony to a still wider diffusion of a
recension omitting the words ev 'Pcopy. This reading occurs
in the Latin of D (the Greek is wanting), and in the two
oldest MSS. of the Vulgate.

(2) The ascription of praise, with which according to the
received text (xvi. 25-27) the epistle closes, occupies different
places in different copies. In N, B, C, D, f, Vulg., Pesh., Memph.,
^Eth., and in the commentaries of Origen, Hilary, and Pelagius,
it occurs at the end of the xvith chapter, as in the received
text ; in L, 37, 47, and by far the greater number of cursives,
in the Harclean Syriac, in the commentaries of Chrysostom,
Theodoret, and others, and in Cyril of Alexandria, its place is
at the close of the xivth chapter : in A, P, 17, Arm. (MSS. and
Zohr.), it is found in both places ; while in F, G, it is omitted
in both (a blank space however being left in G between the
xivth and xvth chapters). This variation of position moreover
is at least as early as Origen, who commenting on xvi. 25-27
writes : ' Caput hoc Marcion, a quo scripturae evangelicae atque
apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de hac epistola penitus abstulit ; et
non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco ubi scriptum est, Omne autem
quod non est ex fide, peccatum est (xiv. 23), usque ad finem
cuncta dissecuit. In aliis vero exemplaribus, id est in his quae
non sunt a Marcione temerata, hoc ipsum caput (i.e. xvi. 25-27)
diverse positum invenimus. In nonnullis etenim codicibus post

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 289

eum locum quern supra diximus, hoc est Omne autem quod non
est ex fide peccatum est, statim cohaerens habetur Ei autem
qui potens est vos confirmare. Alii vero codices in fine id,
lit nunc positum est, continent.' From this language we
may perhaps assume that the authorities for either position
seemed to Origen to be nearly evenly balanced. Whether in
'ut nunc positum est' he refers to the position which he
himself adopts in this commentary, or to the position which
was most common in his day, does not distinctly appear. He
makes no mention of any MSS. as having it in both places,
or (except Marcion's copies) of any as omitting it in both.
St Jerome however (on Ephes. iii. 5) speaks of this passage as
occurring 'in plerisque codicibus,' thus implying that it is
omitted in some ; but he may have been deceived by not find-
ing it in the place where he expected to find it.

(3) As appears from the statement of Origen just quoted,
Marcion's recension of the epistle closed with the end of the
xivth chapter. Moreover Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 14) refers
to tribunal Christi (xiv. 10) as occurring in clausula of the
epistle ; but, as he is refuting Marcion, we might reasonably
suppose that he here takes Marcion's own copy and argues from
it. On the other hand, it does not appear that he himself
elsewhere quotes from the xvth or xvith chapters of the epistle,
though the omission may be accidental. Neither is there, so
far as I know, any reference to these last two chapters in
Irenseus, but here also no stress can be laid on the omission,
as there was no special reason for his quoting them. Again,
Wetstein says, 'Codex Latinus habet capitula epistolae ad
Romanos 51, desinit autem in cap. xiv.', but later critics have not
been able to identify the MS. and thus to verify the statement.

To explain these documentary facts, as also to account for
certain phenomena in the closing chapters of the epistle itself,
various theories have from time to time been suggested, which
I shall here attempt to classify.

(i) BAUR, with characteristic boldness, denied the genuineness
of the last two chapters, or, in other words, accepted the recension

L. E. 19

290 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

of Marcion as preserving the original proportions of the
epistle (Paulus p. 398 sq.). This solution does not take into
account all the facts stated. Thus, for instance, it passes over
in silence the omission of the words ev 'Pai/jLrj in one or more
copies. For this reason it must be rejected on the ground of
external criticism alone. But again, when we come to examine
the xvth and xvith chapters themselves, whatever may be our
conclusion as regards their destination, we are forced to recog-
nise their genuineness. M. Renan expresses his surprise 'qu'un
critique aussi habile que Baur se soit contente d'une solution
aussi grossiere. Pourquoi un faussaire aurait-il invent^ de
si insignifiants details ? Pourquoi aurait-il ajoute a 1'ouvrage
sacre un liste de noms propres ? ' (p. Ixxi. sq.). If the argument
is just, the surprise is hardly reasonable ; for in spite of his ac-
knowledged ability, Baur's prompt method elsewhere is entirely
consistent with the rejection of these chapters. But indeed we
need not rely on this negative argument derived from the in-
adequacy of the motive for such a forgery. The style and the
substance of the chapters afford conclusive testimony, that we
have here not only the thoughts, but the words, of the Apostle
himself. To this it must be added that the incidental notices,
of which Paley has made use to establish the time and place of
writing, hang together in a manner which would suppose not
only the most consummate skill, but also the most minute
knowledge, on the part of a forger.

From this solution which maintains the spuriousness of the
last two chapters, we pass to others which, accepting them
as genuine, assume their displacement to a greater or less
degree. And here we may subdivide, according as these
chapters are supposed to have been addressed wholly to the
Romans or partly (at least) to some other Church.

(ii) Among those who accept the Roman destination of
the whole, but assume some displacement, is HEUMANN 1 . He

1 The views of Heumann, Paulus, des Brief es an die Romer 1833, as I
Griesbach, and Semler, are here given have had no opportunity of verifying
at second hand from Eeiche Erkldrung the references.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 291

supposes that the original epistle comprised the first eleven
chapters, to which were added two postscripts, xvi. 1-24, and
xvi. 25-27. The intermediate matter (cc. xii-xv.) formed a
separate letter to the Romans written on account of some
intelligence received meanwhile from Rome. The two letters
were afterwards combined (but not by the Apostle himself), in
such a manner as to throw the postscript to the end.

In like manner PAULUS (de Grig. Ep. ad Rom., Jena 1801)
offered another solution on the same basis. The xvth chapter
was a sort of supplementary letter, addressed to the enlightened.
The xvith chapter, written on a separate parchment, contained
recommendations of Phoebe the bearer of the letter to the
principal members of the Church, and instructions to her to
salute certain persons. Finding that there was space remaining
on this leaf, the Apostle availed himself of it to add some
directions to the presbyters. The doxology at the end belonged
originally to the general letter, but was afterwards displaced
when the several documents were put together.

Another hypothesis, which like the two last mentioned
supposes the epistle to consist of a number of Sibylline leaves
stitched together almost at random, is that of GRIESBACH
(Curve in Hist. Test. Gr. Epp. Paul. p. 45). He believes that
the original letter ended with xiv. 23, the parchment being
exhausted. The final doxology, xvi. 25-27, was attached on a
separate leaf. Another parchment contained the salutations
from certain friends of St Paul, with a benediction, xvi. 21-24.
St Paul then found leisure to continue the subject, where he
had broken off, in a postscript (xv.), to which he added another
benediction. A fourth parchment contained the names of the
Roman Christians who were saluted, together with a warning
against intriguers ; and here again a benediction was appended.
At a later date, when these various leaves were attached
together, different places were assigned to the doxology, and
in some copies it was entirely omitted.

The three solutions last mentioned, while disintegrating the
epistle, assume that all the component parts were addressed to

192

292 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the Roman Church. This is not the case with those which
follow.

(iii) SEMLER (Paraphr. 1769) supposes that the letter to
the Romans closed with the xivth chapter; that the bearers
of the letter were charged to distribute copies to the leading
members of certain churches which they would visit on the
route ; and that an authoritative list of these persons (xvi.) was
given to them at the same time. To these persons, not to the
Roman Church, the xvth chapter was addressed. The bearers
would visit Cenchrese, the residence of Phoebe, and Ephesus,
where Aquila was staying. The places where the others dwelt
are not mentioned by name, because they were well known to
the bearers.

Not very different is EICHHORN'S hypothesis (Einl. Th. iii.).
The parchment destined for the original letter, he supposes,
ended with the xivth chapter. A separate leaf contained on
one side the final doxology, on the other the salutations and
benediction. This formed the whole of the letter as originally
conceived. But some time intervening before it was sent, the
Apostle added on a separate leaf (which was interposed) certain
warnings and personal explanations (xv.). The remainder of
the present epistle (xvi. 1-20) was not addressed to the
Romans, but was a letter of introduction for Phoebe, perhaps
intended for Corinth. Phoebe forgot to deliver it, and took it
with her to Rome.

From these complex theories, which hardly deserve credit
for ingenuity, it is a relief to turn to simpler solutions. Allow-
ing the xvth chapter to stand as part of the Epistle to the
Romans, several critics have separated the xvith chapter from
the rest, and assigned it to some other letter. Thus SCHULZ
(Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 609) supposed it to be a portion of an
epistle written from Rome to Ephesus : and this view has been
recently adopted by EWALD (Sendschr. des Apostels Paulus
p. 428 sq.), who however restricts the intrusive fragment to
xvi. 3-20. On the other hand SCHOTT (Isagoge p. 250 sq.)
regards the xvith chapter as a congeries of fragments written

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION.

293

by the Apostle from Corinth to some Christian community in
Asia Minor.

It will be seen at once that in this last class of solutions
the documentary facts are entirely neglected, the theories being
built on certain phenomena in the chapter itself. But indeed
the same charge lies, though in a less degree, against all the
solutions enumerated under the heads (ii) and (iii). No regard
at all is paid to the remakable omission of the mention of Rome
in the opening verses ; and, as attempts to explain the textual
phenomena of the last two chapters, they are in most cases at
once superfluous and defective. At the same time they are
condemned by their highly artificial character.

I hope to show that M. Kenan's theory also must be rejected,
both as involving strong improbabilities in itself, and as being
more complex than the phenomena demand. But, in so far as
it grapples fairly with the documentary facts, it has a higher
claim to attention than the others.

M. Renan then supposes that the so-called Epistle to the
Romans was a circular letter, of which several copies with
distinct and appropriate endings were sent to different churches,
the body of the letter being the same for all. One of these was
despatched to Rome, a second to Ephesus, a third to Thessa-
lonica, and a fourth to some unknown Church. Our epistle is
the work of a later editor, who had these four copies in his
hands, and combined all the endings so that nothing might be
lost. The following table will show what parts of our epistle
(according to M. Renan's view) belonged to each of these:

Komans.

Ephesians.

Thessalonians.

Unknown Church.

i-xi.

xii, xiii, xiv.

XV.

xvi. 1-20.

xvi. 21-24.

xvi. 25-27.

In the last three some modification would be made also in the

294 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

first chapter. The mention of Rome (vv. 7, 15) at all events
must have been expunged.

M. Renan founds this theory of a quadripartite epistle on
the assumed fact that in the existing recension we meet with
four successive endings, xv. 33, xvi. 20, xvi. 24, xvi. 25-27. His
reasons for assigning the several portions to letters addressed
to the several churches above mentioned will appear in the
sequel.

The most convenient method of dealing with M. Renan's
opinions will be first to consider the difficulties which he feels
in the received view that the whole epistle was written to the
Romans and which oblige him to substitute another hypo-
thesis, and then to state the objections which lie against his
own theory.

The difficulties then, which M. Renan proposes to remove
by his theory, are the following:

1. Certain phenomena in the body of the letter are per-
plexing, if it was written to the Romans. He selects as in-
stances, the passages ii. 16, xi. 13, xvi. 25. Of these he says
that they are 'only moderately adapted to the faithful of Rome,
and would amount to indiscretion if addressed to these last
alone ' (p. Ixxiv.). This objection rests on the assumption that
the Roman Church consisted wholly of Jewish Christians ; an
assumption which I shall consider hereafter. At present 1 would
only remark that, inasmuch as the letter (on M Renan's hypo-
thesis) was specialized by attaching an appropriate ending and
thus became to all intents and purposes an Epistle to the Romans,
it is difficult to see how the ' indiscretion ' would be affected by
the fact that other copies with other endings were despatched
to other churches.

Again, M. Renan, building on the assumption already men-
tioned that the Roman Church must have been Judseo-Christian,
claims for his theory the merit of explaining ' the hesitation of
the best critics on the question whether the letter was addressed
to converted heathens or to Jewish Christians ' ; for on his
hypothesis ' the principal parts of the epistle would have been

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 295

composed to serve for several churches at once' (p. Ixxiv.).
The answer to this argument is the same as to the former ;
and to the same extent I must reserve what I have to say in
reply.

2. Moreover M. Renan thinks it surprising that St Paul
should have composed ' un morceau si capital,' ' having regard
solely to a church which he did not know and over which he
had not incontestable rights' (p. Ixxiv.). Considering the general
and comprehensive character of the epistle, it seems to me
that the church of the metropolis would naturally be chosen
for such a purpose, and that the Apostle saw a distinct ad-
vantage in addressing such a letter to a community with
which he had no special relations, so that he would run no
risk of being diverted from his aim by any personal in-
terests. But to this subject again I shall have occasion to
return hereafter.

3. When he reaches the xiith, xiiith, and xivth chapters,
M. Renan sees many difficulties in supposing that St Paul can
have addressed such language to the Romans. He regards it
as a departure from the Apostle's principle ' Each on his own
ground ' (p. Ixiii.). He cannot understand that one who is so
unsparing towards those who 'build on other men's foundations'
should himself give such bold counsel to a church which he
had not founded. He discovers a difference in tone between
these chapters and the xvth, which he supposes to be really
addressed to the Romans, and which seems to him to hold
gentler language. I am not sure that others would find out
this difference ; but if any such exists, the Apostle's own
words supply the explanation. In xv. 15 he himself apologizes
for speaking to the Romans c with over-boldness ' (roXfir^po-
-repov). But indeed, if this interference with the Roman
Christians be truly a violation of the Apostle's rule not to
build on another man's foundation, he has already violated
it in addressing to them a letter of instruction of which the
doctrinal portion is at least as peremptory as these special pre-
cepts, and he has expressed his intention of still further violating

296 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

it by paying them a visit and by communicating to them some
spiritual gift (i. 11). This argument proves nothing, because it
proves too much.

4. The opening verses of the xvth chapter also occasion
some surprise to M. Renan on the common supposition as to
the integrity and destination of the letter. They seem to him
merely to repeat and to enfeeble what has gone before. ' It is
hardly supposable/ he says, ' that they occurred in the same
letter' with the foregoing chapters (pp. Ixiv., 461). Moreover
* the verses 1-13 appear to be addressed to Judseo-Christians.
St Paul there makes concessions to Jewish ideas' (pp. Ixiv., 462).
These remarks seem to me to show a strange misapprehension
of the Apostle's drift. At the close of the preceding chapter he
has taught that in the matter of meats there must be mutual
concession and forbearance ; that the man who can conscien-
tiously eat may do so, but that in so doing he must take care
not to scandalize his weaker brother. At the opening of the
xvth chapter he turns round and addresses, not Jewish Christ-
ians who were too scrupulous about such matters, but ultra-
Pauline Christians who were only too ready to go their own
way and to ignore the effects of their conduct on others ; ' But
it is the duty of us the strong to support the infirmities of
the weak and not to please ourselves.' A comparison with
1 Cor. viii. 1, Gal. vi. 1, Phil. iii. 15, where there is the same touch
of irony in St Paul's language, will show the force of ofaiXo/juev
Se ^pels ol Svvaroi, as addressed to the extravagant disciples
of liberty. I am somewhat confident therefore that most persons
who will read the xivth and xvth chapters continuously, bearing
this in mind, will not only not agree with M. Renan, but will
find it difficult to believe that the two did not occur in the same
letter 1 .

Another argument, of which M. Renan makes use against

the Roman destination of these chapters, admits a still more

direct refutation : ' II s'y sert du verbe 7rapafca\w, verbe d'une

nuance tres-mitigee sans doute, mais qui est toujours le mot

1 'Es 1st unleugbar,' says de Wette, 'dass Cap. xv. 1-13 zu Cap. xiv. gehort.'

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 297

qu'il emploie quand il parle a ses disciples.' If this argument
is to have any force, it must mean that TrapaKdXco is never
used by St Paul except to his disciples. If so, he has forgotten
that it occurs in xv. 30, irapaica\& Be vpas K.T.X., a passage
which on M. Kenan's own showing was addressed to the Roman
Church.

It should be added that throughout his remarks on this
xvth chapter M. Renan is hampered by the hypothesis that the
Roman Church was Judseo- Christian. In one passage indeed
he seems ready to make a concession, for he speaks of the
majority as Judseo-Christian (p. Ixiv.) ; but this has no practical
influence on his argument. Yet surely the expression Trpoa-
\a^j3dveade d\\rj\ov^ (xv. 7), not less than the whole tenour
of the epistle, points to a mixed community of Jews and
Gentiles, in which it was the Apostle's aim to conciliate the
discordant elements. If the expression Christ a minister of the
Circumcision (xv. 8) points (as M. Renan justly infers) to Jewish
prepossessions among St Paul's readers, yet on the other hand
the Apostle's language a few verses below, xv. 15, 16, ' Remind-
ing you by the grace which was given to me by God that I
might be a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles,' shows
still more clearly that he looked upon the Roman Church as in
some sense Gentile, and therefore under his own jurisdiction.

5. The objections which M. Renan brings against the
Roman destination of the xvith chapter are partly his own
and partly adopted from others.

The Apostle, he urges, concludes the xvth chapter with a
benediction and a final Amen. This therefore must be the
end of a letter, since St Paul never adds salutations after such
a close (p. Ixv.). As he mentions the final Amen twice, it must
be supposed that he lays great stress on the occurrence of the
word here. We are therefore the more surprised that he has
not consulted the critical editions of the text. In this case
he would have found that a^v is omitted by Griesbach, and
placed in brackets by Lachmann and Tregelles. As the bias of
scribes is always in favour of inserting rather than omitting an

298 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Amen in such cases, and as in this place it is wanting in some
good copies (though present in the majority), these editors
have justly regarded it with suspicion. Deprived of the Amen,
the passage has a very close parallel in Phil. iv. 9, /cal 6 eo?
n}? elprfv^ eVrat /A60' V/JLWV (comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Gal. vi. 16),
which occurs in the body of the letter. But indeed doxologies
and benedictions, with or without the accompanying Amen, are
very frequent in St Paul, in other places than at the close of
an epistle, as e.g. Rom. xi. 36, Gal. i. 5, Ephes. iii. 20, 21,
Phil. iv. 19, 20, 1 Thess. iii. 11-13, v. 23, 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17,
iii. 5, 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 16, 2 Tim. iv. 18 ; comp. Heb. xiii. 20,
21. In some cases these occur immediately before the saluta-
tions, as in the present passage.

6. In the salutations themselves M. Renan finds the same
difficulties which have been a stumbling-block in the way of
others before him. He and they are surprised that St Paul
should salute so many persons in a church which he had not
visited, when he is so sparing of individual salutations in
writing to churches with which his relations are most close and
intimate. Let us ask in reply, What is the common experience
in such matters 1 Will not a man studiously refrain from
mentioning individual names where he is addressing a large
circle of friends, feeling that it is invidious to single out some
for special mention, where an exhaustive list is impossible 1 On
the other hand, where only a limited number are known to him,
he can name all, and no offence is given. This in fact is exactly
what we find in St Paul. So far as the data are sufficient to
establish any rule, it may be said that the number of names
mentioned is in the inverse proportion to his familiarity with
the church to which he is writing. In the Epistles to the
Corinthians and Thessalonians no individuals are saluted. In
the Epistle to the Philippians again there are no salutations
properly so called, though a special warning is addressed to two
persons by name and a commission given to another. On the
other hand, in the Epistle to the Colossians, whom the Apostle
had never visited, certain persons are saluted by name.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 299

This preliminary difficulty therefore is no difficulty at all.
But M. Renan proceeds there is great improbability in sup-
posing that St Paul knew so many members of a church which
he had never visited, that he should have had such intimate
relations with several of them, and that he should be so well
acquainted with their circumstances. In the case of almost any
other church such a supposition would indeed be improbable.
But Rome with its vast and ever-growing population of im-
migrants from the East, and especially from Syria and Palestine,
could not but contain a large number of residents known
directly or indirectly to one who had travelled so long and so
wide as St Paul. On this point let M. Renan himself be
witness ; ' By the side of the Apostles who attained celebrity/
he writes, ' there was also another obscure apostolate, whose
agents were not dogmatists by profession, but which was only
the more efficacious on that account. The Jews of that time
were extremely nomadic. Tradesmen, domestic servants, small
craftsmen, they overran all the great towns on the coast (p. 96).
Rome was the rendezvous of all the Oriental religions, the port
of the Mediterranean with which the Syrians had the closest
relations. They arrived there in enormous bands. . . With them
disembarked troops of Greeks, of Asiatics, of Egyptians ' (p. 97).
But again, when he examines the names in detail, M.
Renan is more than ever convinced that these salutations were
not addressed to the Church of Rome. On the one hand he
cannot find in the list any names known to have belonged to
the Church of Rome at this time, and to substantiate this
assertion he refers to 2 Tim. iv. 24, which, with some little
ingenuity, he describes as a 'passage which has its historical
value, though the letter is apocryphal. 3 I too allow the historical
value of the passage (though, if I thought the letter apocryphal,
I should hardly venture to build an argument on it); but I
cannot see that the mention of four other names and only four
in an epistle written from Rome after an interval of several years
throws any discredit on this earlier list, as a catalogue of Roman
Christians. On the other hand M. Renan finds in the list

300 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

' several persons who assuredly never formed part ' of the Roman
Church. Of these he singles out Aquila and Priscilla, remark-
ing that, as ' every one knows,' ' only some months ' (quelques
mois) elapsed between the writing of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians and the Epistle to the Romans, and that, when the
former was written, they were still at Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19).
Now it is just in a case like this that words should be carefully
chosen. Yet on M. Renan's own showing (and the fact can
hardly be disputed) the Epistle to the Romans was not des-
patched till the early part of the year 58 (see pp. 459, 498) ;
whereas the First Epistle to the Corinthians was written about
the same time or a little later in the preceding year (' probable-
ment a 1'epoque meme de Paques,' are M. Renan's own words,
p. 383) ; so that by the ' some months ' we must understand
' at least ten months.' Elsewhere indeed (p. 6) he places even
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians in the year 56, thus
making a longer interval ; but I presume that this is a slip
of the pen. Is there then any real difficulty in supposing that
they returned to Rome in this interval of a year more or less,
and that St Paul should have been made acquainted with their
return, seeing that his own travels meanwhile had lain mainly
on the route between Ephesus and Rome ? Aquila and Pris-
cilla appear first at Rome, then at Corinth, then at Ephesus
(Acts xviii. 2, 18, 19, 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19). Ail this M. Renan
admits. But he will not allow their return to Rome. This
would be ' leur preter une vie par trop nomade.' Why, does not
M. Renan himself afterwards in a passage already quoted (p. 275)
describe the life of these itinerant Jewish artisans and traders
exactly in this way ? Does not the narrative of the Acts dis-
tinctly assign to this couple a ' nomadic ' life, which indeed was
the direct consequence of the peculiar trade which they plied ?
But ' to bring them back to Rome, without their sentence of
banishment being rescinded, on the very morrow of the day
(juste le lendemain du jour) when Paul had bidden them fare-
well at Ephesus/ this in M. Renan's opinion is to * accumulate
improbabilities.' But how does he know that a special sentence

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 301

of banishment was pronounced against them individually or
that, if pronounced, it was not revoked ? On this point however
I will appeal to a witness, whose testimony ought to be con-
clusive, so far as M. Renan is concerned, acd who (I confess)
seems to me to put the matter in the right light ; ' These ex-
pulsions ' (the writer is speaking of the edict of Claudius) ' were
never more than temporary and conditional. The flood, arrested
for a moment, always returned. The measure of Claudius had
in any case very little result ; for Josephus does not mention it,
and in the year 58 Rome had already a new Christian Church '
(Saint Paul p. 111). But again, M. Renan, though he holds the
2nd Epistle to Timothy to be spurious, yet cannot refrain from
using it to increase the supposed difficulty, because in that
epistle Aquila and Priscilla appear again at Ephesus (2 Tim. iv.
19). Is it at all improbable that after an interval of nearly ten
years they should again revisit this important city ? They
were wanderers not only by the exigencies of their trade, but
also by the obligations of their missionary work. Why should
we deny them a rapidity of movement, which we are obliged
to concede to Timotheus, to Tychicus, to St Luke, to St Paul
himself ?

But ' this is not all. In ver. 5 St Paul salutes Epaenetus, the
first-born of Asia in Christ.' ' What ! ' exclaims M. Renan, ' had
all the Church of Ephesus assembled at Rome ? ' Let us dis-
sect this sentence. This 'all' in plain language consists of
three persons. Of one, Epsenetus, we do not know that he
belonged to Ephesus, but only that he was a native of the
province. The other two belonged no more to Ephesus than
to Pontus, to Corinth, to Rome, though about a year before
this they happened to be residing in Ephesus. But once again,
is there any improbability in imagining two or three Asiatic
Christians resident or sojourning in Rome ? Does not M. Renan
himself speak of the ' troops of Asiatics ' that flocked thither ?
And history teaches that this language is not an exaggeration.

' But/ M. Renan continues, ' the list of names which follows
is in like manner better suited to Ephesus than to Rome.' He

302 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

allows indeed that ' the earliest Church of Rome for the most
part spoke Greek ' : but he argues that in examining the Jewish
inscriptions in Rome ' Garrucci has found that the number of
Latin proper names was double the number of Greek names,'
whereas in this list ' of twenty-four names, sixteen are Greek,
seven Latin, one Hebrew, so that the number of the Greek
names is more than double that of the Latin.' To this objection
it would be a sufficient answer that St Paul's acquaintances
must necessarily have lain, not among the native Latin popula-
tion, but among the Greek and Oriental immigrants whom he
had crossed in his travels. But a little examination will show
that the argument is fallacious, even as applied to the Church
of Rome generally. A better test of its composition, than these
Jewish inscriptions, is the list of the Roman bishops in the first
two centuries. Analysing this list, we find that in a catalogue
of fifteen names (from Linus A.D. 67 ? to Callistus A.D. 219),
twelve are Greek, while three only (Clemens, Pius, Victor) are
Latin. After Callistus the proportions are about reversed ; the
Roman Church was becoming gradually Latinized and there is
a corresponding preponderance of Latin names. This fact illus-
trates the fallacy of M. Kenan's comparison. Garrucci's Jewish
inscriptions (I am repeating M. Renan's own statement else-
where, p. 106, note 3) for the most part belong to a much later
date than St Paul's age. We should therefore expect to find in
these, as we find in the Christian lists at the same time, an
increase of the Latin names at the expense of the Greek.

But among these numerous Greek names, which thus
create a difficulty to M. Renan, he especially remarks on the
fact that ' the names of the masters of houses, Aristobulus
and Narcissus, are Greek also.' This remark seems to me
peculiarly unfortunate. It so happens that we know of two
great ' chefs de maison ' at Rome about this time, bearing
these very names. The former was a Jew, a member of the
Herodian family, and therefore among his slaves and depend-
ents the Apostle was most likely to have formed friendships ;
nor is it an unimportant coincidence, as I have remarked else-

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 303

where 1 , that after the mention of the household of Aristobulus
the next person specified is one Herodion, whom St Paul calls
his kinsman and who therefore was a Jew by birth, while at
the same time his name seems to indicate a dependent position
in the family of this Jewish prince. Again in a foot-note M.
Renan for some reason or other (probably thinking of his name-
sake, the writer on prodigies, who was a native of Tralles) singles
out Phlegon, as a name more suited to Ephesus than to Rome.
Even the Trallian Phlegon however, who was a freed man of
Hadrian, resided at Rome : and in fact the inscriptions show that
this name was by no means of rare occurrence in the metropolis 2 .

On this point therefore I cannot but think that M. Renan
is entirely wrong, though he can quote the authority of some
important critics on his side. How far I have succeeded, I am
not competent to say ; but I seem to myself to have shown
elsewhere 3 that the names in this list are quite appropriate
on the hypothesis that the salutations were addressed to the
Romans, and that on this supposition alone they present several
coincidences which go far to establish its truth. I am glad
also to be able to quote on my side the opinion of a writer whose
bias would certainly have led him to take a different view,
if he had shared M. Renan's difficulty. Baur, who goes so far
as to deny the genuineness of the last two chapters of the
epistle, explains the salutations by supposing that the forger
inserted ' a catalogue of those who were known at the time as
the notabilities of the oldest Roman Church ' (Paulus p. 414).

' So/ M. Renan concludes decisively, ' the verses Rom. xvi.
3-16 (containing the salutations) were not addressed to the
Church of Rome ; they were addressed to the Church of Ephe-
sus.' ' No more/ he continues, ' can the verses 17-20 have
been addressed to the Romans.' The strength of his affirm-
ations seems at this point to be in the inverse proportion to the

1 See Philippiam, p. 173, where I three inscriptions, where this name
have interpreted the expressions oi e/c occurs, DCLXXI. 6, DCCLIX. 12, DCCCLVIII.
TWV 'Api<TTo{3oij\ov, ol K TUP Xa/MV(7ou 3, and all three are Koman.

to mean Aristobuliani, Narcissiani. 3 Philippians, p. 169 sq.

2 The index to Gruter gives only

304 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

strength of his evidence. He appeals here again to the use of
the word 7rapa/ca\a) (ver. 17) an argument demonstrably erro-
neous, even on his own showing, as I have already pointed out
(p. 296). He quotes the expression <f>' vplv %a^o>, which he
explains as ' the language of a master to his scholars,' not
remembering that St Paul uses a similar expression in writing
to the Colossians (ii. 5) whom he had never visited, and appar-
ently not entertaining any objection to the allied phrase ev%a-
piaTto Trepl TravTwv vfjitov (i. 8) as addressed to the Romans.
He remarks that St Paul knows the condition of the church he
addresses, and glories (se fait gloire) in its good reputation ; but
why should he not do all this in the case of Rome ? And thus
he infers 'il est la en famille.' Then by a rough and ready
method he argues that the verses could only be addressed to
the Corinthians or to the Ephesians ; and, as the epistle at the
close of which they occur was written at Corinth, they must
have been addressed to Ephesus. I seem to myself to have
shown that the reasons for questioning their Roman destination
are wholly insufficient to counteract the weight of external
evidence. But, I would ask, are there no difficulties in the
counter hypothesis that they were written to the Ephesians ?
Why in this case have the personal allusions no points of coin-
cidence either with the narrative of St Paul's long residence at
Ephesus which terminated not a year before, or with his address
to the Ephesian elders which was held only a few months
afterwards ? Why again is there no mention of Tychicus or of
Trophimus, who were with St Paul at this time ? Of the
benediction, which closes the 20th verse and which M. Renan
takes to be the conclusion of the Ephesian letter, I shall have
something to say presently.

7. The next few verses also (xvi. 21-24), containing saluta-
tions from divers persons in St Paul's company, 'cannot any
more than the preceding have formed part of an Epistle to the
Romans.' ' Why,' he exclaims, ' should all these people who
had never been at Rome, who were not known to the faithful
at Rome, salute these last ? What meaning could these names

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 305

of unknown persons have to the Church of Rome ?' As much
meaning, I would reply, as the names of the persons saluting
the Colossians could have to the Church of Colossae (Col. iv. 10
sq.). They might or they might not be known to the Roman
Church by name ; personal acquaintance was not necessary to
create Christian sympathy; and, being about the Apostle at the
time, they might well pour out their hearts in this expression of
good wishes. What more natural for instance than that Gaius
in whose house St Paul was staying, and Tertius who acted as
the Apostle's amanuensis, should join in the salutation ?

But M. Renan goes on to remark, as an important fact, that
the names mentioned in these verses ' are all names of Mace-
donians or of persons who might have known the Churches of
Macedonia.' Will this statement bear examination? Eight
names are mentioned in all. Of Tertius the amanuensis and
Quartus 'the brother' we know nothing. Of Lucius also we
are equally ignorant, unless he be the Lucius of Cyrene men-
tioned Acts xiii. 1, in which case he is as likely to have had
relations with Rome as with Thessalonica. Timotheus, it is
true, was well known in Macedonia ; but as the constant com-
panion of the Apostle, his fame must have reached Rome also.
Erastus too, himself a Corinthian, had accompanied the Apostle
on a missionary visit to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22); but the
descriptive addition, ' the steward of the city,' is much more ap-
propriate, if addressed to those to whom his name was unknown
or scarcely known, than to those with whom he was personally
acquainted. Gaius of Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14) again (for he must
not be confused with Gaius of Macedonia, Acts xix. 29) had so
far as we are aware no personal relations with Macedonia.
Thus as regards six out of the eight persons sending salutations,
M. Renan's remark has no force. The remaining two, Jason
and Sosipater, were seemingly Macedonians. The former may
be identified with St Paul's host at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 5
sq. (though the name, as a Grecized form of Jesus or Joshua, is
common among Hellenist Jews at this date) ; and the latter is
most probably ' Sopater the son of PyTrhus the Bercean,' who
L. E. 20

306 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

accompanied St Paul when he left Corinth on this occasion 1 and
was probably with him now. Both these however, as faithful
friends and constant attendants of the Apostle, might very well
append their salutations to his letter. On the other hand there
is no mention of Aristarchus and Secundus the Thessalonians,
who were with St Paul at this time (Acts xx. 4) 2 , as might have
been expected in a letter written to Thessalonica.

At this point again M. Renan calls attention to the benedic-
tion in xvi. 24 and adds, ' verse 24 is the conclusion of a letter.
The verses xvi. 21-24 may therefore be an end of a letter ad-
dressed to the Thessalonians.' He has failed to observe that
this benediction is wanting in the best critical editions, but to
this matter I shall have to revert presently.

8. Thus we have arrived at the close of M. Kenan's third
epistle. His fourth is suggested by the documentary evidence.
As the final doxology, xvi. 25-27, is found in many copies at
the close of the xivth chapter, he concludes that it must have
occurred in this place in one of the four copies of the circular
letters which were welded together to form our recension. His
fourth epistle in fact coincides in limits with Baur's Epistle to
the Romans, though M. Renan himself supposes it to have been
addressed to some unknown church. How much nearer to
probability this part of his theory approaches than the rest,
I hope to show hereafter.

I have thus examined in detail M. Renan's objections to
the integrity of the letter, considered as addressed to the
Romans; and, if I mistake not, have reduced them to very small
dimensions. Every complex historical fact involves some im-
probabilities, prior to evidence; and in this case such impro-
babilities as remain are not greater than we might reasonably
expect. On the other hand the direct documentary evidence is

1 Acts xx. 4, SciTrarpos TLtppov Be- that he was not the only person of the

potatos, the correct reading. The very name about St Paul at this time,

fact however that St Luke takes such 2 M. Eenan himself makes them

pains to identify him, seems to show accompany him to Corinth (p. 458).

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 307

exceptionally strong here, as this epistle seems to have been
more widely known from the very earliest ages than any of
St Paul's letters, and therefore the probability of such a
manipulation as he supposes having occurred without leaving
any traces in the MSS. is correspondingly diminished.

This examination has also brought out incidentally the pos-
itive grounds on which M. Renan constructs his own theory,
and they have been severally considered. One point however
has been reserved. The quadripartite character of the closing
chapters of this epistle is a remarkable fact, if true, and indeed
may be regarded as the foundation of his theory. If it fails,
the theory must crumble and fall. I propose therefore to ask
whether the epistle has or has not these four distinct endings.

Inasmuch as the establishment of this fact is all important
to his theory, it is strange that M. Renan should not have
glanced beyond the received text, except to suggest (with what
bearing, it does not appear) a possible fifth ending ; ' Nous
arrivons done a ce singulier resultat que 1'epitre finit quatre
fois, et dans le Codex Alexandrinus cinq fois' (p. Ixxi.; comp.
p. 461).

These four endings then (in the received text) are :
(1) xv. 33 o Se eo9 rfjs eiprpHfi fjuera TTOLVTCDV V

(2) xvi. 20 77 %tt/H9 rov Kvpiov r)/j,(t)v 'ITJCTOV ^picrrov

V/JLWV.

(3) xvi. 24 77 %/3t? rov K.vpiov rj^wv 'Irjo-ov Xpto-roO

TTCLVTWV

(4) xvi. 2527

v, &> 77

Now the first of these has not the character of St Paul's
final benedictions at all. The d^rjv (this is a matter of little
moment) is, as I have pointed out already, open to grave sus-
picion (see p. 297). The form of the prayer has many parallels
in the body of the Apostle's letters, as I have also shown. But

202

308 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the final benedictions in every other instance are framed on the
type of (2) or (3) 77 %o/ot? tf.r.X., consisting of more or fewer
words, but preserving this characteristic feature. Any one who
reads in succession the concluding benedictions of all St Paul's
epistles will, I think, feel the force of this argument.

The second and third do exhibit the character of final bene-
dictions. But here M. Kenan has made an important oversight 1 .
The two editors, to whom we are indebted for the best texts,
Lachmann and Tregelles, omit the third. In fact a comparison
of the oldest uncials will show, that these two benedictions are
in reality the same, which occupies one or other place in the
better authorities, but which in later copies is sometimes in-
serted in both. Thus we have to make a choice between xvi.
20 and xvi. 24, but we cannot retain both. In this respect the
phenomena of this benediction present an exact parallel to those
which attend the position of the long doxology (xvi. 25-27), as
given above, p. 288.

The following is a conspectus of the facts relating to this
benediction.

xvi. 20 77 %apt? rov Kvplov fjfjutov 'Irjaov [Xpio-rov]

ins. X, A, B ; C, rel., Orig.

om. D, F, G.

xvi. 24 17 X^P^ T v Kvpiov rjfjiwv 'lyo-ov X/oto-roi)

iravTtov VIJLWV. dfj,r/v.

om. K, A, B, C, Am., Fuld., Harl., Memph., Mfh., Orig.
ins. D, F, G, (17), 37, 47, L, (P), Demid., Tol., (Syr.

Pesh.), Syr. Hard., (Arm.), [om. r)^wv, 37 ; om. 'Irjaov

U, F, G].

1 Perhaps ' oversight ' is hardly the mainly depends on the position of

correct term, for he adds in a note, these benedictions, it is only the more

4 Sur 1'incertitude des manuscrits a strange that he should have accepted

propos de la place du verset 24, voir the received text without examination,

Griesbach, Nov. Test. u. p. 222.' But knowing that it was open to question.
here his curiosity ends. As his theory

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 309

As F, G, 37, L, Goth., omit xvi. 25-27, it becomes the end
of the epistle in these.

In 17, P, Syr. Pesh., Arm., it occurs after xvi. 25-27 [om.
rjfjL&v P].

It will thus be seen that Lachmann and Tregelles are right
in placing this benediction at xvi. 20 ; and that it has been
transplanted thence into the later positions, whether at xvi. 24
orfafter xvi. 27, by editorial revision, with a view to restoring it
to what seemed to be its proper place. To this subject also I
shall have to revert again.

M. Kenan's fourth ending is different in character from the
others, being a doxology and not a benediction. I shall reserve
my explanation of it.

Thus then it will appear that the basis of M. Kenan's theory,
the quadripartite character of the epistle, has fallen away. But
before dismissing this theory, I must point out some objections
to which, even if it rested on more solid ground, it would be
exposed, and which might in themselves prove fatal to it.

(1) In our existing Epistle to the Romans the topics in
the last two chapters occur in the following order, (a) xv.
Special injunctions and explanations concerning the Apostle's
movements. (6) xvi. 1-20. A recommendation of the bearer
of the letter and several salutations to divers persons, with a
warning against divisions appended, (c) xvi. 21-24. Salu-
tations from divers persons in St Paul's company, (d) A
doxology (xvi. 25-27). This sequence is natural. In fact the
topics follow each other in the same order in the Epistle to the
Colossians, which, as regards the concluding matter, is the most
complete of all the Apostle's letters. On the other hand all
M. Kenan's four epistles are incomplete, and incomplete in a
remarkable way. The first to the Komans contains personal
explanations without salutations to or from any one. The second
to the Ephesians contains no personal explanations but only
salutations to several brethren. The third to the Thessalonians
has neither the one nor the other, but only salutations from
several friends of the Apostle. Lastly, the fourth to some

310 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

unknown Church has none of the three but only a bare
doxology. We are required therefore to suppose that these
four copies were defective in such a way that, when they were
combined at some distance of time by a chance editor, they
fitted together exactly, each supplying what was lacking in
the rest, and all together forming a complete whole.

(2) But again ; M. Kenan's theory, though contrasting in
this respect favourably with many of its predecessors, neverthe-
less fails to account for all the phenomena of the MSS. Thus,
whereas the reading preserved in G rot? OVO-LV iv aryairri eoO
obliterates the mention of any individual church, M. Renan's
theory supposes that in the several copies appropriate modifi-
cations were introduced to adapt them to particular churches.
In this case we should rather have expected traces of such a
reading as rot? ovcriv ev 'E^ecrw (or eV eacra\oviicrj) dyaTrrjTols
<B)eoO, or at all events (as in the somewhat parallel case of the
canonical Epistle to the Ephesians) rot? OVO-LV dyaTrrjrols eoO,
the space which was originally left for the name having disap-
peared in the course of transcription and the words closed in
upon the blank. On the other hand the substitution of ev dyaTrrj
for dyaTTfiTois seems to have been made with a view to obviating
the necessity of mentioning any name. This suggests a solution
somewhat different from M. Renan's.

Again ; as regards the concluding chapters of the epistle, it
will be seen that the documentary facts point only to the fourth
of M. Renan's four copies, and give no indication whatever of
the other three. This fourth copy, as I hope to show, does
represent a truth, though the destination was not what
M. Renan supposes.

(3) M. Renan speaks with some vagueness about the body
of the letter. In one passage in his introduction (p. Ixxiii.) he
seems to imply that the copy sent to the Romans consisted of
chapters i-xi., xv., exactly as we have them ; for he mentions
* modifications in the first half of the first chapter,' as intro-
duced into the three remaining copies. This I suppose to be his
meaning. But, if so, what becomes of half his objections to the

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 311

received view ? These are based on the assumption that the
Roman Church was Judaeo- Christian. Of the truth or false-
hood of this assumption I shall have something to say presently.
I would simply ask now, how it is reconcilable with the Epistle
to the Romans, as he leaves it. This is M. Renan 's own state-
ment of the case ; * Les passages de 1'Epitre aux Remains qui
supposeraient (why not ' supposent ' ?) 1'Eglise de Rome com-
posee pour la plus grande partie de paiens et de proselytes,
Rom. i. 6, 11, 13, vi. 14, 17 et suiv., vii. 1-6, xi. 13, 25, 28, 30,
xiv. 1 et suiv., xv. 7 et suiv., viennent de ce que les Remains
n'etaient pas les uniques destinataires de 1'Epitre en question.
Ces formules sont, du reste, si vagues que de bons critiques en
ont pu conclure, les uns que 1'Epitre aux Remains a ete ecrite a
des paiens convertis, les autres qu'elle a ete' e'crite a des Judeo-
Chretiens' (p. 483). Yet M. Renan lets all these passages
remain in the copy sent to the Roman Church. It may be
inferred however from his language here that these passages
made a deeper impression upon him when he came to analyse
the epistle towards the close of his volume, than when he wrote
the introduction. For though he argues in the introduction on
the hypothesis of a strictly Judaeo-Christian Church, and even
in this later passage speaks of it as ' en general compose'e
d'Ebionites et de Judeo-Chre'tiens,' he yet adds here 'Elle
renfermait aussi cependant des proselytes et des pai'ens con-
vertis'; and altogether his language seems to betray a vague
misgiving that his theory is not very consistent with the
hypothesis on which it is built.

It was not my intention, when I commenced this paper, to
take up a merely negative position. As M. Renan has en-
deavoured fairly to grapple with the documentary facts, it is
only due to him, while rejecting his theory, to attempt to
suggest some other solution which shall account for them as
well or better, and shall not be open to the same objections.

The view that the Epistle to the Romans was early circu-
lated in a longer and a shorter form, i.e. both with and without

312 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the xivth and xvth chapters, is in some shape or other not new.
Bertholdt and others, for instance, explained the phenomena of
the different positions of the doxology by supposing that these
two chapters were omitted in the public lessons 1 . More recently
Mr Westcott (Vaughan's Romans, p. xvi.) says, 'Whether it may
be possible that the epistle proceeded in two forms from the
Apostle's hands, the one closing with chap. xiv. and the doxology,
the other extended by the addition of the two last chapters after
the omission of the doxology, or whether any other more satis-
factory explanation can be offered of the phenomena of omission,
repetition, transposition, authenticity, must be left for further
investigation.' In an article on the epistle in Smith's Dictionary
of the Bible I myself adopted the theory of a twofold edition, and
further examination has confirmed me in this view. But the
subject has never, so far as I am aware, received that ' further
investigation ' which Mr Westcott desires, and in the hope that
I may be able to throw a little light on it, I venture now to
examine the question more closely.

But by way of preface it is necessary to say something about
the composition of the Church of Rome at this time, for (as we
have seen already) much depends on the view adopted in this
respect. M. Renan, in the passage quoted above (p. 311), offered
his own explanation of the fact that the ablest critics were
divided on the question whether the epistle was addressed to
Jewish or to Gentile Christians. Would not the more natural
explanation be that St Paul is here addressing a mixed church,
composed of both in equal or nearly equal parts, and that he
turns now to one, now to the other, as the tenour of his argument
demands ? Certainly the Gentile element is very strong; and I
think few will agree with M. Renan, that such passages as i. 5,
6 eV TraaLv rofc e0v(ri,v...6i> ols eVre teal V/AELS, or i. 13 eV vjuv
/caOcos Kal ev rofc XotTrot? edveaw, or xi. 13 V/MV \eyo rot? eBveaw
(with its whole context), or xv. 16 eTrava^ifjLv^crKwv v/u-a? Sia rrjv
TTJV SoOeladv JJLOL VTTO rov eov et? TO elval fie \eirovp<yov

1 This however is shown not to have been the case. See Eeiche, Comm.
Grit. p. 118.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 313

Xpiarov 'Irjo-ov et? ra eOvrj, are explained on the assumption
that the Roman Church was strictly Judseo-Christian, together
with (what M. Renan very reluctantly concedes) a sprinkling of
Gentile Christians among them. St. Paul, if I mistake not,
starts from the fact that the Roman Church stood on Gentile
ground, and that very large and perhaps preponderating num-
bers of its members were Gentiles. This is his justification for
writing to them, as the Apostle of the Gentiles. It never once
occurs to him, that he is intruding on the province of others.
Yet at the same time it is equally clear that a considerable
part of the argument is directed against Judaizing tendencies,
and occasionally he appeals directly to Jewish readers (ii. 17,
iii. 9, vii. 4 sq.). The inference from these two classes of facts
seems to be plain.

Nor is there any prior improbability in such a mixed
church. M. Renan insists that the Roman brotherhood must
have been founded and built up by emissaries from Palestine.
But why should the Christianity of Rome be due to Jerusalem
solely, and not also to Antioch and Corinth and Ephesus, with
which cities communication must have been even more frequent?
Why at Rome alone should the Judaic element be all powerful,
and the Pauline insignificant ?

And, while the hypothesis of such a mixed church is pro-
bable in itself, it also harmonizes with the notices elsewhere.
St Paul's language to the Philippians implies that, when he
arrived at Rome, he found two parties of Christians there, the
one friendly to him, the other hostile, but both alike stimulated
to activity by his presence (Phil. i. 14-18). It may be truly
said also that this view is quite consistent with all the notices
of the Roman Church during the first two centuries of its
existence, and that some of these seem to require it.

To this obvious inference from the Apostle's own language,
M. Renan can only oppose the testimony of one or two much
later writers. He refers especially to the commentator Hilary
(p. 483), whom he commends as ' fort au courant des traditions
de 1'Eglise romaine' (p. 115). It may be granted that this

314 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

writer has preserved more than one true tradition, but the mere
fact that he wrote quite three centuries after St Paul deprives
his statements of any value when they conflict with the natural
interpretation of the Apostle's language. And after all, is not
M. Renan mistaken in supposing that this writer here professes
to give a tradition ? His words are, ' Constat itaque temporibus
apostolorum Judaeos, propterea quod sub regno Romano agerent,
Romae habitasse ; ex quibus hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt
Romanis ut Christum profitentes legem servarent ; Romani
autem audita fama virtutum Christi faciles ad credendum
fuerunt, utpote prudentes: nee immerito prudentes, qui male
inducti statim correcti sunt et permanserunt in eo. Hi ergo ex
Judaeis, ut datur intelligi, credentes Christum non accipiebant
Deum esse de Deo, putantes uni Deo adversum; quamobrem
negat illos spiritualem Dei gratiam consecutos ac per hoc con-
firmationem eis deesse ' (Ambros. Op. II. app. 25). He appears
to state as matter of history ('constat') only that there was
a large Jewish population in Rome. Beyond this his language
is apparently based on the interpretation of the epistle itself
(' datur intelligi ' ; comp. p. 30). He sees that a considerable
portion of the epistle is directed against Judaizing views, and
he therefore infers that the Judaizers were a very strong party
in the Roman Church. M. Renan again appeals to the Clemen-
tine Homilies, which he asserts confidently were written at
Rome, and which exhibit Ebionite views. The Roman origin
of this work seems to me more than doubtful ; but even if
granted, it does not prove his point, for the cautious disguise,
which the writer wears throughout, shows that he must have
belonged to a comparatively small minority. That there was
such a compact and active Judaizing minority in Rome in
the early ages, few probably would deny. On the other hand,
M. Renan omits to mention the one genuine document of
subapostolic times, which was issued in the name of the Roman
Church, and which may therefore reasonably be supposed to
represent the views of that church. The Epistle of Clement
exhibits no leaning to Judaism.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 315

To the Church of Rome then, as a mixed body of Jewish
and Gentile converts, the epistle was addressed. The destina-
tion of the letter was in harmony with its subject. Indeed it
may very reasonably be conjectured, that the subject in the
Apostle's mind was prior to the destination. To the Corin-
thians he had written rebuking the errors of Gentile licence.
To the Galatians he had denounced the deadening effects
of Judaic bondage. The letters to these churches had been
called forth by special emergencies, and this fact gave a special
direction to them. Thus the Apostle's mind for a year or more
had been led to dwell especially on the relation of these two
extremes separately to the doctrine of grace and liberty. It
would not unnaturally occur to him to treat them together in
a comprehensive manner, and to show where Judaic and Gentile
feeling might find their true meeting point. This is exactly
what he does in the Epistle to the Romans. Its aim from
beginning to end is conciliation conciliation of claims, con-
ciliation of doctrine, conciliation of practice. The manner in
which the question of forbidden meats is treated in the xivth
chapter is only a special example of the motive which pervades
the whole work. The Apostle, it is true, had a personal reason
for writing to the Romans, as he contemplated visiting them
soon and wished to prepare them for his visit : but above all
this, there was singular propriety in addressing such an expo-
sition to the Church of the metropolis, composed, as we have
seen, in almost equal parts of the same two discordant elements
which he strove to combine. Thus the epistle, though not a
circular epistle itself, yet manifested the general and compre-
hensive character which might be expected in such. It is more
of a treatise than a letter.

This was our Epistle to the Romans. The shorter recen-
sion, in which the two last chapters were omitted, was, I
suppose, an after-thought, being an attempt to divest it of all
personal matter, and to make it available as a circular letter or
general treatise. So far, it was a carrying out of the spirit of
the original work. When and how this was done I shall

316

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

endeavour to make out ; but by way of introduction I shall set
side by side what I consider to have been the contents of these
two recensions respectively.

Epistle to the Romans.

-xv.

xv.

xvi. 1-23

[omitting the benediction

(xvi. 24), and the doxology

(xvi. 25-27)].

Abridged Recension.

i-xiv.

[Substituting rot? ovcrtv ev dyd-
Try eov for rot? ovcrw ev Tw-
fjirj dyaTrrjTois eoO in i. 7, and
omitting eV 'Ptopy in i. 15].

xvi. 25-27.

Of the abridged recension we have distinct traces in
Marcion's copy (though he omitted the doxology), in FG,
and less decidedly in other authorities ; and some such hypo-
thesis alone will explain the varying position of the doxology
in different MSS.

The MS. F is unfortunately defective in the first chapter,
but doubtless preserved here the same phenomena which we
find in G. These two MSS. are very closely allied, and must
have been copied mediately or immediately from the same
prototype. They themselves may probably be referred to the
ixth century, having belonged to two neighbouring Swiss
monasteries, the one to Reichenau, the other to St Gall. Either
their common prototype, or a still earlier MS. from which it
was copied, must have preserved the abridged recension. The
space of about five lines, which is left blank between chapters
xiv. and xv. in G, would be about sufficient for the doxology
(xvi. 25-27), which however is omitted in both places. These
features in the MS. suggest that the copyist of an earlier MS.,
from which it has descended, transcribed a MS. of the abridged

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 317

recension till the end of chapter xiv., and then took up a MS.
of the original Epistle to the Romans to supply the lacking
matter, omitting however the doxology as inappropriate to
what had thus become the middle of the letter, and perhaps
intending to give it a place afterwards, but abandoning his
purpose. It is an instructive fact that in the allied MS. F
no space is left after ch. xiv., but the text is written con-
tinuously.

My reasons for supposing that the doxology (xvi. 25-27 of
the received text) belonged to the abridged recension and not
to the original epistle are the following :

(1) It has nothing in common with the usual endings of
St Paul's Epistles, which close with a benediction of the type
mentioned above (p. 307).

(2) On the other hand, such an abridged recension as I
have supposed, whether issued by the Apostle or by some later
editor, would hardly have been left to terminate abruptly with
TTCLV & o ov/c /c 7rtaTeo>9, d/AapTia eVrti/. The addition of a
doxology, or of some equivalent, would seem necessary.

(3) If it had occurred at the end of the xivth chapter in
the original epistle, it would have been a violent interruption
of the sense, for the xvth chapter continues the thread of the
xivth, and there is nothing to call for such a thanksgiving.
On the other hand, if its position was at the end of the epistle,
the displacement to the close of the xivth is somewhat difficult
to explain.

(4) The difference of style between this doxology and the
rest of the epistle has often been noticed, and has led some
critics to question or deny its genuineness. The real fact is,
that though it does differ somewhat in thought and diction
from the epistles of this date, it has very strong affinities to
the later letters of the Apostle, as the following table will
show :

318

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

TOO Be

/cara TO va<yje\t6v JJLOV...

TO tcqpvy/JM 'Irjo-ov X/H<TTOI)
Kara d7rotcd\vtyiv ^vcrrrjpiov
Xpovots alwvLois o-ecriyrj/jbevov
<f>avepQ)8evTo$ Be vvv Bid re
rypa</)(t)V TrpocfryTi/ccov, KCLT eVt-
Ta<yr)v TOV alcoviov eoO et9
VTra/corjv 7ri(7T6(iD<; els Travra
ra

TOV alcoviov eoO. ../JLOVO) (rocJMp
Sia ^rjcrov Xpto-roi) cS 77

fa et? rou? alcovas [ratv aloo-
vcov].

TO) Se SvvafAevq), Eph. lii. 20.
/cara TO evayye\i6v jj,ov (2 Tim.
ii. 8, but also Rom. ii. 16).
/card aTroicaX.v'^riv eryvcopiaOrj
fjLoi, TO fJLV(rrr]piov...o erepcus
yeveais ov/c eyvupio-Orj...^ vvv
) TOt9 dyiois diro-
avrov /cal irpo^rai^
ev TTvev/jLaTi, elvai rd eOvrj K.T.\.
Eph. iii. 3, 5, 6.
TOT) fjLvarrjpiov TOV dTro/ce/cpv/j,-
vevov diro TWV aioovcov . . .iva
<yv(Dpia6fj vvv, Eph. iii. 9, 10.
rjv
alcovicov

TOV \6yov avTov ev K,r\-
o 7no-TevBr}v eyco KO,T
TOV <ro)T^o9 r]^wv
Beou (comp. 1 Tim. i. 1), Tit.
i. 2, 3.

vlcov, <j)avep(t)@i(rav Be vvv Bid
Ti5? eTTKfraveias /C.T.\., 2 Tim. i.
9, 10.
TCO Be jSaori\el T&V aldovcov...

-00ft5] @6ft) TL/JLT) K

TOi/9 aioovas TWV
1 Tim. i. 17.

These facts seem to show that though written by the Apostle it
was not written at the same time with the letter itself 1 .

In order to account for all these data, I suggest the following

1 Dean Alford (G. T. m. Prol. p. 80)
points out the resemblance of this dox-
ology to the Pastoral Epistles, though
not to the Epistle to the Ephesians,
and suggests that it was appended to

the epistle 'in later times by the
Apostle himself, as a thankful effusion
of his fervent mind.' This view seems
not to supply an adequate occasion for
the addition.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 319

hypothesis. At some later period of his life, not improbably
during one of his sojourns in Rome, it occurred to the Apostle
to give to this letter a wider circulation. To this end he made
two changes in it ; he obliterated all mention of Rome in the
opening paragraphs by slight alterations ; and he cut off the two
last chapters containing personal matters, adding at the same
time a doxology as a termination to the whole. By this ready
method it was made available for general circulation, and
perhaps was circulated to prepare the way for a personal visit
in countries into which he had not yet penetrated (i. 11 sq.).
The idea of a circular letter was not new to him ; for he had
already addressed one to the Churches of Asia. M. Renan
pertinently remarks that the First Epistle of St Peter makes
use chiefly of the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the
Ephesians, ' c'est-a-dire des deux epitres qui sont des traite's
generaux, des catecheses ' (p. Ixxii.).

Thus I believe that the last, and the last alone, of
M. Renan's four epistles represents a historical fact. It was
not however a special copy, as he supposes, addressed to some
individual church now unknown, but an adaptation of the
original epistle for general circulation. A copy of this fell into
the hands of Marcion, but (unless Rufinus in his translation
has misrepresented Origen's meaning) he removed the doxology,
as he well might have done with a doctrinal aim. Another
was the prototype of FG. All the phenomena relating to the
doxology arose from the combination of copies of this abridged
recension with copies of the original epistle in different ways.
The notice of Origen shows that such combinations took place
at a very early date.

One point still remains to be settled relating however not
to the abridged recension, but to the original epistle. Where
are we to place the benediction which occurs (1) at xvi. 20,
(2) after xvi. 23, whether before or after the doxology, or (3)
in both places, in different copies, as explained above (p. 308) ?
To this question the great preponderance of authority allows
but one answer. It must stand at xvi. 20, and must be

320 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

omitted from the later place. If so, ver. 20 is the true close
of the epistle, and the salutations from the amanuensis and
other companions of St Paul were added irregularly as a sort
of postscript, as was very likely to have been done, considering
the circumstances under which St Paul's epistles were written.
The desire of later transcribers to get a proper close to the
letter would lead them to transplant to the end of these saluta-
tions the benediction of xvi. 20, with or without modification,
or to supply the defect with the doxology from the abridged
recension. Either expedient appears in different MSS., and in
some both are combined.

B.
BY DR HORT.

TT\R LIGHTFOOT in this Journal (n. 264 ff.)has demolished
-^ M. Kenan's ingenious theory about the composition of the
Epistle to the Romans, and along with it some others of inferior
merit. He proposes instead a simpler view, which one could
wish to believe true, so admirably does it harmonize the most
salient phenomena of the text, and so free is it from broad
historical improbability. A close examination however reveals
difficulties which I am constrained to think fatal.

Dr Lightfoot supposes that the letter originally addressed to
the Romans was our present epistle as it stands in the Received
Text and Authorized Version, wanting only the last four verses,
i.e. the second Benediction (xvi. 24) and the Doxology (25-27) ;
but that at a later time St Paul himself ' made it available as
a circular letter or general treatise ' by cutting off the last two
chapters, substituting the Doxology, and omitting the name of
Rome in i. 7, 15. The direct evidence lies in three chapters,
i. xiv. xvi., which I will consider separately and in inverse
order.

I. The apparently triple ending of xvi. in the Received
Text, when taken as a whole, rests on absurdly small and
worthless evidence, three or four obscure cursives and the
inferior MSS. of the Latin Vulgate : it is a mere jumble of the
Latin and the late Greek traditions, which owes its place in
the printed text to Erasmus 1 . If the Doxology be put out of

1 His account of his own proceed- the truth as it could be known at that

ing is intelligible, while his careless- date than it would be now. 'Hanc

ness grossly misrepresents the evidence; partem usque ad Debemus autem qui-

indeed his statement is further from dam codices omnino non habent, qui-

L. E. 21

322 THE EPISTLE TO THE KOMANS.

sight, we are met by a still worse confusion of incongruous
traditions ; that is, the doubling of the Benediction (20 and 24).
The great mass of early authorities of various groups concur
in placing the Benediction at 20 only : so KABC 5 137 lat.vg
(best MSS.) memph aeth Orig.ruf. The pure ' Western ' group
D*FG (with Sedulius and perhaps the Gothic version) places it
only at 24 1 , evidently from the feeling that it must be the close
of the epistle. Minor shiftings and other like freedoms taken
by the same group of authorities occur in almost every chapter
of St Paul : two whole verses 1 Cor. xiv. 34 f. are pushed 5
verses forward by DFG 93 and some Latin Fathers : compare
1 Cor. xv. 26. The scribes of the fourth century, bringing
together MSS. from different regions, here as in countless other
instances heaped up without omission whatever they found, and
so the Benediction was set down in both places. The compound
reading appears first in the Greek commentators of the fifth
century from the Syrian school, then in the Harclean Syriac
(A.D. 508-616) : in extant MSS. it is found only in L (=J) of
the ninth century and the great mass of cursives. There is
however a similar combination in a few respectable authorities
who retain the Doxology and place the second Benediction
after it (P 17, the vulgar Syriac and the Armenian versions,
and the Ambrosian Hilary) : and this implies the previous
existence of MSS. which simply transposed the Benediction to
their end of the epistle, as (D*)FG transposed it to theirs*. Thus

dam in fine adjiciunt epistolae. Nos, readings generally, explains this sin-

quoniam id non videbatur ad hunc lo- gular collocation. D is not so purely

cum pertinere, semovimus in finem Western as FG : Sedulius combines

hujus epistolae ' (note on xiv. 23 in ed. the Old with the Hieronymic Latin,

princeps of 1516). 'Haecest pars quae In each case the Doxology must be a

in plerisque Graecorum codicibus non later accretion. The Gothic has the

additur, in nonnullis alio additur loco, Benediction at 24 and (in xvi.) no

sicut indicavimus, in quibusdam adji- Doxology: the extant fragments fail to

citur in fine. Id quod et nos fecimus, shew whether the Benediction was at

praesertim assentientibus Latinis ex- 20 likewise.

emplaribus' (note on xvi. 25 ff.). 2 If, as is probable, the shifting of

1 D* and Sedulius add the Doxology the Benediction and the dropping of

after the Benediction. The nature of the Doxology were simultaneous in the

both authorities, as evinced by their common source of D*FG Sed.,P 17 etc.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 323

the historical relations of the authorities clearly shew that, be
the claims of the double Benediction as a ' harder reading ' what
they may, it is as a matter of fact the last term in a series of
changes.

Thus far there is no reason to suppose that Dr Lightfoot
would dissent. He places the Benediction at 20 and there
alone, and gives what is doubtless the right explanation of the
order in saying that ' v. 20 is the true close of the epistle, and
the salutations from the amanuensis and other companions of
St Paul were added irregularly as a sort of postscript, as was
very likely to have been done, considering the circumstances
under which St Paul's epistles were written ' (p. 319). Whoever
will read the chapter through as far as 24 according to this
arrangement, will find everything straightforward and in-
telligible ; while the nature of the postscript is such as might
easily mislead a mechanical transcriber. The difficulty begins
when we go on to 25-27. Supposing however that we had no
evidence about these three verses except as to their presence or
absence in this place 1 , I do not see why we need hesitate to take
them as an ending to the postscript, just as 20 is the ending to
the epistle proper 2 . Having once made that fresh start to
introduce the salutations sent by present companions, St Paul
might gladly seize the opportunity to close the whole by a
solemn giving of glory to God, as his first ending had carried
grace to men. Compare xi. 36 in connexion with xi. 32 and
the adjoining verses ; also v. 2 ; xv. 5, 6. Similar pauses of
adoration occur elsewhere in the epistle ; i. 25 ; (viii. 39 ;) ix.
5 ; xi. 36 ; xv. (13,) 33, where 1 believe 'Apr/v to be genuine :

differ merely in taking one step in- own, notwithstanding the first person

stead of two : the writer of their com- used for the moment in 22 by Tertius

mon original was willing to transpose the amanuensis in sending his own

but not to omit. The two transposi- greeting. Otherwise 6 <rvvepy6s [fj-ov],

tions were however apparently inde- ol o-vyyevels /JLOV before the mention of

pendent of each other. Tertius would not be intelligible. The

1 Their total omission will be con- subsequent 6 evos pov /cat rfjs e/

sidered further on. is also the language of an apostle.

- The postscript is evidently St Paul's

212

324 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

and it is to be observed that, when St Paul's own salutations to
Christians at Rome were ended, he was not able to refrain (xvi.
17-20) from breaking out afresh into renewed exhortations to
mutual peace through willing obedience to the common Lord.
As he had gone back to the perils and hopes of the Church
after the one set of individual greetings, so we can imagine him
joyfully returning to the yet higher sphere of God's universal
purposes after the other set of individual greetings 1 . Nay the
parallelism between 17-20 and 25-27 is one of contrast as
well as likeness. The first passage gives vent to somewhat of
the anxious dread which lurks behind many a phrase of xv.
1433, especially 30, 31. If these were St Paul's last words
to the Romans except the two sets of greetings and the Bene-
diction of 20 b, the epistle might have appeared to end in a
note of discord : at all events its exulting comprehensiveness
would have died back into the rebuke and controversy proper
for the Galatians. The sudden upward flight of the Doxology
seems therefore to be almost demanded, to swallow up not only
trivial individualities of salutation but also the temporary strifes
of the Church.

But it is said that the Doxology differs too much in style
from the rest of the epistle to form part of it. I used to
suspect that it might be the ending to one of the forms of the
encyclical epistle to the Ephesians, which was preserved from
being lost to the Canon by being appended to St Paul's longest
epistle. I)r Lightfoot (after Dean Alford) points out its resem-
blance to the Pastoral Epistles as well, and accordingly treats
it as marked by the Apostle's later style generally. Before
scrutinizing words and phrases, let us look at the subject. The
starting-point is doubly personal ; an anxiety about the stability
of the converts addressed, such as tinges the hopefulness of the
first and last words spoken to and about the Romans (i. 11 ;

1 Dr Lightfoot says (p. 317) that the tion of the type ' 17 xapis fc.r.X. But

Doxology ' has nothing in common none of his other epistles have a post-

with the usual endings of St Paul's script, following a benediction in that

Epistles, which close with a benedic- form already given.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 325

xvi. 17-20) ; and a bold lifting up of what friend and foe knew
as the distinctive ' Gospel ' of St Paul, (and that in its distinc-
tive form of ' preaching/ and with its distinctive appeal to
' faith/) such as marks the time of the conflict with Judaism
within the Church (i. 1, 5, 9, 16 ; xv. 16 ; x. 8, 14, 15). Here
the pronouns ' you ' and ' my ' face each other with an emphasis
which in such a context is hard to explain till we remember the
presaging instinct with which St Paul saw in the meeting
of himself and the Roman Christians, if indeed it was to be
vouchsafed, the pledge and turning-point of victory (i. 10 ff.;
xv. 29-32 ; cf. Acts xix. 21 ; xxviii. 31). Then comes the idea
in which the Doxology culminates, the counsel of the far-seeing
God, the Ruler of ages or periods, by which the mystery kept
secret from ancient times is laid open in the Gospel for the
knowledge and faith of all nations. This idea no doubt per-
vades the Epistle to the Ephesians, though with considerable
enrichments. But is it foreign to St Paul's earlier thought ?
The second chapter of 1 Corinthians at once shews that it was
not and explains why the fact is not obvious. St Paul is
dealing there with converts who were in danger from pride of
eloquence and wisdom (from i. 5 onward). For fear of this
danger, he says (ii. 1 ff.), he himself kept back all excellency of
speech or of wisdom when he came among them, and confined
himself to the bare preaching of the Cross as alone fitted to
their imperfect state. But for all that he desired them to know
that he too had in reserve a wisdom which he spoke among the
perfect. Its nature he briefly hints in words that closely
resemble our Doxology (' We speak a wisdom of God in a
mystery, that hidden wisdom which God fore-ordained before
the ages unto the glory of us ' etc. ii. 7), and then hastens to
explain that, even after being laid open, it demands a spiritual
power to discern it. The Churches to which he wrote about
this time, at Corinth, in Galatia, at Rome, were not in a state
to profit by an extended exposition of a belief which yet was
strong in the Apostle's own mind, and so the traces of it in
the early period are few. Later it filled a larger space in his

326 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

thoughts, it acquired new extensions and associations, and he
had occasion to write to Churches which by that time were
capable of receiving it. But it is not really absent even from
the Epistle to the Romans. Kindred thoughts find broken
and obscure utterance in viii. 18-30. The belief itself is the
hidden foundation of the three chapters (ix-xi.) in which God's
dealings with Jew and Gentile are expounded, and comes
perceptibly to light in their conclusion (xi. 33-36). Now it is
precisely in these chapters, as F. C. JBaur (Paultts 341 ff.) saw
long ago, that the main drift of the epistle is most distinctly
disclosed : all its various antitheses are so many subordinate
aspects of the relation of Jew and Gentile which in this seeming
episode is contemplated in its utmost generality as reaching
from the one end of history to the other. The whole epistle
could hardly have a fitter close than a Doxology embodying
the faith from which its central chapters proceed. Here at
last that faith might well be articulately expressed, though
a wise economy compelled it to be latent as long as the Apostle
was simply instructing the Romans. This Doxology is in fact
a connecting link between the epistle at large and the earlier
concentrated doxology of xi. 36. In both alike human sin and
hindrance are triumphantly put out of sight 1 : but here the
eternal operation of Him ' from Whom, through Whom, and
unto Whom are all things ' is translated into the language of
history.

An examination of single phrases is attempted in the fol-
lowing table, which includes some less obvious coincidences
of thought 2 .

1 They could not be left out in the end of xi. should be maintained at

latter part of the Epistle, when St the final close of the Epistle. See

Paul's own position and the dangers p. 324.

of the Romans had to be spoken of 2 Eeferences to the later epistles

(xv. 14-33 ; xvi. 17-20). But for this are in [ ] : the chief passages are

very reason it was the more necessary set out at length by Dr Lightfoot, p.

that the ground conquered at the 318.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION.

327

T(p 5e 8vva/JLev(j} Horn. xiv. 4...<m^cei 77 irlirrtc VTad-fic'eTai Se, ovvarel yap

vfj.as 0Tripij-ai 6 Kvpios ffTr/ffai avTov. AVVO./J.CU, 5vvar6s, dwartu) with an

infinitive are used of God Eom. iv. 21 ; xi. 23 ; 2 Cor. ix. 8 ;
(xiii. 3;) Gal. iii. 21; [2 Tim. i. 12: T45...5ui/a/i^v...Eph. iii.
20.] STT/P^W in St Paul is found elsewhere only Eom. i. 11
(eirurodC) yap loelv u/ias...eis rd ffTfjpLxdrjvaL u/xas) and 4 times
in 1, 2 Thess. ' Standing fast ' is a common phrase in
1, 2 Thess., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Eom. ; though also found later:
' falling' is confined to 1 Cor., Eom.

Kara TO evayye\t6v So Eom. ii. 16 ; [2 Tim. ii. 8.] So also /caret r6 euayyeXiov

pov Rom. xi. 28, for here as there the inclusion of the Gentiles

must be chiefly meant. (The ' stablishment ' of the Eomans
would presuppose the harmony of Jew and Gentile among
them.) In this light /AOU is illustrated by i. 1-6, 9, 16;
xv. 16.

Kal Tb ic/ipvypa '1^- Compare Eom. ii. 16 ; x. 8-12 ; xv. 5 f . ; 1 Cor. i. 21 ;

o-ov XPHTTOV xii. 12 f. ; 2 Cor. i. 19 f. ; Gal. iii. 26-29 ; [2 Tim. iv. 17 ;

Tit. i. 3: also 1 Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11.] The double
name appears to have special force in this connexion.

Kara aTro/cdXui/'ii' Eom. i. 16f....eis a-UT-rjpLav iravrl T irurrevovTi, 'lovdaiy

fji,va"rripiov \pbvois re [irp&Tov] Kal"^\\T}VL' diKaio^vvrj yap deov ev avr<$ [sc. T<

aluvioLS ff(nyTf]fJ^- evayyeXtqi] airoKaXiJTrTeTai K Tr/crews ets TT'IGTIV : here the

vov (fxivepudti'Tos historical diKaiofftivr) is a part of the nwT-fipiov : and so

6 vvv iii. 21 vvvl 5 xw/ns v6fj.ov diKaiocrvrrj deov ireQavepurai, flap-

Tvpov/jievt) virb rou v6/j.ov KOI TWV irptHpyTuv, diKaiooTjvr) d deov

dia iricrTews ['I-rjvov] XptcrTov ci's irdvras TOVS "trier evovras :

cf. Gal. iii. 22 f. Eom. xi. 25... TO fjivar^piov TOVTO...OTI

Trwpwcris airb [tepovs T<$ 'I(rpai)\ yeyovev &xpi ov TO 7rX^pa>/ia

T&V edvC)v elffeXOy, KOI ourws TTCIS 'IcrpaTjX (rw^ijtrerai. 1 Cor.

ii. 6, 7, 10 ffO(f>iav e \a\ov/j.ei> ev TO?J rc\e^ois...^eoO <ro<f>iav

ev fjLv<rTif]pi<f} TT]v aTTOKeKpvfjifjLevrjj', rfv irpowpivev 6 debs irpb r&v

aluvuv..,- ijfjuv yap aireKa.\v\l/ev b debs 5ia rou irvevfAaTos.

[Eph. iii. 3-11. Upb xpovw aiwvlwv 2 Tim. i. 9 ; Tit. i. 2.]

Sid TC ypa<pwv irpo- Eom. i. 2...evayye\tov deov 8 irpoeinjyyeiXaTO dia rCiv irpo-

(jtrjTiK&v (fnjT&v avrov ev ypa<pals ayiats ; iii. 21 (above) ; and ix xi.

passim.

KO.T e-jriTayrjv [1 Tim. i. 1 ; Tit. i. 3.] But the meaning is given by

Eom. i. 1, 5 di ov [sc. 'I. "X.] e\dfto/j.ev . . .airoffToXty els
viraKOTjv TrtVrews ev iraffiv TOIJ edveffw ; x. 15 ; and the mere
formula /car eiriTay^v 1 Cor. vii. 6 ; 2 Cor. viii. 8.

TOV aiwviov deov 1 Cor. ii. 7 (above) ; x. 11 ; cf. Eom. xi. 33-36. [1 Tim.

i. 17 T<f fiaviXei T&V aluvwv : also Eph. iii. 9, 11 ; Col. i. 26;

2 Tim. i. 9 ; Tit. i. 2.]

ei's vTraKOTjv irl- Verbatim in this connexion Eom. i. 5 (above). This
<rrews enlarged sense of UTTOKOT?, viraKovw, is confined to the early

epistles (Eom. vi. 17 ; x. 16 ; xv. 18 ets vwaKoijv edvCov ;

? xvi. 19 ; 2 Thess. i. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 15; ? x. 5 f.).

328 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

els irdvra ra %Qvt] Rom. i. 5 above; xi. passim; xv. passim; xvi. 3 f. Tvu-

yvupicrd^vros, pL^u is similarly used Rom. ix. 22 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 1; ? Gal.

i. 11; as well as (often) in the later period.

fj,6v(p cro(j>($ &( Rom. iii. 29, 30 TJ 'lovdatuv 6 debs nbvuv; ov~xl KO.\ edv&v ;

val KO.I edv&v, direp eh 6 0eos 6s K.T.\. [M6vy 6e$ 1 Tim. i.
17 a kindred passage, which early caused TW aitbvwv to be
inserted here after rovs al&vas, and in its turn received
(ro0< hence in the fourth century : cf. 1 Tim. vi. 15 ; but
also Jud. 4, 25 ; John v. 44 etc.] 2o0ia is predicated of
God by St Paul with reference to the working out of a
distant purpose by unexpected means : so Rom. xi. 33 ;
1 Cor. i. 21, ? 30 ; ii. 7 ; [Eph. i. 8 ; iii. 10 ; Col. ii. 3.]

5ii 'Itjffov Xpiffrov Rom. v. 1 f. ; xv. 6 f. ; Gal. i. 4 f. ; [Eph. i. 5 f., 11-14 ;

[y] 1 -h 56a els rote iii. 21 ; Col. i. 27 ; 1 Tim. i. 11, 17.]

at&vas' d/Ji^v.

A minute examination of the passages briefly indicated in
this table will shew that the dominant thoughts of the Epistle,
the thoughts which inspired its beginning (i. 1-17), its
primary close (xv. 6-33), and its three characteristic chapters
in which the old faith and revelation are invoked on behalf
of the new, are precisely those expressed in the final Doxo-
logy ; and that the separate words and phrases of the Doxology
are for the most part what have already occurred in the
Epistle, while there are hardly any not to be found in epistles
of the same or an earlier period 2 . If this be so, the obvious
resemblances to parts of the later epistles lose all force as
evidence of date. The Doxology and 1 Cor. ii. 6-10, a passage
absolutely inseparable from its context, support each other
in shewing that St Paul's late teaching was his early belief;
while in each case there was an adequate motive for his ex-
ceptional transgression of the limits imposed on him by the
present imperfection of his converts. The condensed and
cumulative style, which he used more freely afterwards, arises
naturally from the compression of varied thoughts and facts
into a single idea in a single sentence under the impulse of

1 ^ is probably an intrusion, not- of which is preserved in 1 Cor. ii. 7;
withstanding the presumption in favour x. 11. On the other hand VTTO.KOT) (irl-
of an irregular construction. o-rews), both phrase and sense, is pecu-

2 The only clear exception is xp^ voi li ar * foe early epistles.

(2 Tim. i. 9 ; Tit. i. 2), the idea

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 329

eager feeling. Rom. i. 1-7 ; iii. 21-26 ; 2 Thess. i. 3-10 offer
a true analogy : what distinguishes them is their articulation,
which was hardly possible in a doxology. But we may go
further. As is the Epistle to the Romans itself in relation
to the monuments of St Paul's early teaching, gathering
up, harmonizing, concluding, such is the Doxology in relation
to the Epistle. It looks at once backwards and forwards.
Springing from the keen sense of a present crisis, it gives old
watchwords of action a place in the dawning vision of thought
which the epistles from Rome were to expound, and anticipates
in its style as in its ideas the habitual mood of the time when
the crisis was victoriously ended, and the unity of the Church
secured.

II. The course thus far has been smooth, because the
chief textual difficulties have been out of sight. The end of
the fourteenth chapter is a point at which various phenomena
present themselves which nothing in the context would have
led us to expect. Some of them (a) on the surface mark only
an interruption of the Epistle. The Doxology is inserted
either (1) here alone or (2) both here and in xvi. In (3) a
single MS. G, one of the twin MSS. which alone omit the
Doxology altogether, an empty space is left here, occupying
half a line at the bottom of an otherwise full page and 5 lines
of the next page. Secondly (ft) the whole of the two following
chapters are supposed to have been omitted (1) by Marcion
(on the authority of Origen), (2) perhaps by Tertullian and
even Irenseus, and (3) in the capitulation of an unknown Latin
MS. mentioned by Wetstein. The variety of this evidence, if
it stands proof, is a strong argument in favour of any theory
which will account for all the particulars.

The testimony of Origen requires consideration first. We
have it only in the greatly abridged version of Rufinus, a
careless and licentious translator. This is not a passage with
which he is likely to have consciously tampered ; but there is
no certainty that the language is Origen's own. Characteristic

330 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

terms of expression as well as ideas may be recognized through
Rufmus's Latin in almost every page ; but none such are con-
spicuous here : rather the sentences are short and simple for
Origen. The comment on the Doxology (after xvi. 23) begins
thus. "Caput hoc Marcion, a quo Scripturae Evangelicae atque
Apostolicae interpolatae sunt de hac epistola penitus abstulit :
et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco ubi scriptum est ' Omne
autem quod non ex fide peccatum est ' [xiv. 23] usque ad finem
cuncta dissecuit. In aliis vero exemplaribus, id est in his quae
non sunt a Marcione temerata, hoc ipsum caput diverse positum
invenimus. In nonnullis etenim codicibus post eum locum quern
supra diximus, statim cohaerens habetur ' Ei autem qui potens
est vos confirmare.' Alii vero codices in fine id ut hunc 1 est
positum continent. Sed jam veniamus ad capituli ipsius expla-
nationem." As the text stands, it asserts plainly -that Marcion
removed from the Epistle both the Doxology and xv. xvi. ; and
that of the MSS. unaffected by Marcion's proceeding some had
the Doxology after xiv., some after xvi.

So the passage has been universally understood. On the
other hand for many years I have had a strong impression
that the Benedictine text is wrong in three letters, and that
on the removal of this tiny corruption the whole interpretation
collapses. De la Rue's notes on this book often mention the
readings of a certain Paris MS. (Reg. 1639). Wherever I have
examined them, they have appeared usually to give the truest
text against all other known authorities, and very seldom to
be evidently wrong. In this place Reg. 1639 has in instead
of ab. If the preceding hoc is likewise altered to hie, and so
small a variation may easily have escaped notice, we get an
entirely new and, I venture to think, more probable statement.
Origen begins by saying merely that ' Marcion, the falsifier 9
of the Gospels and [St Paul's] Epistles, removed this paragraph

1 [' hunc ' is a misprint for ' nunc.'] terpolate, but properly to give a spuri-

2 Interpolo in ancient Latin, it will ous look of newness to old things, and
be remembered, does not mean to in- so generally to falsify.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 331

completely from the Epistle.' Then it appears to strike him
that some reader might know the Epistle in a copy which
had the Doxology at the end of xiv. (if not there alone), and
acquit Marcion as having at most only removed a superfluous
repetition 1 . He adds therefore explicitly 'And not only here
but also ' at xiv. 23 ' he cut away 2 everything quite to the end.'
Then, for fear the remark might not be understood by those
who knew the Doxology only in xvi., he explains 'But in
other copies, that is in those which have not been corrupted
by Marcion, we have found this very paragraph differently
placed ' etc.

Of these three statements the end of the second might be
thought a mere repetition of the first, according to the corrected
reading. But I think Origen wished to make it perfectly clear
that Marcion 's offence, as he understood it, was no mere erasure
of an obnoxious phrase but utter excision of the entire para-
graph. Nor is it unlikely that the Greek original contained
intermediate digressive sentences which gave a resumptive
force to the repetition. No one, I presume, would seriously
find a difficulty in the words 'to the end' as inappropriate to
the removal of the Doxology alone, in the case of MSS. in which
it had stood at xiv. 23 : their correctness in reference to its
normal position would make them sufficiently descriptive for

1 Reasons will be given further on Dissecuit would not be an unnatural
for suspecting that the MSS. here no- rendering of trepitKo^tv or possibly ire-
ticed by Origen had the Doxology in pitrefiev, either of which would mean
both places. At this point the differ- simply 'cut away.' Compare Epiph.
ence is without importance. Haer. 309 D ov fj.6vov 8 TTJV d/>xV airt-

2 This is not, it must be confessed, re/ie? [of St Luke's Gospel]..., dXXd KO!
the natural meaning of the single word TOV r^Xous /ecu T>V n^ffuv TroXXa irepit-
dissecuit : but will the context on any KO\// TWV TTJS aXrjSelas \6yuv K.T.\. : and
view tolerate another? As regards the again dXXd TWO. avrCiv TreptTtfjutuv, TWO,
Doxology, abstulit is decisive. Is it 3 dXXotuxras Ke<f>d\aia. In the first sen-
conceivable that Marcion only' separat- tence, so closely resembling Rufinus's
ed' xv. xvi. from the rest of the Epistle, in form, airor^fjivw and Tre/n/coTrrw must
while still acknowledging their autho- be practically synonymous, for the
rity, whether he joined them to another preceding sentence describes the Gos-
epistle or not ? or that such an opera- pel as TrepiKKO(j.nti>ov curb rrjs apxfy by
tion would be unrecorded? The dim- Marcion.

culty surely lies in the translation.

332 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Origen's purpose. Hoc ipsum caput is perhaps a slightly
stronger phrase than we might have expected : how far it re-
presents the Greek, and, if supposed exact, how far a knowledge
of the unabridged context would explain it, we need not try to
conjecture : even as it stands, it has a certain force in binding
together the first and second statements.

On the other hand the internal evidence for the truth
of the corrected reading is substantial. The order of the
sentences, which Rufinus is not likely to have changed, runs
naturally upon this view. By the common reading Origen
keeps till last the only fact specially concerning the passage on
which he is commenting : his first two sentences might have
been written with equal force and appropriateness on any
group of verses in the two chapters. He begins with saying
that Marcion removed this paragraph, three verses, and then
condemns, as an aggravation of the main offence, bis removal of
59 verses, of which these three are nothing more than the end.
Why should he choose this particular place for the remark, if
Marcion's operation was really on that extensive scale ? Why
not mention it at the proper place, xiv. 23 ? It may be urged
that possibly he was forgetful there, as he is certainly silent
about the Doxology, but gladly repaired his omission when the
Doxology brought to mind by association the earlier critical
point in the Epistle. Certainly it might be so. But in that
case we should expect him to begin with the transposition of
his immediate text, and having so been carried to xiv. 23 to
append by way of digression an account of Marcion's proceeding.
The reverse order, which we actually find, has no logical justifi-
cation on the common interpretation, unless Origen himself
saw in Marcion's supposed omission of xv. xvi. and in the trans-
position of the Doxology two facts connected by community of
origin. That however is a step in criticism which there is not
the slightest evidence that he took. He regarded Marcion's
omission, whatever its extent, as an original and unprecedented
act ; and he gives no hint that the transposition or repetition
in certain MSS. was a consequence of Marcion's mutilation : in

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 333

other words the two facts were in his eyes two independent
phenomena. How then came the one to suggest the other ? If
Marcion omitted two chapters, the sole point of contact is
xiv. 23 ; and thus the transposition, which alone forms a bridge
from xvi. 24 to xiv. 23, must have preceded the omission in
Origen's account. If on the other hand Marcion cut out only
what the scribes transposed, then no bridge is needed. The
first and the last sentences refer alike to the same subject, the
paragraph on which Origen is avowedly about to comment.
The second sentence refers partly to this place partly to the
other ; and likewise serves to anticipate an erroneous criticism
of the first statement, which might occur to Origen's readers.

The commentary of Jerome on Eph. iii. 5 explains diffusely
how St Paul could say that 'the mystery of Christ in other
generations was not made known to the sons of men ' notwith-
standing the language of the prophets. At the outset he
repudiates the doctrine juorta Montanum that the prophets
spoke in ecstasy, not knowing what they said. Three columns
further on he repeats ' Those who will have it that the prophets
understood not what they said, and spoke as it were in ecstasy,
bring to confirm their doctrine not only the present text, but
also that which is found [in the epistle] to the Romans in most
MSS., reading Now to Him, etc' The inference is obvious, that
the writer had seen or heard of MSS. which did not contain the
Doxology. But who is the writer? Jerome in his preface
tells us that he had partly followed the three books of Origen
on this Epistle. Comparison of the Greek fragments proves
how freely he drew on his great predecessor's ample stores;
and any one familiar with Origen's style will recognize it in
many places where the Greek is entirely lost. Throughout this
long disquisition Origen's hand cannot be mistaken, though
Jerome may have added or altered this or that sentence. The
controversy with Montanistic doctrine belongs moreover to the
third, not the fourth century \ The character of the MSS.

1 The dislike of the early Alexandrians to the Montanist theory of 'prophecy'
or inspiration is well known.

334 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

hinted at as wanting the Doxology is sufficiently indicated
in the two sentences which follow the refutation of the Mon-
tanists. 'And in like manner it is to be observed that the
mystery of our faith cannot be revealed except through the
Prophetic Scriptures and the coming of Christ. Let those
therefore know who understand not the Prophets, and desire
not to know, protesting that they are content with the Gospel
alone ' etc. This evident allusion to the Marcionists, the other
great sect which threatened the Church in Origen's days,
suggests the strong probability that the passages from his
two commentaries relate to the same subject. What he calls
' most MSS.' here are identical with * those copies which
have not been corrupted by Marcion.' In the former case the
Doxology is said to have been omitted 1 : may we not infer, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, that this and this alone
constituted Marcion's offence ? Whatever the argument might
be worth taken independently, it appears to me a striking
corroboration of the result obtained thus far.

Tertullian's language is ambiguous. After confuting Mar-
cion out of Galatians and 1, 2 Corinthians, he proceeds to
Romans (adv. Marc. V. 13). Henceforth, he says, he will touch
but briefly on what has come before him already, and pass over
altogether what has come before him frequently. He is tired
of arguing about the Law, and about God as a Judge, and so
an Avenger, and so a Creator. Yet he must point out the
plain references to justice and judgement which meet him at the
beginning of the Epistle (i. 16 ff. ; ii. 2). It will be enough for
him, he declares, to prove his point from Marcion's negligences
and blindnesses, from the sayings which he left undisturbed 2 .

1 The words are ' Qui volunt Pro- logy been the mere conclusion of a

phetas etc., cum praesenti testimonio large section omitted,

illud quoque quod ad Eomanos in pie- 2 He notices but one omission by

risque codicibus invenitur ad confirma- Marcion in this epistle, that of c. ix.

tionem sui dogmatis trahunt, legentes The limits are not given, but there is

Ei autem ' etc. They do not formally little room for doubt. Eight other

negative the omission of the two whole (short) omissions are recorded by Epi-

chapters ; but other language would phanius, who professes to furnish only

surely have been chosen had the Doxo- a selection (Haer. 317 f. ). It is singu-

ITS STRTJCTTJBE AND DESTINATION. 335

He then runs over the Epistle in 5 pages, just half what he had
bestowed on the little epistle to the Galatians, passing over in
silence some long spaces of text containing appropriate matter,
as iii. 1-20 and x. 5-xi. 32. The ethical paragraph xii. 9-xiii.
10 tempts him to give examples of the anticipation of its
teaching in the Old Testament, and he concludes with insist-
ing on the harmony of Law and Gospel in inculcating love of
neighbours. There apparently he intended to stop, the doctrinal
part of the Epistle being ended, but his eye was caught by the
words 'judgement-seat of Christ' at xiv. 10. He therefore
adds (14 s. f.) rather awkwardly, with evident reference to what
he had said on the beginning of the Epistle 1 , ' Bene autem
quod et in dausula tribunal Christi 2 comminatur, utique
judicis et ultoris, utique creatoris, ilium certe constituent
promerendum quern intentat timendum, etiamsi alium prae-
dicaret.' And then he proceeds to another epistle. The absence
of allusions to anything in xv. xvi. requires no explanation : it
is hard to see what could have been cited except xv. 4, 8, 18,
which are slight and contain nothing new in relation to Marcion,
and the Doxology, which all agree to have been omitted by
him. But in dausula certainly means 'in the close of the
Epistle/ and it is a natural inference that such a phrase would
not have been used if xv. xvi. had stood in Tertullian's MS.,
whether that was his own or one of Marcion's recension.
Natural but not conclusive. The verse quoted is not in the
actual close on any view ; thirteen verses follow of xiv. But
the force of the word must be estimated by the context.

lar that Epiphanius should pass over Gospel, as rjKfxirrrjpicurTcu

the loss of three consecutive verses : x ov A 17 ? 7 " 6 i*.t<ra ^re reXos, IJJMTIOV /Se-

but his silence would be far more (3pw/jtvov inrb TroXXcDv <rr)ruv e?r^et rbv

astounding if two whole chapters were rpoirov.

missing. Nothing could be safely in- J So not long before he had said, not

ferred in any case from his employ- it is true of a book but of a passage

ment of the word aKpurypidfa as ap- (1 Cor. ix. 10-x. 11), 'Denique et in

plied to St Paul's epistles (/cat avruv 5e clausula praefationi [apostolus] re-

7)Kp<imipia.<rfj,frut' ffvvrjdus ry avrov pp5i- spondet ' (c. 7).

ovpyig. 317 D) : his wide use of it is ma- - The true reading is TOV deov, but

nifest when he says (311 D) that the confusion with 2 Cor. V. 10 was easy.

336 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Antithesis to the beginning of the Epistle, not by any means
the very beginning but i. 16 ff., ii. 2, is the motive of the
remark. If xiv. 10 is included in a section of the Epistle,
however large, which can fairly be called in any sense its close,
the point of the remark is saved. Now Tertullian had to all
appearance virtually ended his comments at xiii. 10. What
follows to the end, with the partial exception of xv. 3 f., 8-12,
is either hortatory or personal. The business of the Epistle, so
to speak, is over : to the eye of a rhetorician, accustomed to study
the members of a speech, the remainder would all constitute the
close. Tertullian uses the word more loosely still on another
occasion, again for the sake of an antithesis. To reinforce his
position that Christ's command to flee from city to city under
persecution became obsolete when the apostles went forth to
convert the Gentiles, he urges that St Paul, who at an early
time had consented to escape in a basket, in the close of his
ministry (in clausula officii), rebuked those who urged him not
to go up to Jerusalem lest he should suffer there (de Fuga in
Pers. 6). Yet this incident (Acts xxi. 13) preceded the events
at Jerusalem, the two years' imprisonment at Csesarea, the
voyage and shipwreck, and the two years at Rome; to say
nothing of later occurrences not told in the Acts.

It remains true that Tertullian does not cite any words out
of xv. xvi. in other parts of his writings 1 : nor does IrenaBUS or
perhaps Cyprian 2 . Negative facts of this kind are by no means
to be contemned, but their value depends on the attendant
circumstances. Seventeen verses only of the two chapters
(xv. 1-13; xvi. 17-20) were likely to be quoted. Of these
Origen once quotes one (setting aside the commentary),
Clement three; while of others it so happens that Origen
quotes five, Clement three, besides the Doxology.

1 Semler and Oehler indicate 5 re- he means p. 283 (Ep. 65 3) ' nee
ferences to xv. 4, 14; xvi. 18: but they ante se religioni sed ventri potius et
are imaginary. quaestui profana cupiditate servisse ' ;

2 Fell's index gives only xvi. 18' ven- a very doubtful reference,
tri serviunt : E[pist.] 233.' Doubtless

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 337

Lastly Wetstein has a note at the end of xiv. : ' Codex
Latinus habet capitula epistolae ad Romanes 51, desinit autem
in caput xiv.; ex quo conficitur ista capitula ad editionem
Marcionis fuisse accommodata.' ' Later critics/ says Dr Light-
foot [p. 289], * have not been able to identify the MS. and thus
to verify the statement.' Their failure however matters little.
The phenomenon here obscurely described is not peculiar to a
single MS. : it belongs to what was probably a widely current
Latin capitulation, found e.g. in the earliest (540-550) MSS. of
the Vulgate, the Amiatinus and the Fuldensis. The sections or
breves of Romans are 51, 50 beginning at xiv. 15, and 51 at
xv. 4. In the table of contents before the Epistle 50 is headed
' De periculo contristante [sic] fratrem suum esca sua, et quod
non sit regnum Dei esca et potus sed justitia et pax et gaudium
in Spiritu Sancto/ a fair description of the section; and 51
'De mysterio Domini ante passionem in silentio habito post
passionem vero ipsius revelato,' which in strictness applies
only to the Doxology 1 . If the marginal figures were lost, it
would be a natural inference that 50 ended with xiv., that
51 consisted of the Doxology, and that xv. xvi. were absent
from the MS. on which the capitulation was originally formed.
But as on this view the table and the marginal figures con-
tradict each other, it seems hopeless to attempt to clear up the
confusion while the origin of the capitulation remains un-
known 2 . There is no Latin authority whatever for associating
the Doxology with xiv. 23 ; so that it would be rash to assume
the table of headings to be alone authentic, and the marginal
figures to have been inserted at xv. 4 by a misunderstanding.
Yet that is certainly a possible solution. Only it must be

1 Either Wetstein examined only the answer to ecclesiastical lessons. Other-
table of headings, or he overlooked wise one might have thought that the
the inconspicuous figures li. at xv. 4, Doxology was appended to xv. 13 or 33
a place where he would scarcely expect for public reading, and the rest of xv.
them. This is the sole point of differ- xvi. neglected. Some sections are de-
ence. scribed only by their end, as others

2 Internal evidence proves that the only by their beginning,
sections cannot, in their present form,

L. E. 22

338

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

remembered that the table of headings, with all its obscurities,
would stand as the sole direct piece of evidence for the omission
of xv. xvi. by any authority.

One indirect testimony Dr Lightfoot finds in the space left
after xiv. 23 in the single MS. G, as noticed above (p. 329). His
inference [p. 316] is that 'the copyist of an earlier MS., from
which it has descended, transcribed a MS. of the abridged recen-
sion [i.e. wanting xv. xvi.] till the end of chapter xiv., and then
took up a MS. of the original Epistle to the Romans to supply
the lacking matter, omitting however the doxology as inappro-
priate to what had thus become the middle of the letter, and
perhaps intending to give it a place afterwards, but abandoning
his purpose. It is an instructive fact that in the allied MS. F no
space is left after ch. xiv., but the text is written continuously/
'Either their common prototype 1 , or a still earlier MS. from

1 The above was written on the
assumption that F and G were in-
dependently copied from the arche-
type, as all considerable writers on the
subject except Wetstein had laid down
on apparently sufficient grounds. A
query by Dr Westcott has recently in-
duced me to examine the matter anew,
and so led me to the conclusion that
the scribe of G alone used the arche-
type, and that F is a copy of G. The
few verbal (not orthographical) varia-
tions of F that might have seemed to
preserve the readings of the archetype
crumble away on examination. F often
interchanges uyueis with -^uets, not sel-
dom against all sense, and 6 times
alters virb to d?r6 : it omits the article
23 times, and perhaps once inserts it:
it omits other words 16 times, and
inserts them at most thrice (Kom. vii.
19 AiettrcD as in 15 ; ix. 31, with a special
mark, diKcuoativris as in the line above;
Gal. Jin. dfj.rjv ; all from the Vulgate) :
and the remaining changes, I believe
fourteen, of which most are favoured by
the Vulgate, are all trivial and natural.
On the other hand FG agree in count-

less blunders, evidently such and not
traditional variants, which cannot all,
to say the least, be set down to the
archetype. Again the confusion of
spellings has its uniformities. To take
only the more frequent cases, F inces-
santly interchanges e 77, o o>, 1 1>, d 6 (T) ;
in almost every line FG together inter-
change t et, e at, very rarely either MS.
separately ; and I have failed to detect
any permutations approximately pecu-
liar to G. Misspellings of the pro-
miscuous sort swarm in FG together
and in F separately ; in G separately
they are rare and always so simple as
to be within the capacity of the scribe
of F to correct. Precisely the same
may be said of the divisions of words ;
F is free from no outrageous portent
found in G, but has to answer for many
of its own. No one can believe that
two scribes independently arrived at
e.g. TLoTVTTovffiv e^ctt vyeHre/j-vov TUV
\oywv (both FG have <a over -vov: F
further divides vyfte. e^vov) for VTTOTV-
irwffLv #xe vyiaLvbvTwv \6yuv : and the
absence of division of words in the
archetype is proved by the numerous

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION.

339

which it was copied, must have preserved the abridged recen-
sion.' In other words (1) the scribe of G copied i.-xiv. from
one MS. and xv. xvi. from another; and (2) the scribe of F
copied in like manner from the same two MSS., though he
left no mark of the transition from the one to the other. If
the first of these hypothetical facts were true, we ought surely
to find some evidence of it in the respective texts ; whereas the
closest study fails to detect a shadow of difference in the
character of the readings before and after the blank space. The
partial adherence of D excepted, this character is unique among
existing Greek MSS. : that it should prevail equally in two
MSS. accessible to the scribe of G is possible certainly, but not
likely ; and the hypothesis involves this further anomaly that

self-corrections of the scribe of G,
where he has added to the end of one
word the first letters of the next, seen
his error, and begun the second word
afresh with a space between. In these
cases he sometimes has forgotten to
put in the cancelling dots or line, and
then the writer of F confidingly tran-
scribes the whole. But usually he is
careful to follow only corrected read-
ings. In 1 Cor. xi. 31 f. airb translated
by a happens to be under the end of
eavrovs in G ; and the stroke or ac-
cent which, as usual in G, caps a looks
like a cancelling line to the final s :
hence F reads eavrov though the verb is
diKpivo(j.ei>. Other instances might be
given of the dependence of F on acci-
dents in G. The relations of the Latin
accompaniments (fg) are complicated,
but tend to the same result. The
body, so to speak, of g must have at
least a double origin, from a pure Old
Latin text and from one or more alter-
ed texts, either the true Vulgate or one
of the intermediate revised texts or
both. Where none of his materials
represented the Greek literally enough,
the scribe evidently devised new ren-
derings of words and still oftener

changed their order. This is shown
not only negatively by comparison with
the mixed and fragmentary yet fre-
quently copious evidence of all sorts
as to variations in Latin MSS. and
Fathers, but also positively by mistakes
arising from the wrongly divided Greek
words and the like. Sometimes g
offers two or more alternative render-
ings, either all traditional or part tra-
ditional part original. The body of f
is tolerably pure Vulgate, unequally
but always imperfectly assimilated to
the Greek with, I believe, the aid of
no document except g, all the elements
of which may be recognized. In 1 Cor.
x. , singled out by Mr Scrivener for its
frequent departure from the Vulgate,
out of the 46 variants 23 agree with d
and 42 with g, while the remaining 4
consist of 2 blunders, one correction
of an obvious blunder, and one inter-
pretative change of tense. The con-
cordance of evidence so various seems
decisive against any claim of F to
represent the archetype where it differs
from G. Nothing however in the text
of this article is substantially affected
by the result except the sentences in
brackets.

222

340 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the two originals, so singularly alike in the main, must have
differed on the capital point, the omission of xv. xvi. [When F
is taken into account, fresh embarrassments arise. Either the
scribe of F copied one MS. throughout or he did not. If he did
not, an exact repetition of the circumstances attending the
writing of G is demanded, without such evidence as the blank
is said to afford. If he did, what becomes of the primary
original of G ?] The blank may, I believe, be easily explained
by a simple process. The Greek text of F and G alike was
copied from a single archetype wanting only the Doxology.
[The scribe of F wrote down exactly what lay before him.]
The scribe of G on arriving at xiv. 23 remembered the Doxology
as occurring there in some other MS. that he had read (all
extant MSS. but 9 have it there, 4 older, 5 younger), held
faithfully to his archetype, but satisfied his conscience by
leaving a space which might be filled up hereafter if needful.
He did in fact only what the scribe of B had done four
centuries before, when he left a blank column for the supple-
ment to St Mark's Gospel (xvi. 9-20). It follows that FG
attest the omission of the Doxology alone, while the blank in G
vouches merely for the vulgar Greek text as it prevailed from
the fourth century onwards.

That reading of the vulgar text however remains to be
explained if possible, and remarkable without doubt it is. The
intrusion of the Doxology after xiv. 23 appears in two forms :
conjointly with its retention at the end in AP 5 17 1 , and some
Armenian MSS. : in this place alone in L (=J) and all Greek
cursives but 8 (or 10), some MSS. known to Origen (above,
p. 330), the Harclean Syriac and the Gothic 2 (with, it is said,

1 There is a doubt about 2 or 3 presence of the Doxology after xiv.
others, and more will probably be would make the gap exactly equal in
found in due time : see also p. 341, note length to the adjoining leaves of the
1. The introduction at xiv. 23 by the Codex Carolinus, which alone has pre-
second hand of the Latin text in the served the verses before and after,
trilingual 109 is doubtless due to an The 4 existing leaves of this MS. shew
imperfect assimilation to the Greek. that xi. 33-xv. 13 was written on 8

2 The fragments of this version do leaves ; and all the measures give the
not comprise xiv. 20-xv. 3. But the same length to a leaf within a line.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 341

two other late and obscure versions), Chrysostom 1 and the
Greek commentators who follow him, and perhaps Cyril and
John of Damascus. Perplexities abound here. The first small
group is select 2 though not trustworthy : by the analogy of
other passages it indicates a reading of high antiquity, probably
current at Alexandria, but a correction. Origen's MSS. being
waived, the certain portion of the second group is practically
rubbish : that is, it contains no authority of the slightest value
hereabouts except as a rare adjunct to some primary authority
left nearly in solitude. That some MSS. known to Origen
should have attested a reading of the first group is exactly
what might have been expected : their association with the
second is passing strange. It suggests a doubt (more is not
permissible) whether Origen after all did not speak of those
MSS. which had the Doxology at xiv. 23 as having it also at the
end. Rufinus's clumsy scissors may easily have shorn off the
additional fact, especially as the antithesis became clearer in
consequence : on this view the words about Marcion's doings
' not only here but also in that place etc/ would have increased
force, though it must be allowed they do not require it. But
another difficulty remains. We might have supposed the
double position of the Doxology to be owing to the combination
of texts from two sets of MSS., each of which had it in a
different place and there alone ; yet the character of the
authorities inverts this order. In cases like this it is ultimately
found safer to trust to the historical relations of the evidence
than to any speculations about probability. But indeed here
the only tolerable explanation that offers itself of the introduc-
tion of the Doxology at xiv. 23 in either group would point to
the first group as exhibiting the earlier form of corruption.
Changes in the Greek text of the New Testament, chiefly by

1 One Vatican MS. of Chrysostom that Chrysostom himself used only the

according to Mr Field (p. 547) has both vulgar Greek text,

text and commentary in both places, 2 Though inferior to 17, 5 is a cur-

and so might be added to the first sive of the first rank,
group. But internal evidence proves

342

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

interpolation, arising from the modifications required for Church
lessons are common in MSS., though they have rarely found
their way into printed texts. The salutations in xvi. might
easily be thought to disqualify the bulk of the chapter for public
reading 1 , especially at a time when but a few select lessons
were taken from the whole Epistle 2 : and yet some church, for

1 The Greek 'Euthalian' capitula-
tion found in divers MSS. (printed by

.Mill N. T. 418 and elsewhere) has for
the heading of its 18 irepl [rrjs] /j-i/j.^-
(rews TTJS X/HOTOU dve^iKaKias, of 19 Trepl
rrjs \eirovpytas atirov TTJS v dvaToXrj Kal
dfoei, and nothing after. These must
correspond to xv. 1-13, 14-33. It fol-
lows that xvi. (but not xv.) is omitted,
evidently because not publicly read in
some church. The latest sectional num-
ber (24) in P stands at xv. 14, doubt-
less for a similar reason. By a singular
coincidence 18 of the Vatican capitu-
lation begins with xv. 1 as in the 'Eu-
thalian ' capitulation : but they do not
coincide in the earlier chapters, and
the Vatican sections proceed to the
end, commencing 19 at xv. 25, 20 at
xv. 30, and 21 at xvi. 17. Fritz sche
(Rom. i. p. xlvii.) pleads that on the
same grounds we might argue the ex-
clusion of 1 Cor. xvi. from public read-
ing, since no trace of its contents
appears in the ' Euthalian ' capitulation
for that epistle. Why not ? The last
sectional numeral (20) in the margin
of P in 1 Cor. is at xv. 51. Thus again
both independent capitulations equally
agree with what the nature of the chap-
ter renders intrinsically likely. The
Capuan Lectionary in the Fulda MS. of
the Latin Vulgate takes no lesson from
Bom. xv. xvi. except xv. 8-14 (for the
Circumcision), and none from 1 Cor.
xii.-xvi.

2 DrLightfoot (p. 312) refers to Eeiche
as having shewn that xv. xvi. were
not omitted in public reading. Keiche
depends on Fritzsche and after him

Meyer, who argue (1) that the profound
reverence of the early Christians must
have saved every letter of the N. T.
from being unheard in the churches;
(2) that the lectionaries prove the whole
epistle to have been actually read. But
this continuous reading noted in the
lectionaries belongs only to the Daily
Lessons, which E. Eanke (Herzog R.
E. xi. 376 ff.) shews to be of late date,
perhaps not earlier than the 12th cen-
tury. The ancient lessons for Sundays
and Saturdays are all more or less
selected, continuous only in certain
definite cases. The existing Synaxa-
ria, valeant quantum, give Eom. xiv.
19-23 plus the Doxology as the lesson
(an appropriate one) for Saturday be-
fore ' Tyrophagus ' Sunday (Quinquage-
sima) : see the tables in Scrivener In-
trod.l%\ Scholztf'.T.ii. 459; Matthai
Rom. xxiv. They have but two other
lessons from this part of Komans, xv.
1-7 for the 7th S. and xv. 30-33 for
the Saturday before the 10th S. after
Pentecost (Scrivener 69 f.; Scholz 458;
Matthaei ib.). All these arrangements
however are probably Constantinopo-
litan, and originally derived from the
' use ' of Antioch. An Alexandrine
Table of Lessons is preserved in a
Vatican MS. (46 Paul, of Wetstein),
and has been edited by Zacagni Coll.
Mon. 712-722; but the first leaf, con-
taining from Easter to the 3rd S. after
Pentecost, is missing. In the part of
the year where Romans is chiefly read,
xiii. 1-8, xv. 1-6, 13-19, 30-33 oc-
cur consecutively ; but no other lesson
from this Epistle after xiv. 11 appears

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION.

343

instance that of Alexandria, may have been glad to rescue the
striking Doxology at the end for congregational use by adding
it to some neighbouring lesson 1 . It could not well be used by
itself, even if it were longer : it craved to follow some passage
which in like manner craved a close. Many would find in the
benedictions at xv. 13, 33 a reason against appending the
Doxology in either place*, while it would make an impressive
termination to a lesson formed out of the latter verses of xiv.
which when alone have both a harsh 3 and an unfinished sound.

anywhere. A few scattered lessons
agree with those in the common Syn-
axaria, but the coincidences are such
as might easily be accidental : the
systems are independent throughout,
though partly analogous. Saturday
lessons are wanting, according to the
custom of the early Alexandrine and
Roman Churches (Socrat. v. 22), except
in Lent. But as it is the long eight-
week Lent of late Alexandrine usage,
comparison as to ' Tyrophagus ' Satur-
day is out of the question. All the
Lenten Saturdays have in place of a
definite lesson the single obscure for-
mula 'E/c TOV a.iroffrb\o\> ets ayiovs : the
4 lessons eis /xfetas ayiwv, Rom. v. 15;
viii. 28-34 ; Heb. x. 32-38 ; xi. 33-xii.
2, can hardly be meant, as Zacagni
seems to suppose ; but the reference
may be to a Menologium, or Table of
Lessons for Holy-Days, not preserved
in the MS. : the common Synaxaria
have lessons from Hebrews on the
Saturdays of their Lent. ' Tyrophagus '
Sunday is one of the days of coinci-
dence, the lesson being Rom. xiii. 11-
xiv. 4. In short nothing can be clearly
made out, except the prevalence of
variety of usage and the utmost free-
dom in the selection of lessons; that
is, Fritzsche's and Meyer's arguments
are found to have no support from
facts.

1 The late Alexandrine lesson for St
Stephen's Day begins Acts vi. 8 and

ends vii. 60. As the other lessons are
all short, this must have been made
up of two passages, the speech being
omitted. A similar Old Latin lesson
for St Stephen's Day has been printed
by Ceriani (Mon. S. et P. i. n. 127 f.),
combining vi. 8-vii. 2 with vii. 51-viii.
4. Ranke in Herzog E. E. x. 81 notices
two Mozarabic lessons from Jeremiah,
one of which omits 13 verses in the
midst, and the other is a cento of 5
fragments.

2 Gabler in Griesbach Opusc. ii. p.
xx vi.

3 This is the ground taken by J. A.
Bengel (App. Grit. 340 Burk), to whom
we owe the first suggestion about Church
Lessons. He says 'Videntur Graeci,
ne lectio publica in severam sententiam
Quicquid non est ex fide peccatum est
desineret, hanc ei clausulam attexuisse.
Conf. var. Matth. iii. 11.' His note on
the omission of /cat irvpi in this last
place is worth quoting. ' Citra haec
verba finierunt Graeci, v. gr. in Aug. 4
[the Lectionary numbered 24], lectio-
nem ecclesiasticam, ne tristis esset
clausula. Simili euphemismo et Ju-
daei post ultimum eumque severum
lesaiae, Malachiae, Threnorum, et Ko-
heleth versum rescribere penultimum
sclent: et Graeci nonnulli post ultimum
Malachiae versum ponunt antepenulti-
mum. Etiam in Byz. [86] rAos pri-
mum post haec verba, deinde his erasis
ante, notatum est.'

344 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Scribes accustomed to hear it in that connexion in the public
lessons would half mechanically introduce it into the text of
St Paul, just as they seem to have introduced a liturgical
doxology after the Lord's Prayer into the text of St Matthew
(vi. 13). Then in the course of time it would be seen that St
Paul was not likely to have written the Doxology twice over in
the same epistle, and it would be struck out in one place or the
other; while familiar use would override any effort of critical
judgement 1 , and so the Doxology would vanish from the end of
xvi., nothing in the context seeming to demand its retention.
Such I conceive is the history of the position which the
Doxology holds in the vulgar Greek text, a position which
it would probably retain in the Received Text and in the
popular versions of Europe but for the confused impulse which
led Erasmus in this instance to adhere to the Latin tradition.

III. In the two places of the first chapter (7, 15), where
the name of Rome is mentioned, it disappears in the single
MS. G. Some leaves are wanting at the beginning of F ;
doubtless if extant they would shew the same omission. At
the first passage there is a note in the margin of 47 to the
effect that ' he [or ' it ' : no nominative] mentions the phrase
ev 'Pco/ty neither in the commentary nor in the text.' The
subject may be some unknown commentator, but is more
likely to be an ' ancient copy ' of St Paul's Epistles which is
expressly cited in a similar marginal note on vi. 24 2 , and which
like 47 itself may have been provided with a marginal catena
or ' commentary ' 3 . Dr Lightfoot thinks he sees a trace of the

1 Yet ancient criticism, finding the 2 The reading there quoted from TO

Doxology between xiv. and xv., would ira\aibv forlypafov is both rare and ex-

probably see nothing to object to ; while cellent : the other marginal readings of

it would readily stumble at the ap- 47 are of no interest, nor is there I be-

parent violation of epistolary correct- lieve any other reference to another

ness in xvi. 25 ff. The influence of authority. Cf. Griesbach Symb. Grit.

MSS. like FG may also have helped i. 155 ff.

to expel the final Doxology, while it 3 An uncial MS. with a catena, like

would be powerless to displace the S of St Luke, might be called 'the

same words where imbedded firmly ancient copy' in the llth or 12th

in the text. century.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 345

same omission in Origen's criticism as rendered by Rufinus,
notwithstanding the presence of Romae in the text. But the
context gives another turn to the language used. ' Benedictio
autem pacis et gratiae, quam dat dilectis Dei ad quos scribit
apostolus Paulus, puto quod non sit minor ea quae fuit bene-
dictio in Sem et in Japheth, quoniam per Spiritum impleta
est erga eos qui fuerant benedicti etc.' 'Ad quos scribit' is
substituted for 'qui erant Romae' because the point is that
St Paul's benedictions had not less dignity and effect than the
sacred benedictions of the Old Testament ; as Origen proceeds
' Non ego his omnibus inferiorem duco hanc Apostoli bene-
dictionem, qua benedixit ecclesias Christi/ while any inference
from the generality of ' ecclesias ' is precluded by the further
remark that ' haec Apostoli consuetudo scribendi non erga
omnes ab eo servatur ecclesias,' and by the classification which
follows. Still less can I recognize any sign of the omission in
the Ambrosian Hilary's words f Quamvis Romanis scribat, illis
tamen scribere se significat, qui in caritate Dei sunt.' For he
goes on ' Qui sunt hi nisi qui de Dei filio recte sentiunt ? Isti
sancti sunt et vocati dicuntur : sub lege enim agentes 1 male
intelligunt Christum ' etc. Every word becomes clear on com-
parison with a passage in the Prologue (25 AB) in which he
contrasts the 'Romani' with the Judaizers who were equally
at Rome (eV 'Pa fig): the meaning is that St Paul writes not
to all ' at Rome ' indiscriminately, but to those at Rome who
were in caritate Dei.' The true text in full is TTUO-IV rofc
ova- iv ev r Pa)/jLr) dyaTrrjrois 6eov K\r)Tol$ 0710^9. A Western
correction (D* lat. [the Greek lost] G, the 2 best JVISS. of the
Vulgate, apparently the Ambrosian Hilary, and perhaps Hilary
of Poitiers) substitutes eV dydTrrj Oeov for dyainrjTols 0eov, doubt-
less on account of the K\TJTOL^ following ('who... through the
love of God are called to be saints'). The result is that ENPQMH
and ENAFATTHOY were left contiguous, each beginning with ev.
The loss of one or other out of a pair of such groups of letters

1 Not 'they agentes ' but ' they who aguntS

346

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

is common in MSS. of any form, and would be peculiarly liable
to occur in one written in columns of short lines, such as was
assuredly the archetype of FG 1 . These two MSS. have further
a trick of omitting words that do not appear necessary to the
sense, as might easily be the case with ev 'Pco/M? here when the
following words were changed : so et? crwr^piav i. 16 ; rj

e/c

1 Hug pointed out (Einl. in N. T. i.
252 ff.) the evidence afforded by the
frequent capitals in G that it was copied
from a ' stichometrical' MS. resembling
D, and perhaps older. In F many of
the capitals are wanting, and probably
even the scribe of G neglected a large
proportion. It has not however been
noticed, I believe, that the three equal
chasms in the Greek text common to
F and G measure for us the contents
of each leaf of the archetype, about
20 lines of the 'Oxford Lloyd,' a con-
venient standard for reference. Now in
these three places (1 Cor. iii. 8-16 ; vi.
7-14; Col. ii. 1-8) a leaf of D con-
tains on the average 24 lines of Lloyd,
Greek alone. If then the archetype of
FG had like D a Latin column, we
might form a fair impression of the
general appearance by cutting off 2
lines from each page of D. If there
was no Latin, each leaf of the arche-
type must have contained rather less
than those of any extant Biblical MS. :
the nearest approach would be to the
purple and silver N (21 Lloyd lines)
and the peculiar Z (23), apparently
once a MS. of the same class. E of the
Acts has indeed but 12 Greek Lloyd
lines ; but there is the Latin in addi-
tion. One exception might have been
found in the lost archetype of a part of
C. A fortunate displacement of text
in the midst of a page of the Apoca-
lypse (x. 9, 10; vii. 17-viii. 4; xi. 3-12)
proves, on accurate measurement and
calculation, notwithstanding the loss
of the preceding leaf, that the arche-

type hereabouts was made up of quires
of 8 sheets, with 12 Lloyd lines to a
leaf, while a leaf of C itself has 100
Lloyd lines. The outer sheet but one
of a quire must have been somehow
turned inside out before stitching, and
so the scribe of C, copying on without
thought, interchanged vii. 17-viii. 4
and x. 10-xi. 3. But it is possible,
though unlikely, that the archetype of
C was bilingual : the Graeco-thebaic
fragments of T have 21 Greek Lloyd
lines to a leaf, nearly double. The
great primary Eastern MSS. of the 4th
and 5th centuries, KABC (with 160,
148, 131, 100 Lloyd lines to a leaf
respectively) , owe I believe their state-
ly appearance to the new impulse to
exhibit together the settled and com-
pleted Canon of Scripture. Before
Constantino the parchment copies were
in all likelihood small and portable.
Our two earliest MSS., X and B, seem
to represent the older period in the
narrowness of their columns, not in
the ample structure of their pages,
which may or may not have been
suggested by a partly opened papyrus
roll. During the time when most
variations arose, narrow columns were
assuredly general, to say the least.
The date when ' stichometry ' proper
began is still unknown : the evidence
which refers it to the middle of the
5th century is most precarious. And
the example of E of the Acts shews
on how different scales stichometrical
arrangements might be made.

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 347

(j)va-ea)<s d/cpoftva-ria ii. 27 ; (ov iravTtoS iii. 9 ;) 'Irjo-ov iii. 26 ;
/JLOVOV iv. 16 ; o Odvaros v. 12: (rat? 7ri,0v/j,Lais avrov vi. 12;)
ort e/AOfc TO /catcbv irapdiceiTai vii. 21 ; et 8e XptcrTos ez/ //</
viii. 10; vioOealav viii. 23 ; &c. The omission in i. 7 might there-
fore be neglected without further thought but for the parallel
omission of rot? ev 'Paoprj in i. 15, the name of Rome being
confined to these two passages in the Epistle. The coincidence
would certainly be noteworthy if it were sustained by other
documentary evidence, or if there were independent reasons for
believing a recension of the Epistle to have existed in which
the marks of a special destination were purposely obliterated.
There is no such reason apart from the supposed removal of
xv. xvi. : the hypothesis is suggested by the reading of G at
i. 7, 15. We may therefore be content to suspect that in these
two verses like causes produced like results.

All the phenomena of text alleged to prove a double
recension have now been examined. The enigmatical Latin
capitulation excepted, they have been found, if I mistake not,
to be more naturally explicable by other causes. This result
becomes clearer still when the hypothesis is examined as a
whole. The second recension, it will be remembered, was said
to consist of chapters i. to xiv., with the Doxology, and without
the two namings of Rome. How is it then that every autho-
rity, which supports, or may be thought to support, some part
of this combination, contradicts some other part ? For the
omission of xv. xvi. the one direct testimony, if such it be, is
that of Marcion : and yet the one incontrovertible fact about
him is that he omitted the Doxology. If G is to be added on
the strength of the blank space after xiv., yet again it leaves
out the Doxology. Once more there is no lack of authorities
of a sort for subjoining the Doxology to xiv. We may waive
the fact that they all retain xv. xvi. We cannot forget (1) that
they all make mention of Rome at i. 7, 15 ; and (2) that they
have no sort of genealogical affinity with the MS. that ignores
Rome, or with Marcion. In few words, the authorities, which

348 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

as a matter of fact contain the rude outlines of the first
recension, supply the main data for constructing the second.
Meanwhile neither recension is represented in the great mass
of good authorities, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, or other,
on which the text of St Paul stands in ordinary cases. Both
recensions, as wholes, are purely conjectural. If Rome and the
transposed Benediction are set aside, the first recension is
vouched for by FG (standing for a single archetype) alone of
extant documents and by some traditional evidence. The
second recension can be reached only through a hypothetical
text which Marcion altered, and a hypothetical duplicate
original of G.

Such being the relations of the textual evidence, little re-
quires to be said on the intrinsic probability of the hypothesis.
There is nothing in it that we need hesitate to accept if only
the evidence were stronger. But it surely has not that kind of
verisimilitude which would raise the feeling that it cannot but
be true. The only analogous instance known to us is the
encyclical epistle addressed to the Ephesians and other neigh-
bouring churches. But that letter appears (1) to have been
sent simultaneously to its different recipients ; and (2) to have
been general in form in the first instance, not a special appeal
trimmed for general use. Analogy apart, it is difficult to
imagine St Paul deliberately cutting out in after years the
words that spoke of personal bonds to definite churches and
believers, and the passionate hopes and fears which they had
once called forth. If for any purpose he needed an impersonal
treatise on the old subjects, he would surely have written it
anew. Indeed the fitness of our Epistle, however altered, may
well be doubted. Its catholicity springs from the marvellous
balance that it holds between Jew and Gentile, which in its
turn rises historically out of the equal or almost equal combi-
nation of the two bodies in the metropolitan Church, as Dr
Lightfoot has justly insisted (p. 312 ff.). Is it probable that the
same characteristics would recur in the unlike ' countries into
which he had not yet penetrated' (p. 319)? Even that single

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 349

point of connexion disappears when we recall the pregnant
paradox of his relation to the Romans, that, though he had not
seen them, he knew them so well.

The inverse theory of several critics, that the original
letter to the Romans ended with xiv. and, some add, with
the Doxology, and that St Paul afterwards appended xv. xvi.,
escapes these difficulties to plunge into worse. Paley proves
convincingly that xv. can belong only to the time when the
body of the Epistle was written and can have been addressed
only to the Romans : and there is cogent evidence which he has
overlooked. Dr Lightfoot has shewn how much can fairly be
elicited from xvi. to the same effect. The slight break more-
over after xiv. is onesided, and on the wrong side. The opening
words of xv. furnish a tolerable beginning: the last words of
xiv. make a very bad end, even when the Doxology is allowed
to follow.

When all is said, two facts have to be explained, the inser-
tion of the Doxology after xiv., and its omission. The former
has occupied us enough already: the latter now claims a few
words. If the view taken in this paper be right, the omitting
authorities are FG, Marcion, and certain MSS. twice noticed by
Origen, once distinctly and both times implicitly, as having
been corrupted by Marcion. The readings of D* and Sedulius,
mixed authorities substantially akin to FG, likewise iuiply
omission as antecedent. Origen accuses Marcion of wilful
omission: is the charge just? There is analogy favourable to
either answer. It is now equally certain that Marcion some-
times mutilated the text of his favourite apostle, and that some
variations or omissions imputed to his pen were in fact simply
the readings which he found already in his MS. The reference
to ' prophetic Scriptures ' in v. 26 might conceivably annoy him,
though, as far as we know, he tolerated much of the same kind
that was less likely to please him. But the removal of four
words, an operation more in his manner, would have served
every purpose. Though copies of his Apostolicon were seemingly
current here and there in the Church, no extant document can

350 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

be shewn to have been affected by any of his wilful alterations.
Indeed * copies corrupted by Marcion ' need mean to us no more
than * copies agreeing in a certain reading with Marcion's copy':
and Marcion's copy, prior to his own manipulations, appears by
various signs to have had much in common with the authorities
associated with him in the omission of the Doxology. On the
whole it is reasonably certain that the omission is his only as
having been transmitted by him, in other words that it is a
genuine ancient reading.

Genuine : but right or wrong ? The question cannot be
answered off-hand. Not right merely because shewn to be as
old as the first quarter of the second century: not wrong merely
because the outward evidence for omission is small and at the
same time virtually responsible for many impossible readings.
Experience shews that authorities, rarely or never in the right
when they alter or add, are often in the right when they omit.
Such is preeminently the case with the Western group of which
DFG form an important section. Yet the omissions of DFG
without the accession of B, when examined together, are for the
most part suspicious. Thus on the whole authority is in favour
of the Doxology. Internal evidence is likewise not all on one
side. So considerable an omission might be expected to proceed
only from a strong and evident motive, such as cannot be
decisively recognized here. On the other hand the singular
and yet unobtrusive correspondence with those parts of the
letter which best reveal its purpose is an argument hardly
to be gainsayed without strong documentary testimony. Pure
accident is not to be rejected from the imaginable causes of the
loss. The last or outer column of a papyrus roll, the outer leaf
of a parchment book, would be subject to peculiar risks, as
every keeper of MSS. can avouch ; and it is probable that an
epistle so long as that to the Romans would often form a book
to itself in early times 1 . Nor again dare we assume that the

1 On the scale of the archetype of C usually of coarse thick parchment, the
this epistle would occupy 90 leaves. delicate thin vellum of our great MSS.
They would necessarily be small, and being a recognised mark of luxury ;

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION.

351

rash hands which shifted the Benediction would hesitate to let
go the Doxology, in their zeal to give the Epistle a correct
ending. Having once lost the vantage ground of possession
from whatever cause, the Doxology would not easily recover it.
Henceforth conservatism and criticism would be on the same
side. Presently, when the Doxology had found a home after
the fourteenth chapter, every motive for replacing it at the end
of the Epistle was gone. We cannot wonder that the evidence
for retaining it there, and leaving inviolate the continuity of
the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters, is exclusively ancient
and good 1 .

F. J. A. HORT.

and would thus form a sufficient vo-
lume. The variety of order in the
Pauline epistles in early times, of
which there is good evidence, would be
promoted by their separate use. On
this view the language used by Con-
stantine and Eusebius (V. Const, iv.
36 f.) about the new Imperial Bibles,
'sumptuously prepared,' with their
quires of 3 or 4 sheets, has more force:
Constantine's word o-w/zdrto^ (= cor-
pus), the technical term for a combi-
nation of single works, doubtless ex-
presses the change from books and
groups of books to the full Canon.

1 Since this article has been in type,
Dr Lightfoot has kindly pointed out to
me an oversight in pp. 337 f., 347. In
the Codex Fuldensis the table of head-
ings to Romans agrees with that in the
Codex Amiatinus etc. only in the latter
part, as Ranke himself observes, p.
xxiii. The first 23 headings belong
to a totally different capitulation, and
exhaust the Epistle down to xiv. 13.
Then follows No. 24 of the other table,
describing ix. 1-5 ; and so on. The
previous or peculiar headings have no
marks or divisions answering to them
in the text itself. The scribe evidently
saw that his tale of 51 sections could
not be made up without borrowing

elsewhere, and he ventured to save
appearances at the cost of sense. Whe-
ther he had actually reached the end
of the first table or only saw it near at
hand, is less clear. The headings are
not so exactly descriptive as to forbid
the inclusion of xiv. 14-23 in 23 ; and
thus it is certainly possible that we
have two complete and independent
Latin capitulations in which xv. xvi.
are omitted. More cannot be said till
ancient capitulations generally have
been properly investigated, and this
demands a wide examination of MSS.
Meanwhile it should be observed that
(1) the Fulda headings have no trace of
the Doxology ; and (2) they are loaded
with Augustinian or Anti-Pelagian
phraseology, and cannot therefore be
dated much before 400 at earliest.

The sectional numerals in P, I now
likewise see, may possibly once have
been continued after Eom. xv. 14 ; 1
Cor. xv. 51 : some numerals have faded
out of sight in almost every epistle,
and in Eom. i.-x. all have vanished;
cf. Tischendorf M.S. I. v. p. xiv. But
as the 1 of each epistle (10) except
1 Cor. begins after the salutation,
analogy favours the view taken above
(p. 342, n. 1).

TN the last number of this Journal (in. p. 51 sq.) Mr Hort
- criticised and condemned a theory which I had suggested 1
in the preceding number (n. p. 264 sq.) to account for certain
facts connected with the text of the Epistle to the Romans.
The facts, it will be remembered, were mainly these; (1) One
or more ancient writers used a copy of the Epistle containing
only the first fourteen chapters, with or without the doxology
which in the common text stands at the close of the whole
(xvi. 25-27). (2) In the existing copies this doxology appears
sometimes at the end of the xivth chapter, sometimes at the
end of the xvith, sometimes in both places, while in some few
instances it is omitted altogether. (3) At least one text omits
ev 'Papy in i. 7, 15. The theory, by which I sought to combine
and explain these facts, was this ; that St Paul at a later period
of his life reissued the Epistle in a shorter form with a view to
general circulation, omitting the last two chapters, obliterating
the mention of Rome in the first chapter, and adding the
doxology, which was no part of the original Epistle. Mr Hort
impugns some of these assumed facts and explains away others.
Having done this, he attacks the theory itself, and endeavours
to show that it is untenable.

No one, who is really anxious to ascertain the truth, would
object to such a criticism as Mr Hort's, even though it should
lead to the rejection of a darling theory. I am especially obliged
to him for the thoroughness with which he has applied the test
of textual criticism to my hypothesis. And, if I venture,
notwithstanding his arguments, to maintain that the facts
themselves are stubborn and in some respects even stronger
than I had supposed, and to uphold my theory as the most

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 353

probable explanation of the facts, until a better is suggested, I
trust that I am not blinded by partiality. At all events I will
give my reasons as briefly as possible, taking the facts first
and then proceeding to the theory.

I. The first and most important of the facts is the ex-
istence, in early times, of copies containing only fourteen
chapters. Of this the indications are various, and (as it seems
to me) conclusive.

(i) The statement of Origen respecting Marcion has been
* universally understood/ as Mr Hort himself allows (p. 330), to
mean that this heretic struck out not only the paragraph con-
taining the doxology, but the two last chapters also ; ' Caput
hoc [i.e. the paragraph containing the doxology] Marcion, a
quo Scripturae evangelicae atque apostolicae interpolatae sunt,
de hac epistola penitus abstulit ; et non solum hoc, sed et
ab eo loco ubi scriptum est Omne autem quod non ex fide
peccatum est (xiv. 23) ad finem cuncta dissecuit. In aliis
vero exemplaribus, id est, in his quae non sunt a Marcione
temerata, hoc ipsum caput diverse positum invenimus.' An
universal understanding may be wrong, but most frequently
it is correct ; and I cannot doubt that this is the case here.
Mr Hort however adopts a reading of a Paris MS. (Reg. 1639)
which has ' in eo loco ' for ' ab eo loco/ and himself alters ' hoc '
into ' hie.' Thus he makes Origen say that Marcion cut out
the doxology, not only at the end of the xivth chapter, but
also at the end of the Epistle. Now my reply to this is three-
fold ; (1) Though we may allow the general value of the read-
ings in this MS., whose date however is not earlier than about
the 12th century, yet its text is far from faultless, so that only
a slight presumption is raised in favour of a reading from the
fact of its being found there. In the present instance however
the reading ' in eo loco ' has no meaning, unless with Mr Hort
we likewise change hoc into hie an alteration for which there
is no MS. authority. (2) Mr Hort's reading and interpretation
destroy the force of individual expressions in the context.
L. E. 23

354 THE EPISTLE TO THE KOMANS.

* Usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit ' is natural enough when
applied to two whole chapters, but not to the doxology
alone ; and again in ' hoc ipsum caput ' the ipsum becomes
meaningless, unless it is contrasted with some other portion.
If the words be taken as they stand and interpreted in the
ordinary way, the sequence commends itself; 'Caput Aoc...non
solum hoc sed...iisque ad finem cuncta... hoc ipsum caput ' ; but
it is entirely broken up if they are read and explained as
Mr Hort wishes. (3) One who reads continuously not only
the passage quoted above, but the whole paragraph of Origen
as given by Mr Hort (see p. 330) or by myself (p. 288), will
hardly fail, I think, to see how Mr Hort's interpretation
involves and confuses the natural order of the topics.

When again Mr Hort supposes the statement of Jerome
(on Ephes. iii. 5), that the doxology was found in plerisque
codicibus, to have been derived from Origen's commentary on
the same Epistle, I allow that this supposition is probable. But
I do not see that Mr Hort's view gains strength thereby. Com-
menting on Ephes. iii. 5, Origen would be concerned only with
the doxology in which ' the mystery ' is mentioned, and he would
be going out of his way, if he said anything about the omission
of the xvth and xvith chapters, with which he was not in any
way concerned. Moreover it must be observed that, when
there is a question of a various reading, Jerome sometimes
manipulates Origen's statements in such a manner as entiFely
to disfigure their meaning. Such is the case for instance with
the opening verse of this very Epistle to the Ephesians, where
Origen, having before him a text which omitted eV 'E^eo-w,
interprets rofc ovcriv in an entirely lucid though highly
artificial way, but Jerome, repeating his great predecessor's
comment, holds language which can hardly be called intel-
ligible.

As regards the statement of Tertullian, when arguing
against Marcion (v. 14), that the threat of the tribunal Christi
(Rom. xiv. 10) occurs in clausula of the Epistle, I agree with
Mr Hort that the inference which supposes Tertullian to refer

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 355

to a copy of the Epistle wanting the xvth and xvith chapters,
though 'natural/ is not 'conclusive.' Let the fact that the
inference is natural have no more than its proper weight.
I should not have laid much stress on the expression, if it had
stood alone ; but in connexion with Origen's account of Marcion
it cannot be overlooked.

(ii) For the negative argument that the last two chapters
are nowhere quoted by certain early writers I claim a supple-
mental value. More than this it does not deserve. The fact
however remains that neither Irenasus nor Tertullian nor
Cyprian (except in a very doubtful allusion) refers to them. I
will only add that this omission occurs in Western writers 1 ,
whereas they are more than once quoted by Clement and
Origen. The importance of this fact will appear hereafter.

(iii) I owe it to Mr Hort's candour that my attention was
directed to the capitulations of the Latin Bibles, and the
evidence derived thence seems to me to strengthen my case
enormously. In my former article I had referred to Wetstein's
note : ' Codex Latinus habet capitula Epistolae ad Romanes 51,
desinit autem in caput xiv. ; ex quo conficitur ista capitula ad
editionem Marcionis fuisse accommodata ' ; and, misled with
others by his careless expression desinit (where desinunt would
have been clearer), I had naturally supposed that the MS. itself,
to which he refers, ended with the xivth chapter, and accord-
ingly remarked that ' later critics had not been able to identify
the MS. and thus verify the statement.' I have no doubt how-
ever that Mr Hort is right, and that Wetstein refers to such a
phenomenon as the Codex Amiatinus exhibits, where (though
the Epistle itself is complete) the capitulations end with the
end of the xivth chapter, there or thereabouts. I have since

1 The first distinct quotation by any may be trusted) cites nothing from

Western writer, so far as I can dis- these two chapters but the doxology.

cover, occurs in Victorinus c. Arium The 'very doubtful reference' in Cy-

iii. p. 280 c, a treatise written about prian is given by Mr Hort, p. 336,

A.D. 365 where xvi. 20 is quoted. note 2.
Even Hilary of Poitiers (if the index

232

356 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

been investigating the subject l ; and the results of this investi-
gation seem to be sufficiently important to justify my taking
up a few pages in recording them.

In fact, there is evidence of two distinct capitulations both
ending with the xivth chapter the first very widely spread,
the second only preserved in a single though very early MS.

Of the first of these, the Codex Amiatinus affords the oldest
and best example. In this MS. the table of contents prefixed
to the Epistle gives 51 sections, the 50th section being described
* De periculo contristante fratrem suum esca sua, et quod non
sit regnum Dei esca et potus sed justitia et pax et gaudium in
Spiritu Sancto/ and the 51st and last ' De mysterio domini
ante passionem in silentio habito, post passionem vero ipsius
revelato.' Corresponding to these, the sections are marked in
the text, and agree with the descriptions in the table of con-
tents as far as the 50th. The 50th is marked as beginning at
xiv. 15, and here again the description is accurate ; but the
51st commences with xv. 4, and has no connexion with the
description. The description of the 51st in fact corresponds
to the doxology (xvi. 25-27), and to nothing else in the re-
mainder of the Epistle. The natural inference therefore is,
that the capitulation was made for a copy of the Epistle,
containing only fourteen chapters and the doxology ; and that
the scribe who first adapted it to a full copy with the sixteen
chapters, not finding anything corresponding to the 51st section
in the immediate context, extended the 50th section as far as
the subject allowed him and made the 51st section include
all the remainder of the Epistle. This solution, which Mr Hort
allows to be certainly possible, seems to me to commend itself
as in the highest degree probable.

This capitulation appears to have prevailed very widely.
It is found in not less than seven MSS. enumerated by Card.

1 After I saw Mr Hort's article in non of the capitulations in the Codex

type, I began to look into the matter ; Fuldensis. To this conversation he

and, before it was finally struck off, I refers in a note appended to his article

mentioned the remarkable phenome- (p. 351).

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 357

Tommasi (Thomasii Op. I. p. 388 sq. ed. Vezzosi), and dating
from the age of Charles the Great downwards. It occurs again
in the British Museum MS. Add. 10,546, an Alcuinian copy,
generally called 'Charlemagne's Bible,' but really written in
one of the succeeding reigns ; in the important MS. Harl. 1772
belonging to the 8th century; in the Oxford Bodleian MS.
Laud. Lat. 108 (E. 67) of the 9th century (in which however
the number is expanded from 51 to 67 by a subdivision of one
or more of the earlier sections); in the MS. B. 5. 2 of Trin.
Coll., Cambridge, belonging to the llth or 12th century 1 ; and in
the Cambridge University MS. Ee. 1. 9 written apparently late
in the 13th century 2 . In Add. 10,546 the sections correspond
in number and position with those of the Amiatinus, but the
words are occasionally varied, e.g. de non contristando fratre for
de periculo contristante fratrem suum. In Harl. 1772 the
number of sections in the table of contents is reduced to 49
by combining 43, 44, 45 in one section, while (except unim-
portant various readings) the words of the Amiatinus are
strictly followed. In the text however the whole 51 sections
are marked; of these the first 49 correspond to those of the
Amiatinus, but the 50th commences not with the beginning
of xiv. 15 Si enim propter, but with the middle Noli cibo
(while on the margin in a later hand stands xlviiij. opposite
Si enim propter), and the 51st not with xv. 4 Quaecumque
enim, but with the middle of xiv. 22 Beatus qui (the Q of
Quaecumque being however illuminated). And again in Cambr.
Univ. Ee. 1. 9, where the number of sections is similarly re-
duced to 50, the beginning of the 50th and last section 'de
mysterio etc.' stands at xv. 1 Debemus autem nos, i.e. at the
precise point where it would have stood, if the MS. had con-

1 In the older Trin. Coll. MS. of 2 In the Cambr. Univ. MS. Ff. 4. 40,

St Paul's Epistles B. 10. 5, of the 9th which came from the Library of Christ

century, the Epistle to the Romans Church, Canterbury, and was written

and part of the First to the Corinthians probably early in the 13th century,

are wanting. The Amiatinian capitu- though the Amiatinian capitulations

lations are given for the other Epi- are not given, I find this note ' Haec

sties. epistola capitula li. dicitur habuisse.'

358 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

tained only the doxology after the xivth chapter. These
variations show the difficulty which was felt in adapting the
end of the imperfect capitulation to the complete Epistle :
and they answer any objection founded on the fact that in the
Amiatinus itself the last section does not commence at the
.exact place in the text which the hypothesis seems to require.
In more than one MS. however, which I have examined,
this capitulation is completed. The British Museum MS. Add.
28,107 formerly belonged to the monastery of S. Remacle at
Stavelot, and was written in the year 1097, c ipso eodem
anno quo versus hierusalem facta fuerat gentium plurimarum
profectio,' as is stated at the end. The capitulation to the
Epistle to the Romans gives 63 sections. Of these 1-41
correspond with those of the Amiatinus; 42, 43, 44, 45,
are formed out of S 42 of the latter subdivided ; and 5 46-53

correspond to 43-50 of the latter. Thus the heading of
53 is 'Periculum contristantis fratrem suum esca sua etc.'
There is nothing corresponding to 51 of Amiatinus, which
comprises the doxology, but 54 (xiv. 19) is 'Quae pacis sunt
sectanda et fratres propter escam minime judicandi,' and 55
(xv. 4) 'De doctrina et consolatione script urarum et quod una-
nimiter sit honorificandus deus et pater domini nostri jesu
christi'; while the last section of all ( 63), beginning at
xvi. 21, runs 'Salutatio timothei et caeterorum etiam et ipsius
pauli qui epistolam in domino se scripsisse dicit.' The com-
piler was viligant enough to see that the section ' de mysterio
etc/ of the capitulation before him did not correspond to any-
thing which followed, and therefore ejected it, and supplied
(though not very intelligently) the remaining sections which
were required to complete the Epistle.

Another complete capitulation, founded on the Amiatinian,
occurs in the British Museum MS., Reg. 1. E. viii., which be-
longed to Christ Church, Canterbury, and may have been
written about the middle of the tenth century. This capitu-
lation, which is very brief and very slovenly, comprises 29
sections. The last of these are as follows :

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 359

xxiiii. de redditione unicuique omnium debitore (sic).

xxv. de periculo contristante fratrem esca sua.

xxvi. de mysterio domini ante passionem in silentio habitat (sic).

xxvii. post passionem domini ipsius mysterio revelatus.

xxviii. obsecratio pauli ad dominum ut liberetur ab infidelibus.

xxix. salutatio pauli ad fratres.

The retention and subdivision of the section comprising
the doxology, where it has no meaning, is a curious pheno-
menon.

A third instance of completed capitulation is found in the
MS. B. 5. 1 of Trin. Coll., Cambridge, belonging to the 12th
century. Here the scribe has retained all the Amiatinian
sections, including the doxology ; but by combining two in
the earlier part, he reduces them to 50 in number. Thus the
49th is ' de non contristando fratrem, etc.,' and the 50th ' de
mysterio domini, etc.' To these he adds two new sections,
which are the same as those described in the last MS. :

li. obsecratio pauli ad dominum, etc.
lii. salutatio pauli ad fratres.

In the text the 49th section begins at xiv. 50, the 50th at xv. 4,
the 51st at xv. 30, and the 52nd at xvi. 1. The inequality of
scale in these superadded sections shows that they did not
proceed from the same hand as the rest 1 .

These facts have been elicited by an examination of such
MSS. as came conveniently within my reach 2 . Doubtless a
wider investigation would produce more striking results. But
I have seen enough to convince me that the Amiatinian capitu-

1 The relation between the two MSS. which perhaps appears first in the

last described is curious. For, while Alcuinian copies,

other indications would suggest that 2 My examination has not extended

the capitulations of Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. beyond the British Museum MSS. to

E. viii. were derived from those of the llth century (inclusive), and the

Trin. B. 5. 1, the former presents the MSS. in the Cambridge University and

older form of the Amiatinian 50th sec- Trinity College Libraries. The infor-

tion 'de periculo contristante fratrem,' mation respecting Bodl. Laud. Lat. 108

while the latter substitutes the amend- I owe to Mr Coxe, the Librarian,
ed form 'de non contristando fratrem, 1

360 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

lation, though originally framed, as will be seen hereafter, for a
short copy of the Old Latin, yet maintained its ground as a
common mode of dividing the Epistle, until it was at length
superseded by the present division into 16 chapters in the
latter half of the 13th century.

The second capitulation, of which I spoke, is found in the
Codex Fuldensis which, like the Amiatinus, was written about
the middle of the 6th century. The sections in the text cor-
respond exactly with the Amiatinian. Not so in the table of
contents. Of the latter Ranke remarks (Codex Fuldensis, p.
xxiii, 1868): 'Quae epistolae ad Romanes praemissa sunt capitula
duabus in partibus constant, quarum altera (i.-xxiii.), totius
fere epistolae argumentum in se continens, per se ipsa stare
videtur, altera (xxiii,-li.) iis respondet quae iisdem sub numeris
in cod. Amiatino proferuntur.' The words which I have itali-
cised are not very exact. These 23 sections, which belong to
a different capitulation from the remainder, reach to about the
end of the fourteenth chapter, the last ( xxiii.) being ' Quod
fideles dei non debeant invicem judicare cum unusquisq. secun-
dum regulas mandatorum ipse se debeat divino judicio praepa-
rare ut ante tribunal dei sine confusione possit operum suorum
praestare rationem.' The 24th Amiatinian section, which fol-
lows next, begins with ix. 1, so that six chapters (ix.-xiv.) are
included twice. The natural inference is that the scribe, re-
membering that the text contained 51 sections, and seeing that
the table of contents gave less than half that number, applied
himself to another source, and completed the headings of the
remaining sections from the Amiatinian capitulation. Whether
the capitulation from which i.-xxiii. are taken contained the
doxology or not, must remain doubtful. The analogy of the
Amiatinian sections would suggest that it did. The 23 sum-
maries peculiar to the Fuldensis are very broad and general ;
thus xxii. ' de mundanis potestatibus honorandis quia oportet
oboediri his quib. ad mundanum regumen dominus tribuit
potestate,' though including the whole of our 13th chapter, omits
to take account of the last half, vv. 8-14 ; and in like manner

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 361

in xxiii. the doxology may not have been thought worthy of
any special attention in this heading 1 .

Mr Hort indeed impugns the value of this Fuldensian
capitulation on the ground that the headings ' are loaded with
Augustinian or Anti-Pelagian phraseology, and cannot therefore
be dated much before 400 at earliest' (p. 351, note). I have no
wish to deny that there is force in this argument ; which never-
theless does not seem to me conclusive. The strongest expres-
sions in this direction are 'pro fide romanorum...deo apostolus
gratias agit ut probetur fidem in deum muneris est divini,' and
'in Christo Jesu qui solus sic humana [humanam] naturam
recepit ut eum contagia veteris originis non tenerent.' The
African fathers were more or less Augustinian before Augus-
tine's time, and (so far as I can see) might have held such
language 2 .

On any showing however the Latin Bibles bear strong testi-
mony to the existence of the shorter form of this Epistle at an
early date. The alternative hypothesis, that these sections were
determined by the lessons read in Churches, is devoid alike of
evidence and of probability. With this single exception, the
Amiatinian capitulation in the New Testament includes, I
believe, the entire book in every case. It does not bear the
slightest trace of being intended for lectionary purposes. Nor
indeed is there any reason why the 15th chapter should be
excluded from the lessons ; for it is much more fit for public

1 Besides the capitulations mention- In this last MS., though the table of

ed in the text, I have noticed one other contents gives 18 chapters, the Epistle

which is unconnected with either. It itself is divided by marginal numbers

contains 18 sections and includes the into smaller sections, 125 in number,

whole epistle. This capitulation is 2 e.g. Cyprian Ep. 64, says ' Secun-

found in : dum Adam carnaliter natus, contagium

(1) Brit. Mus. Add. 11,852, a MS. mortis antiquae prima nativitate con-
which belonged to the monastery of traxit.' Compare also Tertull. deAnim.
St Gall, and was written in the 9th 40, 41 ; and see Neander Hist, of
century. Christian Dogmas, i. p. 185 sq. (Eng.

(2) Brit. Mus. Add. 24,142 ' Monas- Trans.). Augustine's own dogmatic
terii S. Huberti in Ardvenna,' sup- views on these points were enunciated
posed to have been written about A.D. before Pelagius took up the subject :
900. ib. p. 347 sq.

362 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

reading than many sections elsewhere, which are retained.
Even the 16th chapter would be treated with exceptional rigour
on this showing, for in other epistles the paragraphs containing
the salutations are religiously recorded in the capitulation.
Moreover, the oldest evidence which we possess on the subject
exhibits lessons for Sundays and Festivals taken from the 15th
chapter ; and if so, a fortiori it would not be neglected in the
daily lessons, supposing (which seems improbable) that daily
lessons had been instituted at the time when this capitulation
was made.

When my attention was first directed to the Amiatinian
capitulation, I naturally inferred that it had belonged originally
to the Old Latin and was later adapted to the Vulgate. A fur-
ther examination has shown this inference to be correct. The
capitulation preserves at least one crucial reading of the Old
Latin. In xlii. the words * de tempore serviendo ' show that
its author for r&> Kvpiw oov\evovres read rco /caipy SovXevovres
in xii. 11, a reading which Jerome especially quotes as con-
demning the Old Latin and justifying his own revision (Epist.
28, Op. I. 133, ed. Vallarsi).

Thus, taking into account all the evidence, the statement of
Origen respecting Marcion (confirmed by the incidental expres-
sion of Tertullian), the absence of quotations in several early
fathers, and the capitulation (or capitulations) of the Latin
Bibles, we have testimony various, cumulative, and (as it seems
to me) irresistible, to the existence of shorter copies of the
Epistle containing only fourteen chapters with or without the
doxology in early times. Even though it be granted that
Mr Hort has given a possible explanation (I cannot allow that
his explanations are probable) of each of these facts singly on
a different hypothesis, still the convergence of so many inde-
pendent testimonies direct or indirect towards this one point
must be regarded, if I mistake not, as conclusive.

II. However the evidence does not end here. The fact
that in existing MSS. the doxology occurs in different places
(see p. 352) is very intimately connected with the fact or class

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 363

of facts considered under the first head. And here again I can-
not help remarking that my position has this great advantage
over Mr Hort's, that whereas I postulate only one unknown
fact to explain all or most of the phenomena, he is obliged
to postulate a distinct one to account for each several pheno-
menon in turn.

As regards the varying position of this doxology, Mr Hort's
explanation supposes the following stages. (1) The original
place was at the end of the Epistle. (2) It was afterwards
attached to xiv. 23 for reading in Church. (3) ' Scribes accus-
tomed to hear it in that connexion in the public lessons would
half mechanically introduce it into the text of St Paul ' at this
place. (4) It would then be struck off from the end of the
Epistle, that the same doxology might not occur twice. Thus
we arrive at the vulgar Greek text, which has it at the end of
the xivth chapter only.

Now, waiving for the present the consideration of its
original position, I wish to point out two great improbabilities
involved in the other assumptions in this sequence. First.
There is no such obvious connexion between the paragraph
at the end of chapter xiv. and the doxology, as should lead to
their being connected together 1 , if separated in their original
position by two whole chapters, while on the other hand these
intervening chapters present material for more than one ex-
cellent lesson. Bengel indeed suggests, as Mr Hort points out,
that the sever a sententia a/jiapria eo-riv, with which chapter
xiv. closes, would be deemed unfit for the end of a lesson and
that this inauspicious termination was got rid of by tacking on
the doxology. But how much more easily would the difficulty
have been overcome by continuing the lesson a little further

1 In a note (p. 342) Mr Hort remarks and Constantinople and from which

that 'the Synaxaria, valeant quantum, the Synaxaria are taken, they would

give Rom. xiv. 19-23, plus the doxo- naturally read it here. I would add

logy as the lesson' for the Saturday that the Synaxaria (see Scrivener's

before Quinquagesima. But since the Introduction, p. 68 sq.) present no

doxology occurs here in the vulgar parallel to the omission of two whole

Greek text which prevailed at Antioch chapters.

364 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

and closing with the 2nd or 4th or 6th verse of the next
chapter. The instance which Mr Hort quotes (p. 343, note 1),
Acts vi. 8-vii. 2 combined with vii. 51-viii. 4, as a lesson
for St Stephen's day, will hardly bear out his hypothesis, for
there the combination is naturally suggested by the subject.
Secondly. This solution requires us to believe that all the
three steps numbered (2), (3), (4), had taken place before
Origen's time, so that he can speak of some MSS. as having
the doxology in the one place and some in the other, without
suspecting how the variation had come to pass. This supposes
such an early development of the lectionary as (I believe) there
is no ground for assuming.

III. Lastly there are the phenomena in the first chapter to
be considered. Here the important fact is, that in one extant
MS. (G) certainly, and in another (F) probably, the mention
of Rome has been obliterated in two distinct passages. In i. 7
Mr Hort explains the omission by the fact that ' a Western cor-
rection substitutes eV dyaTrr) ov for ayaTT^rol^ eou,' so that
the words would run eNpooMHeNAfAnH, where the repetition of
eV might occasion the omission of one of the two clauses,
especially as the archetype of this MS. appears to have been
written stichometrically and each eV might commence a new line.
Thus the omission would be accidental. But apparently dis-
satisfied with this solution he offers a second suggestion, that the
omission was intentional ; for he adds, 'These two MSS. (F and G)
have further a trick of omitting words that do not appear neces-
sary to the sense,' and gives instances. The accidental omission
I could understand, but the intentional (thus explained) seems
hardly credible, for the words eV 'Pupy are essential to an
Epistle to the Romans. Of the omission in i. 15 he gives no
direct explanation, except so far as it may be involved in the
words ' we may be content to suspect that in these two verses
like causes produced like results ' (p. 347). I do not understand
this, unless by like causes is meant the desire in both cases to
obliterate a superfluous clause. I too maintain that * like causes
produced like results/ but I cannot allow that the historical fact

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 365

involved in the mention of Rome could be regarded as a super-
fluity in an Epistle to the Romans; and, if the omission was
intentional in both cases, it must have been (so far as I can see)
from the desire of obliterating the proper name, because the
proper name was no longer applicable. The hypothesis, that
a coincidence so remarkable as the omission of the same name
in two distinct passages could have been purely accidental,
seems to me to be the most improbable of all.

That the twin MSS. F, G, did not stand alone in this
omission, appears from the marginal note in 47, on which
Mr Hort has some remarks, p. 344. Whether to these authorities
we should add the commentaries of Origen and the Ambrosian
Hilary, must remain uncertain. I certainly should not have
discovered the omission in them, if it had not occurred inde-
pendently, and I am not prepared to say that Mr Hort's
explanation (p. 345) of their language is not right. At the same
time to my own mind the ' Benedictio quam dat dilectis Dei ad
quos scribit ' of Origen, and the ' Quamvis Romanis scribat, illis
tarn en scribere se significat qui in caritate Dei sunt ' of Hilary,
still leave the same impression ; but probably they will strike
others differently.

It will thus be seen that Mr Hort denies some of my facts,
and impugns the significance of others. As the facts give him
no trouble, it follows that the hypothesis, which has no other
raison d'etre but to explain them, should not find favour with
him. But, if (as I think I have shown) the facts are even
more cogent than they appeared at first, being reinforced by the
Latin capitulations, an explanation is still demanded. I cannot
indeed say that my hypothesis is free from objections. But
a priori improbabilities could be detected by the keen eye
of criticism in the most certain events of history ; and a theory,
which is based on circumstantial evidence, cannot hope to
escape objection on this ground. But, if no other hypothesis
has been offered which does not involve more or greater im-
probabilities, and if some hypothesis is needed to account for
the facts, I must still venture to claim a hearing for my own.

366 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

In Mr Hort's criticism of the theory itself, as distinct from
the facts which evoked it, there are three points especially
which call for a reply.

(i) I had assigned the doxology (xvi. 25-27) to the shorter
recension of the Epistle, which I supposed to have been issued
by St Paul himself at a later date, and had produced parallels to
show that its style very closely resembles that of the Apostle's
later Epistles. Mr Hort himself considers it to have been the
termination of the original Epistle. His argument is threefold :
(a) that it is appropriate : (6) that St Paul at the time enter-
tained the ideas contained in it ; (c) that it presents numberless
close parallels of expression to the earlier Epistles.

(a) As regards its appropriateness, I entirely agree with
him. I cannot indeed assent to Baur's opinion which he adopts,
that the main drift of the Epistle is revealed in chapters ix.-xi.
The central idea, as I conceive it, is the comprehensive offer of
righteousness to Jews and Gentiles impartially, following on
the comprehensive failure of both alike before Christ's coming.
After this idea has been developed, the objection arises that,
however comprehensive may be the offer, the acceptance at all
events is partial and one-sided ; that while the Gentiles seem
gladly to accept it, the Jews stand aloof; and that thus the
promises of the Old Testament appear to be nullified, and in-
deed reversed. It is to meet the objection which thus starts
up, that St Paul pierces the veil of the future and discerns the
gathering of the Jews into the same fold whither the Gentiles
have preceded them. Thus the result will be comprehensive, as
the offer has been comprehensive. But however fit a con-
summation of the Apostle's teaching this prophetic announce-
ment may be, it does not in itself contain the nucleus of that
teaching.

To the whole body of the Epistle however, in which the
comprehensive failure, the comprehensive grace, the compre-
hensive acceptance, have been set forth in succession, the
doxology forms an eminently appropriate close. An outburst
of thanksgiving for the revelation of this ' mystery ' of the im-

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 367

partial Fatherhood of God in Christ is the proper sequel to the
contents of the Epistle. This adaptation would not indeed be
easily reconcileable with any other authorship than St Paul's ;
but if written by him, whether written early or late, we should
expect it to be appropriate.

(6) And again I grant that its main idea the impar-
tiality and universality of God's grace as a truth revealed in
Christ was not foreign to St Paul's thoughts at this time,
though it assumed a much greater prominence afterwards. In-
deed it may be said that this idea necessarily flowed from his
commission as the Apostle of the Gentiles.

(c) But, as regards the expression of the idea, I join issue
with him. The general style seems to me to be cast essentially
in the mould of the later Epistles. The diffusive syntax of
the paragraph is exactly what we find, for instance, in the
Epistle to the Ephesians. And, when we come to individual
phrases, there is (if I mistake not) a very wide difference in
point of closeness between Mr Hort's parallels with the earlier
Epistles and mine with the later. Compare for example his
parallel of Rom. xiv. 4 with mine of Eph. iii. 20 for TW Svva-
fievw, or of Rom. iii. 29, 30 with mine of 1 Tim. i. 17 for ^ova
<70(/>c3 @ew. The only exceptions in favour of the earlier Epi-
stles occur exactly where on my hypothesis we should expect to
find them. The expression VTT a/cor) Tr/o-reco? is repeated in this
final doxology from the opening paragraph of the Epistle (i. 5),
and the reference to the prophetic Scriptures also has a parallel
in the same paragraph (i. 2). On my hypothesis the opening
portion was read over and altered, when some years later the
Epistle was issued by the Apostle in this second and shorter
form ; and it was therefore natural that the thanksgiving which
was then appended, should embody not only thoughts but also
expressions taken from the commencement, thus binding toge-
ther the beginning and the end of the Epistle.

(ii) The character and condition of the text of the twin
MSS., F and G, is one of the points on which Mr Hort lays
most stress ; and certainly, if his account of my theory were

368 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

correct, I should find it difficult to answer him. Expressing
my hypothesis in his own words, he represents me as holding
(1) that 'the scribe of G copied i.-xiv. from one MS. and xv.
xvi. from another/ and (2) that * the scribe of F copied in like
manner from the same two MSS., though he left no mark of the
transition from the one to the other' (p. 339). He then remarks
that ' If the first of these hypotheses were true we ought surely
to find some evidence of it in the respective texts; whereas
the closest study fails to detect a shadow of difference in the
character of the readings before and after the blank space ' ;
and that ' when F is taken into account, fresh embarrassments
arise.' But I did not for a moment contemplate the scribes of
F and G each of them copying directly from these two MSS.,
containing respectively the shorter and the longer recension of
the Epistle. I was well aware that the phenomena of these
MSS. would not admit of such a supposition. And I venture
also to think that my language, which Mr Hort himself quotes
just before (p. 338), cannot be taken in this sense : ' The
copyist of an earlier MS., from which it [G] has descended,
transcribed a MS. of the abridged recension till the end of
chapter xiv., and then took up a MS. of the original Epistle to
the Romans' ; 'Either their common prototype [i.e. of F and G]
or a still earlier MS. from which it was copied, must have pre-
served the abridged recension.' This language was expressly
intended by me to leave open the question, as to the length of
the pedigree which connected F and G with the scribe who first
combined the two recensions ; and the idea of direct parentage,
which Mr Hort has imposed upon me, never once entered my
mind. Thus I left ample room for the development of the
peculiarities of F and G. Only I assumed that the retention of
the vacant space at the end of chapter xiv., which I took to
indicate the end of the Epistle in one of the two original MSS.,
had survived this development. But though I still think that
(taking it in connexion with all the other textual phenomena
on which I dwelt) my account of this blank space is the most
probable, yet this is only a subsidiary support to my view, and

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 369

I could abandon it without any material injury to the main
hypothesis.

But let us enquire what Mr Hort's statement, that 'the
closest study fails to detect a shadow of difference in the cha-
racter of the readings before and after the blank' (p. 339), really
amounts to, when considered in its bearing on my hypothesis.

The characteristics of F and G, which differentiate them
from what we may call the standard text of St Paul's Epistles,
as based on the coincidence of the best authorities, are twofold :
(1) Those which they exhibit in common with the Western
authorities, and more especially that type of Western authori-
ties which appears in the Old Latin Version; and (2) Those
which are peculiar to these two MSS.

To the first class, comprising those readings which must be
referred to the Western type, belong the most important, as
well as the most numerous, variations from the standard text,
whether in the first fourteen or in the last two chapters of the
Epistle. If the two MSS. (containing respectively the long
and the short form), from which on my hypothesis the text of
FG was ultimately derived, were both of them Western, as on
all accounts we might probably conclude that they were, then
we should expect to find these readings pervading the xvth
and xvith chapters, as well as the earlier part of the Epistle.
It is difficult to explain the origin and prevalence of the
Western type of text at all; but this difficulty was not
introduced by my hypothesis, nor do I see that it is increased
thereby.

Speaking of the peculiar features of F and G, Mr Hort says,
* The partial adherence of D excepted, this character is unique
among existing Greek MSS.' On this statement I should wish
to make two remarks. (1) The expression partial seems to me
inadequately to express the degree of coincidence between D on
the one hand, and FG on the other. Certainly in the two last
chapters of this Epistle, with which we are mainly concerned,
by far the greater number of the important deviations from the
standard text are shared by D in common with FG. (2) These

L. E. 24

370 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

three are the only' 1 three Greek uncial MSS. which, whether on
external or internal grounds, can be assigned to the Western
family. Whatever distinctive features therefore they possess in
common, it is reasonable to set down to the Western type of
MSS. generally. The Old Latin Version (with the exception of
a few fragments) is only known to us through these same MSS.,
which are bilingual ; for other independent copies, which con-
tain a more or less pure Old Latin text, have not been collated :
and its phenomena entirely accord with this supposition. The
remaining source of evidence the early patristic quotations
does not offer any obstacle to this conclusion; and indeed in the
last two chapters of the Epistle, this evidence, as has been
mentioned, is entirely wanting. On the whole then, I think
it may be said that the coincidence of D with F and G repre-
sents very fairly the Western text.

The second class of readings, those peculiar to F and G, are
in the xvth and xvith chapters comparatively unimportant.
The divergences of these twin MSS. from D may be taken as
approximately representing their peculiarities, though in the
course of the analysis it will be seen that in many cases these
divergences are supported by other, and especially by Western,
authorities 2 .

These are as follows :

XV. 1 ap<TKov \apf(TK.iv] ; 3 OVK [ovx] ', 7 vpas [D* J^iay, but D**
with most authorities, including Western] ; 11 cTraiveararf [D iraivco-a-
Taxrav, but the Latin of D has Magnificate with many other authorities,
and the variation is easily explained in a quotation from the LXX.] ;
13 TT\r]po<popr)o'ai...7ra(Tr) X a P a Kai 1 P T ] VT J [D 7T\r]pa)(rai...rrao'r)s Capets /cat

1 I pass over E, which is now ac- was copied directly from G, deserves
knowledged (at least so far as regards consideration, and may prove true,
the Greek) to be a direct copy of D, though his arguments do not seem
and therefore to have no independent quite conclusive. So far as it has any
value. bearing on my hypothesis, it is rather

2 I have not recorded either the ac- favourable than otherwise. The con-
cidental errors of G when these have verse proposition, that G is copied from
been corrected at the time when the F, could not be maintained for a mo-
MS. was written, or the divergences of ment.

F from G. Mr Hort's view, that F

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 371

, but B agrees with FG, inserting however cv before naoTj. The Old
Latin has repleat...omni gaudio et pace]. 16 Irjo-ov Xpiorou [D Xpiorov
IT/O-OV, but the Latin of D has Jesu Christi which also has the vast
preponderance of authority in its favour]. 18 6 Xptoroy [om. 6J. 21 avay-
ye\T] [avrjyycXrj]. 24 fXTri^o) [D adds yap with the preponderance of
authorities, but the Latin of D omits it, and so do the Latin fathers].
25 vw [vvvi], 26 MaKaidovfs [MaKfdovfs]. 27 ocpeiXrrai yap [om. yap, but
the Latin of D and Ambrosiaster have it] ; avrcov ficriv [eio-iv avrtav"].

28 ow apa [om. apa. The Latin of G is Hoc ergo igitur ergo]. v/j.as [v/itov].

29 yii/eoo-KG) yap [D oi8a Se, but the Latin of D has scio enim, and other
authorities, especially Latin Fathers, have the same conjunction]. 30 jrpoa-
fvxats [add inrep epov, but several Latin authorities, including the Latin of
D, omit the words]. 31 rrpoo-ftcKTos [cvirpoo-ScKros. The Latin of D is
acceptalis (sic)]. 32 ai/a^u^eo [ava^n;a>]. 33 vp.a>v [add. aprjv, but A and
others omit it].

xvi. 1 vfjLw [>7,ui>j>, but the Latin of D has vestram, and AP also have
v/za>i/]. 2 TrapaoTareis 1 [rrpooTans]. 3 acnracrdai [acriracracrBe. This blunder
recurs]. 8 AfirrXtaroi/ [A/i7rXiaz/, but the longer form occurs in the Latin
of D]. 10 Apio-ro/SoXov [Apt<rroouXou, but the Latin of D has Aristoboli
and this form is found in B and elsewhere]. 11 (rvyyevr) [D o~vyy(vr)v, but
corrected by a later hand]. 14 a<T7ra<ra(r#e...fi> Kvpia> om. with A. 15 lovviav
[D lov\tav, which is correct, but C* has lovviav]. OXvp-rrdSa [D OXv/in-tai/,
but Latin authorities, including the Latin of D itself, have Olympiada or
Olympiadem]. 17 TrapaKaXco [D* p<ora>, but corrected. The rest have
Trapa/caXeo]. irapa [D* Trepi, but corrected]. 18 <upio> [ra> <vpi<], 8ov\fv-
<TOV(TIV [8ov\vov<rtv]. 23 6Xat at fKK\T)(nai [o\rjs rrjs KK\7j(rias. The Latin
of DFG alike is universes ecclesice, which would cover both readings.
Another reading is 6X77 17 f^X^o-to. The ^Eth. is said to have 6Xat a!
KK\r](Tiat with FG]. 24 om. I^o-ov Xpto-rov.

This analysis of the readings in the last two chapters shows
two things : (1) That in almost every point even of minor im-
portance, in which the text of FG diverges from the correct
standard, it agrees with the Western text as exhibited by D or
by some other authority ; and (2) that the exceptions, which
thus form the peculiarities of FG, are in almost every instance
trivial and are easily explained by carelessness or caprice in
copying. Hence it follows : first, that the scribe, who (on my
hypothesis) wrote the archetype of F and G, taking up an
average copy of the Western text to supply the xvth and xvith
chapters, would find a text substantially such as we actually
have here ; and secondly, that no long pedigree need have been

242

372 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

interposed between this archetype and FG, in order to develope
the phenomena which they exhibit in these chapters ; but that
the intervention of a single scribe, or two at most, would ex-
plain everything. If so, the argument from the character of the
text cannot be considered a substantial objection to my view.

(iii) Mr Hort advances another argument against my hy-
pothesis based on the assumption that the textual phenomena
on which my theory is built are gathered together from incon-
gruous sources ; and he even goes so far as to ask, ' How is it
that every authority, which supports, or may be thought to
support, some part of this combination [i.e. the Short Recen-
sion, involving (a) the omission of the word Rome in the first
chapter, (6) the omission of the xvth and xvith chapters, (c) the
presence of the doxology], contradicts some other part?' (p. 347).

To this statement I demur. I allow indeed that all these
phenomena do not coexist in any extant authority. If this had
been the case, I should not have had to frame a hypothesis,
for the existence of this Shorter Recension would have been
an absolute fact. But that there is any contradiction in my
authorities, which prejudices the hypothesis, I cannot allow.

This attack has led me to marshal my troops to better
effect. I wish especially to call attention to the fact, that
the authorities, on which I chiefly rely, have for the most
part a close affinity to one another and that they belong to
the Western type. The Latin capitulations derived, as I have
shown, from the Old Version are essentially such. The copy
or copies, to which they refer, presented two (b, c) out of the
three phenomena, and (for anything we know) may have pre-
sented the third (a) also. The remarkable absence of quota-
tions from the last two chapters in the earlier Latin Fathers
points in the same direction. The MSS. FG, which are the
only indisputable vouchers for (a), are essentially Western.
Their relation to (b), (c), is a matter of dispute between Mr
Hort and myself ; but the fact that there is a great break in G
at the end of the xivth chapter (however explained) cannot
but be held to favour my hypothesis to a greater or less

ITS STRUCTURE AND DESTINATION. 373

degree. The exception to the Western origin of the evidence
is Marcion, who, being an Eastern, used a copy of this Epistle
in which the two last chapters including the doxology were
wanting. But even Marcion is known to have resided for
many years in Rome ; and if, during his sojourn in the West,
he fell in with a copy of the Short Recension, he might have
welcomed it gladly, as sparing him the superfluous use of his
scissors, which would be required to eliminate such passages as
xv. 8, 27.

Hitherto there is no incongruity in the sources from which
my data are taken. But the position of the doxology in the
several authorities still remains to be considered ; and it is
evidently here that Mr Hort considers the main ' contradiction'
to lie. Though 'there is no lack of authorities of a sort for
subjoining the doxology to xiv.,' he writes, yet ' they have no
sort of genealogical affinity with the MS. that ignores Rome,
or with Marcion.' Now to this I would reply that the capi-
tulations of the Latin Bibles certainly have this affinity, and
that (for all we know) the MSS. mentioned by Origen as placing
the doxology in this position may have had it also. On the
other hand his statement, so far as regards the extant MSS. and
the patristic authorities generally, which exhibit it at the end
of the xivth chapter, is indisputably true. They belong to the
great Antiochene or Constantinopolitan family, which, though
by far the most numerous, is of inferior authority. On the con-
trary the place of the doxology in the extant Western authorities
is at the end of the xvith chapter. But, allowing the fact, I
cannot accept the inference. For suppose that a scribe had
before him copies of the two recensions (according to my hy-
pothesis), the one comprising the 14 chapters together with the
doxology, the other including all the 16 chapters but omitting
the doxology and ending with xvi. 23 Koua/oro9 o a8e\(o?. If
he set himself to combine the two so as to omit nothing, is it
not at least as likely that, when he arrived at the end of the
xivth chapter, he would reserve the doxology for the end of
the whole Epistle where it seemed to be required, to finish

374 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

off an abrupt conclusion, as that he would leave it at the end
of the xivth chapter ? The same motive which led others
to transpose the benediction (77 %a/^9 /e.r.X.), which properly
stands at xvi. 20, to xvi. 24, might even more easily induce
him to treat the doxology in a similar way, inasmuch as he
would still leave it at the end of the Epistle as he found it,
though the Epistle had been lengthened out by the two ad-
ditional chapters. Thus the fact that the Western authorities
place the doxology after ch. xvi. seems to me to prove nothing
as to the want of affinity between the several authorities for
my hypothesis.

But this investigation leads me to observe (and I think
the observation is pertinent) how entirely this Western cha-
racter of the authorities coincides with my hypothesis. I sug-
gested that 'at some later period of his life, not improbably
during one of his sojourns in Rome, it occurred to the Apostle
to give to this letter a wider circulation'; and that for this pur-
pose he made the alterations which resulted in the shorter
edition, so that it was rendered 'available for general circulation,
and perhaps was circulated to prepare the way for a personal
visit in countries into which he had not yet penetrated' (p. 319).
This hypothetical change is made in the West and for the
West; and it cannot be considered a matter of indifference
that to this same region we owe the authorities which sug-
gested the hypothesis, though at the time when I propounded
it I did not see the full significance of this fact.

With these remarks I will leave the theory. For a reply
so thorough and so suggestive as Mr Hort's I can only feel
grateful. It has led me to consolidate the different elements
of my hypothesis, and, unless I am mistaken, to present a
stronger front to attack. From criticisms of inferior merit I
might have found less to dissent, but I certainly should have
found less to learn.

[1871.]

THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE
EPHESIANS.

Printed from Lecture-notes.

THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE
EPHESIANS.

TS the common designation of this Epistle correct or not ?
- We are accustomed to style it an ' Epistle to the Ephesians.'
But was it really addressed to the Christians of Ephesus, either
solely or primarily ? This is not merely a curious question of
criticism, devoid of any ulterior interest. It has a very direct
bearing on the genuineness of the letter, and it is intimately
connected also with the scope and purpose of the writer.

Many facts converge from various quarters, which suggest
an answer unfavourable to the commonly received title of this
Epistle.

1. In the first place it is quite clear that in the early ages
of the Church a very large number of copies were in circulation,
in which the words ' in Ephesus ' were omitted from the opening
verse.

(i) ORIGEN [j- A.D. 253], whose commentary on this
Epistle must have been written during the second quarter
of the third century, speaks in such a way as to show not
only that they were absent from the text which he himself
used, but that he was unaware of their existence in any copies
of the Epistle within his reach. His words are as follows :

" In the case of the Ephesians alone have I found the
expression ' to the saints that are,' and I am led to ask,

378 THE DESTINATION OF THE

unless the clause 'that are' is superfluous, what can be
meant by it ? May it not be then, that as in Exodus He
who speaks to Moses declares His name to be ' He that is '
(or ' the Absolute Being '), so also they who partake of the
Absolute Being, themselves become existent, when they are
called as it were from not being into being : for, says the
same Paul, ' God chose out the things that are not, that they
might bring to nought the things that are, etc. 1 "

The inference from this passage is inevitable. In the first
place, the interpretation itself tells its own tale. No one, seeing
the words eV 'E0eo-ft> immediately following, would have thought
of separating them from the preceding rot? OIHTIV, thus abandon-
ing the obvious construction of the passage and having recourse
to a highly strained and unnatural explanation. In the second
place, Origen could not possibly have said that this statement is
made of the Ephesians alone, if he had read the words as they
stand in the common texts. In this case he would have found
several parallels in the Epistles of St Paul. He would have
found the Apostle, for instance, addressing 'all that are in Rome,'
' the Church of God that is in Corinth,' ' all the saints that are
in the whole of Achaia,' ' all the saints in Christ Jesus that are
in Philippi 2 .' But indeed the fact that the words ' in Ephesus '

1 Origen, 'En-i nbvuv 'E0e<riW etipofjiev comp. Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 16, p.

rb TOIS ayiois TOIS o&<n Kal 807 Potter, OTI fj.v iepa i] Seycdy, irap4\-

, el /J.TJ irap\KL irpocrK.diJ.evov TO KCI \yeiv Ta vvv. There is an allusion

rots ayiois TOIS o&ri, rl ovvaTai ffr]fj.aiviv. to these words of Origen in the scholia

Spa ovv et JJ,T) u>We/> tv Trj 'E65y 6vop.a of Matthsei, 'ftpiytvrjs us ("wi 'E^eat'ow

eavrf 6 -^pt\^o.T(^v Mwcret TO UH>, nd^tvov wap^\KovoiTai, where the writer

ol fjLere'xoi'Tes rov &VTOS ylvovrai perhaps misunderstands and certainly

fibres, KaXoifytei><K oiovd K TOV /XT? eZvai obscures Origen's meaning. The refer-

e/s TO elvai eeX^aTO yap 6 6eo$ TO, fj.T] ence is given in Keiche Comm. Grit,

ovra, (pfjcrlv 6 avrbs IlaGXos, 'iva TO. 6vTa p. 104 note.

KaTapyTjffr) K.T.\. Should the position 2 Kom. i. 7 iracnv ro?s olaw tv 'Pci^tT/,

of ro be altered, TrpocrKel^vov rots ayiots 1 Cor. i. 2 rrj KK\t}crLg. TOV 0eoD r-rj

TO TOIS oven? At all events Origen's oftrfl tv KoptvOy, 2 Cor. i. 1 rols ayiois

meaning seems to be 'unless rots oS<ri iracriv ro?s oftcnv fr 8\y TTJ 'Axa-ia, Phil,

attached to rots ayiois is redundant or i. 1 Trd<ru> rots ayiois ev X/jtary 'Irj<rov

superfluous.' For this sense of TrapeX- TOIS oda-iv et> &i\iinrois.
KCI, which is common in late writers,

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 379

are wanting in some very early copies leaves no doubt upon
this point.

The importance of this notice will be felt when it is re-
membered that Origen was the most learned and enquiring
of the fathers in all matters relating to the text of the Scriptures,
To him it was a subject of special study.

(ii) From the third contury we pass to the fourth,
from Origen to BASIL [f A.D. 379]. The testimony of this
father runs thus :

"Moreover, when writing to the Ephesians, as men
truly united with the Absolute Being through perfect
knowledge, he uses a peculiar expression and styles them
' being 1 saying ' to the saints that are and faithful in Christ
Jesus' For so we learn from the statements of previous
writers ; and we ourselves have found (this reading) in
those copies which are ancient 1 ."

Here it will be observed that Basil repeats the interpre-
tation of Origen, of whom he was a diligent student and to
whom doubtless he was indebted in this instance. When there-
fore he appeals to ' the statements of previous writers/ he
cannot be considered to add anything to the testimony of the
Alexandrian father. But the information, which he adds re-
specting the copies extant in his own day, is highly important.
He does not say that the words were wanting in some old
copies, or in many old copies ; but his statement is absolute.
He is not even content with saying ' in the old copies ' (eV TO??
TraXaiols avTi<ypd<t>oi<i) ; but he expresses himself still more
strongly ' in those copies which are old ' (eV rot? TraXcuofc rtwi/
dvTiypdfywv). Thus it appears that, while in the first half of
the third century Origen (if we may draw the inference from
his silence) was not acquainted with any manuscript which

1 Basil contr. Eun. ii. 19 (ed. Garn. /J.CKTCV, eliruv rots ayiois rots ofoi ical

I. p. 254) dXXa Kai TOIS 'E0ecriots irt- 7rto"ro?s ev Xpt(TT(f> 'I-qvov. ofrrw yap icai oi

(rrtXXwv ws yvrjo-ius i)vu/j.tvois T$ 6vn Si' irpb TIH&V irapa.5f8uKa.ffL, KOI T)/j.eis ev rots

s, 6vras ayroi/s i'taf6'Tws cij*6- TraXatoty rwv

380 THE DESTINATION OF THE

contained the words, Basil, writing more than a century later,
found them in some copies, but these were all recent.

(iii) The statements of these two fathers are in strict
accordance with the phenomena exhibited by extant documents.
Two Greek MSS. and two only, which contain this Epistle,
have any claim to be dated as far back as the fourth century
(they may not improbably be assigned to the earlier decades,
at least to the first half of this century) ; and in both these the
words ' in Ephesus ' are wanting. In the Codex Sinaiticus (N)
they were absent originally, but are supplied by the third hand.
In the Codex Vaticanus (B) they have no place in the text,
but are supplied in the margin by a later corrector. The
testimony of these the two most ancient uncials is further
supported by another authority of weight. The second corrector
of the cursive 67 has marked the words eV 'E^ecrw as spurious.
The corrections by this hand have the highest value, having
been evidently made from some very early text. It may be
safely said that a reading in St Paul's Epistles which is sup-
ported by such a combination as K B 67** can never be
neglected, and almost always represents the original text.

(iv) To these facts it must be added that Marcion in his
Canon called this letter an Epistle to the Laodiceans 1 . The
obvious inference is, that at all events he did not read 'in
Ephesus ' in his text. Whether he found other words sub-
stituted for these, I shall enquire hereafter 2 . The Canon of
Marcion, it will be remembered, must have been drawn up before
the middle of the second century 3 .

With these facts before us, it seems plain, that in the Greek
MSS. which were in circulation during the second and third

1 This fact about Marcion is derived be attached to the evidence of one who
from the passages in Tertullian given lived in a neighbouring province of
below (see p. 381 sq.). Asia Minor in the first half of the

2 See below, p. 392. second century. Tertullian's assertion,

3 As the question is purely critical that he falsified the title (see below,
and has no bearing on the doctrinal p. 382), is unworthy of credit, though
views of Marcion, his testimony is free no doubt uttered in good faith.

from suspicion ; and due weight must

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 381

centuries, the omission of the words ev 'E^ecrw was not the
exception, but the rule. The silence of Origen is confirmed by
the direct statement of Basil ; and their joint testimony, suffi-
ciently strong in itself, is further strengthened by the phenomena
of the extant MSS. and by the belief of Marcion. On the other
hand, we have no direct evidence that a single Greek manu-
script during this period contained the words in question. The
recent manuscripts, to which Basil refers in the latter half
of the fourth century, are the earliest of which this can be
distinctly affirmed. On the other hand, the fact, to which I
shall advert presently, that the letter was commonly and per-
sistently styled the * Epistle to the Ephesians ' from the latter
half of the second century at least, suggests that the words
occurred in some manuscripts from a very early date, perhaps
from the Apostle's own age. But this is a critical inference,
of which there is no positive proof.

From the Greek manuscripts I turn to the Latin. The
original form of the Old Latin Version in the Pauline Epistles
can only be ascertained very imperfectly from the existing
copies. The three chief extant manuscripts of this Version of
St Paul's Epistles are bilingual. The Latin stands in close
proximity to the Greek, being written either in a parallel
column as in DE, or over the words as in G. Under such
circumstances the Latin text would almost inevitably be made
to conform to the Greek in a case like the present, where the
omission would appear obvious. Moreover of these three manu-
scripts only one was written as early as the sixth century, and
the remaining two are as late as the ninth. For the original
form of the text therefore we must have recourse to the notices
and commentaries of the Latin Fathers.

(i) Of these the testimony of Tertullian, as the oldest, is the
most important. He refers twice to the title which this Epistle
bore in the Marcionite Canon. In the first passage he writes :
" I say nothing here about another Epistle which we

(Catholics) have with the heading ' to the Ephesians,' but

the heretics ' to the Laodiceans! "

382 THE DESTINATION OF THE

In the second passage he is more explicit :

' According to the true belief of the Church/ he writes,
'we hold this Epistle to have been despatched to the
Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans ; but Marcion had to
falsify its title, wishing to make himself out a very
diligent investigator. The question of titles however is
of no consequence ; seeing that the Apostle wrote to all,
when he wrote to some 1 /

It seems probable from the expressions here used, that the
words ' in Ephesus ' were wanting in the copies used by the Latin
father. He speaks of Marcion's falsifying 2 the title ; he appeals
to the received heading of the letter. He neither directly states,
nor indirectly hints, that anything in the letter itself contradicts
this hypothesis. His argument in fact seems to be this : " It
must be confessed that the letter itself does not say to whom
it was written ; but the Catholic Church has always regarded it
as addressed ' To the Ephesians! It was therefore a wanton and
arbitrary proceeding of Marcion to give it another title ' To the
Laodiceans,' for the sake of gaining credit, as an enquiring
critic."

Thus strictly interpreted, the language of Tertullian refers
only to the title. This interpretation however is rendered un-
certain by the fact that Tertullian elsewhere uses the expres-
sions titulus and praescribere, not of the actual title or heading,
but of the opening words of an Epistle 3 . Still, as he appeals

1 Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 11, 'Prae- 2 ' Interpolare ' is used loosely by

tereo hie et de alia epistula, quam nos Tertullian in the sense ' to corrupt or

ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus, falsify' whether by omission, insertion,

haeretici vero (i.e. the Marcionites) ad or alteration, e.g. adv. Marc. v. 21,

Laodicenos'; i6.v.l7,'Ecclesiaequidem ' Affectavit, opinor, etiam numerum

veritate epistulam istam ad Ephesios epistularuminterpolare.' Marcion only

habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, accepted ten epistles of St Paul as

sed Marcion et titulum aliquando inter- genuine. See also adv. Marc. iv. 1,

polare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligen- 'evangelium...quod interpolando suum

tissimus explorator. Nihil autem de fecit.' Cf. Anger Ueber den Laodicener-

titulis interest, cum ad omnes aposto- brief (Leipzig 1843), p. 41.

lus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.' This 3 e.g. adv. Marc. v. 5, ' Praestructio

treatise was written A.D. 207. superioris epistulae ita duxit, ut de

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

383

not to the ancient copies, but to the authority of the Church,
the inference is that he could not refute Marcion out of the
manuscripts of the Epistle which were in his hands 1 .

titulo ejus non retractaverim, certus et
alibi retractari eum posse, communem
scilicet et eundem in epistulis omnibus,
quod non utique salutem pratscribit
eisquibus scribit, sed gratiametpacem.'
Generally however ' titulus' is the head-
ing, the title, e.g. adv. Marc. iv. 2, 3,
de Pudic. 20 ; see Anger Laodic. p. 97.
1 Tertullian's testimony to the iden-
tity of the Laodicean Epistle of Marcion
with the Ephesian Epistle of the Catho-
lic Church is positive and explicit;
and, if it had stood alone, would have
excited no suspicion. Two other wit-
nesses however appear, whose testi-
mony is scarcely reconcileable with
his statement. (1) About a generation
before Tertullian's time, an anony-
mous writer of the Muratorian Canon
of Scripture, after enumerating the
Epistles of St Paul adds, 'Fertur
etiani ad Laudicenses alia ad Alexan-
drines Pauli nomine finctae ad haeresem
Marcionis et alia plura quae in catho-
licam ecclesiam recipi non potest '
(Fragm. Murator. Credner Gesch. des
N.T. Kanons, p. 148). If finctae'
refers to the Laodicean and Alexan-
drian Epistles mentioned just before,
we must suppose the writer to be in
error. He knew of an Epistle to the
Laodiceans in the Marcionite Canon,
but not being aware of its identity
with this Epistle to the Ephesians
assumed that it was an apocryphal
writing. But in this case no account
can be given of 'alia ad Alexandrinos,'
for no such Epistle is elsewhere men-
tioned as belonging to the Marcionite
Canon. Not without reason therefore,
considering that the fragment is a
blundering translation from a Greek
original, much mutilated in the course
of transcription, Credner (p. 160) sepa-

rates 'finctae' from the preceding words.
The words will then mean : ' Besides
the Canonical Epistles, there is an
Epistle to the Laodiceans in circula-
tion, another to the Alexandrians,
both bearing the name of Paul ; others
again adapted to the heresy of Marcion,
etc.' The phrase 'finctae ad haeresem
Marcionis' well describes the process
of mutilation and alteration, by which
Marcion shaped St Paul's Epistles to
his own views. In this case the Epistle
to the Laodiceans was probably some
apocryphal writing which has not sur-
vived. The allusion in Col. iv. 16
must have tempted more than one
heretical writer to forge an Epistle in
St Paul's name, as a means of gaming
Apostolic sanction for his own opinions.
(2) At the close of the fourth century,
Epiphanius (Haeres. xlii.) speaks of the
Marcionite Canon in a way which is
very perplexing. He says that Mar-
cion recognised ten Epistles of St Paul
(the Pastoral Epistles being of course
excluded), and mentions the Epistle to
the Ephesians in his enumeration of
these, p. 310, ed. Petav. He then adds
that he recognises also 'portions of the
so-called Epistle to the L aodiceans'
5e KO.I TTJS irpbs AaodtK^as \eyof
p. 310 ; cf. p. 321, p. 374). Later on, he
gives several extracts from the Epistle
to the Ephesians (p. 371) identical with
our text, except that in one instance
Marcion omitted a few words (irpbs
TTJV yvvaiica avrov Ephes. v. 31), and
one passage as from the Epistle to the
Laodiceans (p. 374), which also is found
in our Epistle to the Ephesians (Ephes.
iv. 5). Epiphanius is aware of this, for,
speaking of this last passage, he says
that Marcion did not adduce this
testimony from the Epistle to the

384 THE DESTINATION OF THE

(ii) And this inference is supported by the interpretations
of the earlier Latin commentators, whose language seems to
show that the word Ephesi was wanting, or that its position
fluctuated in some Latin copies and thus betrayed its later
introduction. Thus Victorinus Afer [c. A.D. 360] writes : ' But
when he says these words " To the saints who are the faithful of
Ephesus," what does he add? "In Christ Jesus."' 1 The
importance of this fact is not seriously diminished by the cir-
cumstance that immediately below he quotes the words as
they stand in the existing manuscripts 2 : because we meet with
numberless examples in which the commentator explains one
reading and the scribe gives another. The natural tendency of
the transcriber was to conform to the commonly received text.
In all such cases therefore a deviation has far higher value,
as evidence, than a coincidence.

(iii) I believe also that traces of a variation from the
common reading may be discerned in the next Latin commen-
tator in point of time, the Ambrosian Hilary. Here too the
text conforms to the common type ; but the commentary ignores
the word Ephesi altogether. It runs as follows: 'He writes
not only to the faithful, but also to the saints, to prove that
men are then truly faithful, if they are saints in Christ Jesus 3 .'

Ephesians, but from that to the Lao- St Paul's 'Epistle to the Laodiceans ' ;

diceans, which is not contained in the and in ignorance assumed that the

Apostle's writings (01) y&p 25oe rq> Epistle thus quoted was another, not

Aeeipordry Mapdwvt dirb rijs Trpbs 'E0e- contained in the Catholic Canon.

ffiovs rwuryv TT\V /j-aprvpiav X^eu/, dXX& 1 Victorinus quoted in Mai Script,

rys trpbs AaodiKtas, rrjs pr) O&TTJJ kv T$ Vet. Nov. Coll. in. p. 87 (1828), ' Sed

dTiwToXy, p. 375). The explanation of haec cum dicit Sanctis qui sunt fidelibus

Epiphanius' language seems to be this. Ephesi, quid adjungitur ? In Christo

Some of the later Marcionites aban- JesuS [On this commentator see Gala-

doned the title of the Epistle adopted tians p. 231.]

by their founder, and designated it 2 Victor, op. c.p.88, 'Sanctis qui sunt

according to Catholic usage the Epistle Ephesi et fidelibus in Christo Jesu.'

to the Ephesians. In the copy of the 3 Ambrosiaster Com. in Eph. i. 1

Marcionite airovroKiKov used by Epi- (Migne P. L. xvn. p. 373), 'Non solum

phanius it was so designated (Anger fidelibus scribit, sed et sanctis : ut tune

Laodic. p. 41 sq.). At the same time vere fideles sint, si fuerint sancti in

he found in some writings of Marcion, Christo Jesu.'
or of his followers, quotations from

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 385

It would almost seem as though this commentator (or some
earlier writer whose note he adopts) had in his mind the reading
TO?? ayloLs rot? ovaiv KOL Trtcrrot?, and that, like several modern
interpreters, he translated them 'the saints who are also faith-
ful.' If so, he can hardly have read sanctis qui sunt Ephesi et
fidelibus in his Latin copy ; since this would have saved him
from the misinterpretation. His language however is not so
clear as to leave this inference free from doubt.

(iv) The only later Latin father whose language tends in
the same direction is Sedulius Scotus, who in the eighth or
ninth century compiled a commentary on St Paul's Epistles.
He writes:

' To the saints. Not to all the Ephesians, but to those
who believe in Christ. And faithful. All the saints are
faithful, but not all the faithful are saints etc. Who are
in Christ Jesus. There are many faithful who are not
faithful in Christ, etc. 1 '

No stress can be laid on the omission of Ephesi here,
because the inserted fragments of the text are more often
discontinuous than not in this writer; and indeed he omits
the corresponding names of places in other Epistles. But the
position of qui sunt is striking. It would seem as though some
transcriber, finding the reading sanctis qui sunt et fidelibus in
Christo Jesu in his copy and stumbling at the order, had
transposed the words so as to read sanctis et fidelibus qui sunt
in Christo Jesu. This altered reading may have been before
Sedulius, or some earlier writer whom he copies.

(v) On the other hand the note of St Jerome on the
passage suggests that some centuries before Sedulius Ephesi
was commonly read in the Latin copies. He writes:

'Some persons, with more ingenuity than is needed,
think that, according as it is said to Moses These things

1 Sedul. Scot. Com. in Eph. i. 1 fideles sunt, non omnes fideles sancti

(MigneP.-L. cm. p. 135), 'Sanctis. Non etc. Qui sunt in Christo Jesu. Plures

omnibus Ephesiis, sed his qui credunt fideles sunt, sed non in Christo, etc.'
in Christo. Et fidelibu*. Omnes sancti

L. E. 25

386 THE DESTINATION OF THE

shalt thou say to the children of Israel, He that is hath
sent me, so also those who are at Ephesus saints and faithful
are addressed under the title of (absolute) existence ; that
is to say, just as (they are called) holy after the Holy One,
righteous after the Righteous One, and wise after the
Wise One, so also they are designated Those that are after
Him that is. Others however take it simply, and think
that it is written not to those that are, but to those that at
Ephesus are saints and faithful 1 .'

This father has expressed himself in a hasty and obscure
manner. When he speaks of 'some persons,' he doubtless
alludes to Origen, to whose work he was largely indebted in
his own commentary on this Epistle. But it does not appear
clearly what view he took of Origen's explanation. In the
former part of this note he speaks only of a difference of inter-
pretation, not of reading ; and hence we might infer not only
that he had the words ' in Ephesus ' in his own text, but that
he was unaware of their omission in any copies, and therefore
did not see the difficulty with which Origen had to contend.
On the other hand the word scriptum in the closing sentence
seems to point to a difference of reading also. But he may
have used the word loosely and without any such intention.
On the whole it seems probable that he overlooked the omission.
Yet even then his language suggests that his Latin copy may
have had the words qui sunt Ephesi in some other than the
ordinary position.

(vi) The extant copies of all the other Versions, early as
well as late, contain the words in the text. The unanimity
however does not carry any great weight in the present instance.
Our existing manuscripts of these Versions are all far too late

1 Hieron. Com. in Eph. i. 1 (vn. p. patos: ut quomodo a Sancto sancti, a

545, ed. Vallarsi), ' Quidam curiosius Justo justi, a Sapiente sapientes, ita ab

quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Eo qui est hi qui sunt appellentur...

Moysi dictum sit Haec dices filiis Alii vero simpliciter, non ad eos qui

Israel, Qui est, misit me (Exod. iii. sint (al. sunt), sed qui Ephesi sancti

14), etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles sint scriptum arbitrantur.'
et fideles essentiae vocabulo nuncu-

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 387

to assure us of their original reading in a case where the
insertion would be irresistible to scribes. The contest between
the testimony of the earlier and that of the later Greek MSS.,
as already stated, shows how little dependence can be placed on
any but the most ancient authorities under such circumstances.
The earliest extant manuscript of any of these Versions contain-
ing this opening verse of the Ephesian letter, is at least two
centuries later than N B, to say nothing of the manuscripts
consulted by Origen and Basil.

2. But if the diplomatic evidence throws considerable doubt
on the common designation of this Epistle, our suspicions are
deepened when we examine the general character and tone of
the Epistle itself.

St Paul had spent a great part of three years at Ephesus.
He had 'gone about among them preaching the kingdom of
God 1 / He had testified 'both to Jews and to GreeksV 'He
had ceased not to warn every one day and night with tears 3 .'
On his last journey to Jerusalem he summoned the elders of the
city to meet him at Miletus. He poured forth his whole heart
to them in affectionate remembrances and earnest warnings.
Parting from him at length, ' they fell on his neck and kissed
him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that
they should see his face no more 4 .'

The interview at Miletus is a striking picture of St Paul's
intimate relations with the brethren of Ephesus. There was
no Church on which he spent more time and labour, none in
which he felt a warmer personal interest, none with which
fonder or more sacred memories were bound up. Might it not
be expected then that a letter written to the Church of Ephesus
would be full of personal reminiscences, that there would be a
marked individuality of character in it, that the Apostle would
pour out his heart to his converts, as a friend speaking to
friends ?

1 Acts xx. 25. 3 Acts xx. 31.

2 Acts xx. 21. 4 Acts xx. 37, 38.

252

388 THE DESTINATION OF THE

The Epistle to the Ephesians does not answer these con-
ditions. Much stress indeed has been laid on the absence of
salutations to individual members of a Church so familiar to
him. To this argument there is a ready answer. In writing
to brotherhoods with whom he was most intimate, to the
Corinthians and Philippians, for instance, he sends no special
salutations : in writing to the Roman Church, which he had
never visited, he greets by name a large number of individual
members. The reason for this is obvious. In a community of
strangers it is easy to single out and enumerate friends. Where
all alike are known to us, it becomes irksome, if not invidious,
to select any for special salutations.

The absence of such salutations therefore is natural enough
in an Epistle to Ephesus. But the general character of the
Epistle admits of no explanation on this hypothesis. Of all
St Paul's letters it is the most general, the least personal. In
this respect it more nearly resembles the Epistle to the Romans
than any other 1 . Both alike partake of the character rather
of a formal treatise than of a familiar letter. Yet even the
Epistle to the Romans betrays deeper personal feeling, and
exhibits more distinct traces of individual relations and local
colouring. In writing to the Ephesians of their faith and
progress in the Gospel, he might be expected at all events to
allude to his own labours among them, their attachment to
him, the memories and experiences which they shared in
common 2 . Far different is his language. ' Having heard of
your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love towards all the
saints, I cease not to give thanks for you 3 .' ' For this cause I
Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles, if indeed

1 Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his before St Paul visited Ephesus, and so
usual penetration, discerns the likeness does Severianus (see Cramer's Catena) ;
of these two Epistles ' Scribit Ephesiis but not Theodoret, as De Wette asserts.
hanc epistolam beatus Paulus, eo modo Recent writers adduce it as an argu-
quo et Eomanis dudum scripserat quos ment against the genuineness of the
necdum ante viderat ' (Argum. ad Epistle. Mr Burgon does not attempt
Ephes. i. p. 112 ed. Swete). an explanation of the facts.

2 Theod. Mops. I. c. is driven to 3 Eph. i. 15.
assert that the letter was written

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 389

ye were instructed in the dispensation of the grace of God
which was given me to you-wardV ' But ye did not so learn
Christ, if so be ye heard of him and were taught in him, as
the truth is in Jesus 2 / All this is general and comprehensive,
not necessarily excluding personal intercourse with those he
addresses, but still scarcely natural if addressed to his own
converts solely. It is strangely at variance with the language
in which he generally writes to his own children in the faith,
the Corinthians and Philippians, for instance. It even presents
a very striking contrast to the contemporaneous letter to the
Colossians, for whom he shows an intense personal interest, and
to whose special dangers and temptations he is fully alive,
though they had not seen his face in the flesh 3 .

3. Yet, though this Epistle so little fulfils our expectations
of what St Paul would have written to his converts, it is beyond
a question that the Early Church universally regarded it as an
Epistle to the Ephesians. It is distinctly referred to as such
by the writer of the Muratorian Canon, by Irenaeus, by Ter-
tullian, by Clement of Alexandria, even by Origen himself, in
whose text, as we have seen, there was no direct mention of
Ephesus 4 . Thus the tradition is carried back to the earlier
decades of the last half of the second century, and at the close
of that century, at least, the title seems to have been received
without question by the Catholic Church, so much so that, as
we have seen, Tertullian accused Marcion of forgery because he
denied it. Earlier than this we cannot trace the opinion,
unless the existing text of the Old Latin and the Syriac
Versions, which have the words * in Ephesus,' may be put in
evidence 5 .

1 Eph. iii. 2. de praescr. 36, de monogam. 5 ; Clem.

2 Eph. iv. 20, 21. Alex. Strom, iv. 65, p. 592, Paed. i. 18,

3 Col. ii. 1. p. 108 ed. Potter; Origen contr. Gels.

4 The references are as follows : iii. 20 (xvni. p. 273 ed. Lomm.).
Murat. Canon, p. 148 ed. Credner; Iren. 5 Ignatius, writing in the first de-
Haer. i. 3. 1, 4, pp. 14, 16, i. 8. 4, p. 40, cade of the second century to the
v. 2. 36, p. 294, ed. Stieren ; Tert. members of the Ephesian Church,
adv. Marc. v. 17 (see above, p. 382), alludes to St Paul as 'making mention

390 THE DESTINATION OF THE

4. Only one exception to this general belief during
the earliest ages is on record. But this exception is most
important. I have mentioned before that Marcion con-
sidered it to be addressed to the Laodiceans. Now (1) Mar-
cion lived nearer to the times of the Apostles than any
of the Catholic writers above mentioned. (2) He was
moreover a native of Pontus, a neighbouring province of
Asia Minor, and therefore not unfavourably situated for
forming an opinion. And (3), as the question has no theo-
logical bearing whatever, his opinion is free from all suspicion
of bias, and must be received with the respect due to so ancient
a writer. Did Marcion then maintain this opinion, as a tra-
dition received from others, or as a result arrived at by his own
independent criticism ? We have not sufficient information to
form any judgment on this point. If the former idea be correct,
this tradition is of the highest value: if the latter, as Tertullian
assumes, he may be supposed to have built an inference on the
mention of a Laodicean letter in Col. iv. 16. Anyhow it is still
clear that the destination of the Epistle was open to question,
for it is most unlikely that Marcion would have changed the
received title merely because he found an allusion elsewhere to
a Laodicean letter, if this title were hitherto undisputed, and if
the Epistle itself stated that it was addressed to the Church of
Ephesus. The former view is more probable in the infancy of
criticism. Criticism would only step in where history was
silent or confused.

5. But whether Marcion's opinion was founded independently
of the mention of a Laodicean Epistle in the letter to the
Colossians or not, this mention has undoubtedly a very impor-
tant bearing on the question. The Ephesian and Colossian letters

of them in every epistle ' (Eph. 12 sonal disciple of the Apostles as a

6s tv jrdffrj eiriaToKr) /j.vr)/j.oveijei v/j.&v). further witness to this tradition; but

Attempts have been made to translate grammar forbids the interpretation.

tv Trdari t-mffroXri as though it were [See the note on the passage in Aposto-

tv irderj TIJ tTTi<rTo\fi 'throughout his lie Fathers Pt. n. Vol. n. p. 65 ed. 2.]
2,' and thus to claim this per-

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 391

were written and despatched about the same time. Tychicus
seems to have been the bearer of both letters 1 . At all events
he is expected to visit the persons to whom they were addressed
about the time when they were delivered. Simultaneously
with these also a private letter was sent to Philemon, an
individual member of the Church of Laodicea or of Colossse.
Thus three letters were despatched at the same time. But in
the Epistle to the Colossians they are directed to exchange
letters with the Laodiceans. Are we then to add to the three
letters already mentioned a fourth letter no longer extant ? Or
is the Laodicean Epistle to be identified with one of these ? If
the latter alternative be adopted, it can only be our Epistle to
the Ephesians, for the letter to Philemon is addressed to an
individual Christian on a matter of strictly private interest, and
does not therefore answer to the designation.

Let us now combine the evidence gathered from these
various sources, and what is the result ? We must frame some
hypothesis which recognises our Epistle both as an Epistle to the
Laodiceans and an Epistle to the Ephesians, and yet neither
the one nor the other. It must moreover be sufficiently elastic
to adapt itself to the general tone in which the letter is
couched.

The required hypothesis is not far to seek. It was an
encyclical letter addressed to the Churches lying within a
certain area, which we may perhaps venture to define roughly
as coextensive with Proconsular Asia. On this supposition all
the varying forms of the opening salutation are fully explained.
The facts before us are these :

(1) The words ev 'Ec/>eV&> were omitted in the old MSS.

(see above, p. 377 sq.).

(2) The general character of the Epistle is quite in-

capable of explanation, if it were written solely or
specially to the Ephesians (see above, p. 387 sq.).

1 Eph. vi. 21 ; Col. iv. 7.

392 THE DESTINATION OF THE

(3) At the same time the Epistle was regarded from

very ancient times as an 'Epistle to the Ephe-
sians,' and so it was entitled (see above, p. 389).

(4) Marcion, however, the earliest writer whose opinion

is known (except doubtfully and inferentially),
believed that it was written to the Laodiceans
(see above, p. 390).

(5) It is certain that St Paul despatched an Epistle to

Laodicea, at or about the same time that the
Epistle (so called) to the Ephesians reached its
destination (see above, p. 390 sq.).

We have to seek a theory which will account for and combine
all these facts, and that of Archbishop Ussher alone satisfies
these requirements.

(i) In the original letter a vacant space would be left after
the words 'To the saints that are.' In the copies made for
distribution the blank would be filled in with the names of the
individual Churches for which they were intended, 'in Ephesus/
'in Smyrna,' 'in Laodicea,' 'in Thyatira' and so forth. In the
Church at large some copies would be circulated with the
vacant space. When these were again transcribed, the blank
would be disregarded, and the text closing in upon it would run
'To the saints that are and faithful brethren.' This explains
the reading of the texts of Origen and Basil, and of our two
best extant MSS. Not a few again would be circulated from
the metropolitan Church of Ephesus. Hence the received text
and the recognised title. Lastly a MS. would here and there
be found transcribed from the copy sent to some other Church.
A transcription from the Laodicean copy fell into Marcion's
hands and led to his designation, (ii) And in this way a
satisfactory account may be given of the notice in the Colossian
Epistle. The letter would be sent only to the mother Church
in each district, with the injunction to circulate it among the
lesser communities scattered throughout that district. Laodicea
would be selected, as she is selected in the Apocalypse, as of

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 393

superior importance to either Hierapolis or Colossae, which lay
in her immediate neighbourhood 1 .

Moreover the hypothesis adopted fits in with the exact
terms of that notice. Two points are to be observed : (1) The
Epistle in question is called not the ' Epistle to the Laodiceans,'
but the 'Epistle from Laodicea.' The former designation
would not be very well suited to our Epistle : the latter
exactly describes it, for the Colossians got it from Laodicea.
(2) If St Paul had written directly and solely to the Laodiceans
he would naturally have given his salutations to the Church of
Laodicea and to individual members of it in the letter addressed
to them. On the contrary we find him sending his saluta-
tions through the Colossians, not only to the Church of Laodicea
generally, but to Nymphas, who was certainly, and Archippus,
who was perhaps, a member of that Church (Col. iv. 15, 17).
(iii) Again, the entire absence of special allusions, with the sole
exception of the mention of Tychicus, has created much per-
plexity and suspicion. On the supposition adopted, both the
rule and the exception are satisfactorily explained. On the
one hand the encyclical character of the letter required that all
persoaal matters should be excluded. But at the same time,
with some of the Churches thus addressed St Paul was on
terms of affectionate intimacy. To such he must needs address
some words of special import. These were entrusted to the
bearer of the letter : ' But that ye also may know my affairs,
how I do, Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister
in the Lord, shall make known to you all things : whom I have
sent unto you for this very purpose, that ye may know our
affairs, and that he may comfort your hearts 2 .' The very
expression 'ye also' points to the encyclical character of the
letter. Private instructions, salutations to individuals, strictly
personal matters of all kinds would be reserved for him to
deliver.

I have suggested Proconsular Asia as the probable limit of
the district through which the Epistle was intended to be
1 See Colossians, pp. 7, 8. 2 Eph. vi. 21, 22.

394 THE DESTINATION OF THE

circulated. The seven Churches of the Apocalypse at once
occur to us, and St Paul's letter was probably destined for a
circle of readers not much wider nor much narrower than St
John's Revelation. The Apocalypse was written probably not
many years later, and by that time these Churches had passed
through many vicissitudes, had been proved by many trials >
had grown old and in some instances lukewarm in the faith.
It is most probable therefore that they were in existence when
St Paul wrote. During his residence of three years in Ephesus,
the knowledge of the Gospel through his influence, direct or
indirect, had spread throughout the neighbourhood. It had
certainly reached Laodicea, with her attendant satellites Hiera-
polis and Colossae, lying at the extreme verge of this Pleiad of
the Christian heavens, and the more central points of the con-
stellation would not have been passed over. There was little, if
any, exaggeration in the language of Demetrius when he said
' not only at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul
hath persuaded and turned away much people 1 .' During great
part of the second century the Asiatic Churches are without
question the most energetic and lively members of Christ,
whether we regard their missionary zeal or their literary
activity.

What motive then may be supposed to have prompted St
Paul to write this letter ? A beloved disciple, Epaphras, had
brought tidings of the errors which threatened the safety of the
Christian brotherhood in his own native place, Colossae, in itself
a comparatively small and unimportant Church. At Colossae
the symptoms were so clear, that there was no mistaking the
form which the disease might assume. For these strongly
marked errors the Apostle prescribed. The true medicine was
found in the doctrine of the Person of Christ. In writing to
the Colossians therefore he applied this as a special remedy,
with a view to a special complaint 2 . But in the course of
writing, it would occur to him to set forth these grand truths
in a broader form and in their more general relations. This he
1 Acts xix. 26 ; cf. v. 10. 2 See Colossians, p. 41 sq.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 395

could do, if, while writing, he were free from any of the disturb-
ing forces which special local interests must exert upon him.

The Churches of Asia would offer themselves as fit recipients
for such an exposition. He was known personally to some of
these ; his influence had been felt by all. A trusty messenger
was at hand in Tychicus, a member of the Church of Ephesus,
the most important in the district, and himself a tried com-
panion and fellow-labourer of the Apostle. To these therefore
St Paul wrote a circular letter, for while speaking to all col-
lectively, he was not obliged to speak to any individually. He
thus felt himself free and unfettered. At the same time, the
area chosen was not too large to prevent his adapting his
teaching to the wants of his hearers. A certain tone of feeling
pervaded all the Churches of Asia, a certain class of errors
would find a welcome among them. If false opinion did not
take exactly the same form at Ephesus or Thyatira or Smyrna,
for instance, as at Colossae, it would take a similar form. Thus
St Paul still dwells in this Epistle on the same class of truths
as in the Epistle to the Colossians. Only whereas in the
Colossians he combats error directly 1 , he here combats it
indirectly : whereas there he is special, distinct, personal, here
he speaks broadly and generally 2 .

Thus the Epistle to the Ephesians stands to the Epistle to
the Colossians in very much the same relation as the Romans
to the Galatians. The one is the general and systematic
exposition of the same truths which appear in a special bearing

1 On the character of the heresy of the subject of Christ the Logos in
which assailed the Colossian Church, Col. i. 15, ii. 9 with Eph. i. 22, or of
see Colossians, p. 72 sq. the law of ordinances in Col. ii. 14

2 Besides this, St Paul has given to with Eph. ii. 14, 15, or again the
his teaching a new centre. In this practical lessons of the relations of
Epistle it revolves about the doctrine husbands and wives in Col. iii. 18, 19
of the Church. The same truths which with Eph. v. 25 sq., 32. The propriety
in the Epistle to the Colossians are of this new centre of teaching is obvious
advanced to combat a peculiar phase when we remember that it is addressed,
of false doctrine have here a place as not in a special letter to an individual
leading up to the doctrine of the Church, but in an encyclical to several
Church, e.g. compare the treatment Churches.

396 THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE.

in the other. For though the Roman is not strictly a circular
letter 1 , yet, being addressed to a very large and varied com-
munity, it was enabled to maintain this general character.

Thus the resemblances between the language of the Epistles
to the Ephesians and Colossians are explained. Analogous re-
semblances between expressions used to the Galatians and
Romans are not quite so close, but there the interval between
the two letters is longer 8 .

1 See above, p. 315. 1 Pet. i. 3. Eph. i. 3.

2 This hypothesis best explains the ii. 5. ii. 21, 22.
relation between this letter and 1 Peter, ii. 18 sq. vi. 5.
which, like it, is addressed to the iii. 1 sq. v. 22.
Churches of Asia Minor and obviously iii. 7 sq. v. 25.
makes use of the Epistle to the Ephe- iii. 22. i. 20, 21.
sians. Compare the following pairs of iv. 3. ii. 2, iv. 17.

etc. etc.

[1873.]

XL
THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

Printed from Lecture-notes.

XL
THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

THE date of the Pastoral Epistles has been more canvassed
than perhaps any other point in the chronology of St Paul 1 .
While it has been generally acknowledged that the Second
Epistle to Timothy was the Apostle's dying strain, though even
this opinion has not been allowed to pass unchallenged 2 , the
First Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus have occupied
almost every conceivable position in the systems of different
critics. This circumstance is in itself a sufficient proof of the
difficulties which beset the question, and might perhaps lead
us to despair of a solution. A little more careful examination,
however, tends to a more hopeful view. Taking into account
all the conditions of the problem the internal character of the
Epistles themselves as regards style and teaching, no less than
the historical notices which they contain, whether relating to
the Church at large, or to personal matters we arrive at this
simple result, that they cannot be placed within the compass of
the history contained in the Acts, and that they must have been
written after the other letters of the Apostle, towards the close
of his life. The later criticism, based on a deeper appreciation
of the style of the Pastoral Epistles, is obviously tending to

1 Various opinions respecting this rant of all recent English Theological

question will be found collected and works.

classified in C. W. Otto Die Geschicht- 2 For a list of these exceptions see

lichen Verhdltnisse der Pastoralbriefe Davidson Intr. iii. p. 52 ed. 1, and Otto,

etc. Leipz. 1860. The writer however, p. 16.
like most of his countrymen, is igno-

400 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

this result, though there are still some important exceptions 1 ,
and it may be safely predicted that the alternative of placing
them at the close of the Apostle's life, or of abandoning the
Pauline authorship, will be accepted by both impugners and
defenders alike, as common ground.

The two points, which we have to consider, are (1) The style
and intrinsic character of the Epistles themselves ; (2) The
historical matter which they contain.

I. THE STYLE AND INTRINSIC CHARACTER OF THE
PASTORAL EPISTLES.

Those who have examined St Paul's Epistles with reference
to their time of writing, will have observed a strong resem-
blance in style and character between the letters belonging to
the same chronological group, while at the same time a letter
of one group, placed by the side of a letter of another, though
betraying the strongest indications of the same mind, shows
marked and unmistakable differences. So strong does this
impression become on closer study, that the evidence of date
derived from style takes the first place in our minds, and when,
as in the case of the Galatian Epistle, the historical notices are
few and vague, we still feel an absolute certainty in a result
derived solely or chiefly from this source. This phenomenon
of a difference in a resemblance is much more clearly exhibited
in the Pastoral Epistles than in any other of St Paul's letters 2 .
With the resemblance I have no concern here. At present
I shall dwell simply on the differences, as a proof, first, that
they belong to the same period one with another, and secondly,
that they cannot have been contemporaneous with the other
Epistles of St Paul.

These differences may be gathered up under the following

1 Such as Wieseler, Davidson and criticism as retrograde.
Schaff. The most recent writer. Otto, 2 Coleridge calls them IlauXoeiSetj

is also an exception. I regard his (Table Talk p. 253).

THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 401

heads, (1) vocabulary, (2) syntax, (3) modes of thought and
teaching.

1. The Vocabulary. Words used in these Epistles alone, or with far
greater frequency in them. The following classification is more or less
artificial, but will assist in apprehending the character of these differences.
For convenience of reference the First and Second Epistles to Timothy and
the Epistle to Titus are designated by the letters a, b, c, respectively, the
number of occurrences, where more than one, being placed immediately
above each letter.

(a) A new set of terms to describe moral and religious states.

fiefirjXos 'profane' a 3 b. Not used elsewhere by St Paul, occurs in
Heb. xii. 16.

'godliness' a 8 bc fuo-e/Swy be evo-eftelv a, thirteen times in
all, and not once elsewhere in St Paul's Epistles.
apos 'pure' a 2 b 2 c 2 (in four out of the six cases used of the
conscience) ; only once elsewhere (Rom. xiv. 20) in St Paul.

'good' 'beautiful' a 16 b 3 c 5 , twenty-four times in the Pastoral
Epistles, and only sixteen times elsewhere in St Paul.

'gravity' a 2 c o-e/ii/d? afo. a-fpvos occurs Phil. iv. 8, and
nowhere else in the New Testament.

(6) A new set of terms relating to doctrine, many of them bringing

out the contrast between true and false doctrine.
dtdaa-KoXia 'teaching' a 8 b 3 c 4 , used most frequently objectively
'doctrine.' The word only occurs elsewhere in St Paul four
times, and then with its ordinary sense of the 'art of teaching.'
6* 777-17 o-eiy, (rjTrjo-eis 'questionings' a 2 bc, not elsewhere in St Paul.
Xo-yo/j,a^i'a, -iv of ' combats of words' ab, not elsewhere in the
New Testament.

the deposit of the faith' ab 2 , not elsewhere in the New
Testament.

17$-, vyiaiveiv 'sound' 'healthy' as applied to doctrine a 2 b 2 c 5 , not
elsewhere in St Paul, or in this sense in the New Testament.
Also the opposite voveiv a, here only in the New Testament.

8iap.apTvpe<T6ai evamov ab 2 . The word diap.apTvpe<r6ai only occurs

once elsewhere at all in St Paul.
xdpis, e\eos, flprjvr) ab and perhaps c, contrasted with the earlier

salutation x^P LS Kai ^p 7 /"*?-
TTIO-TOS 6 \6yos a 3 bc. Peculiar to this group.

(d*} Modes of speaking of God the Father, and Christ.

applied to God a 3 c 3 .

L. E. 26

402 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

eirxpdveia in the sense of Trapovcria ab 3 c.

None of these are found elsewhere in St Paul. In 2 Thess. ii. 8
however there is 17 fTriCpdveia rrjs arapoucrmy.

(e) Other expressions not falling under any of these classes.
apveivQat, ab 3 C 2 .
Sia/3oXos, 'false-accuser' abc.

master' a 2 bc, elsewhere in St Paul Kvpios.
o-OaL Trepi TIVOS ac.

a 2 bc.
All these are peculiar to this group of Pauline Epistles.

2. The Syntax.

(a) It is stiffer and more regular than in the earlier Epistles, more
jointed and less flowing. The clauses are marshalled together,
and there is a tendency to parallelism.

e.g. 1 Tim. i. 9, ii. 1, 2, iii. 16, iv. 12, 13, 15, v. 10, vi. 9, 11, 12,
13, 15, 18; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12, iii. 1-8, 10-13, 16, iv. 2, 4, 5, 7;
Tit. i. 7, 8, 9, ii. 7, 12, iii. 1-3.

(6) There is a greater sententiousness, an abruptness and positive-
ness of form. Imperative clauses are frequent,
e.g. 1 Tim. iv. 11, 15, 16, v. 7, 8, 22-25, vi. 2, 6, 11, 20; 2 Tim.
i. 13, 14, ii. 1, 3, 7, 8, 14, 19, 22, 23; iii. 1, 5, 12, 16.

3. The tone of thought manifest in these Epistles has a character of

its own.

(a) There is an increased tendency to the directly moral side of
duty. The Apostle's former preaching of faith and grace is
not lost sight of, but it occupies a much smaller space and
a less prominent position. Stress is laid upon good works
(1 Tim. ii. 10, v. 10, 25, vi. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 21 ; Tit. i. 16, iii. 7,
14). In describing the Christian state the principles of
evo-ejBeia and o-tixppoa-vvr) stand forward. Long and frequent
lists of virtues are given, often descending into minute
details of practical life. (6) On the other hand, apparently
in contradiction to the characteristic just mentioned but not
really so, the Apostle dwells more on orthodoxy of belief in
comparison with his previous Epistles. There is more of the
doctrine of Christianity as a creed, and less as a life. Alto-
gether we may say that the teaching of the Pastoral Epistles
is more definite and positive, than that of the earlier letters.
There is more of detail in it, and less of principles.

These distinguishing features, it must be observed, are
found in all these three Epistles alike. It is an obvious and

THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 403

almost irresistible conclusion (i) that they must all three have
been written at or near the same time, (ii) that some consider-
able period must be interposed between them and the remain-
ing Epistles of St Paul. Now, no hypothesis framed on the
supposition that St Paul was not released, and that therefore
the Pastoral Epistles fall within the limits of time comprised
in the Acts, satisfies these conditions. Indeed it is impossible
that such an hypothesis could satisfy them ; for the Second
Epistle to Timothy is generally allowed to have been written
from Rome at the very close of his life, while the First Epistle
to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were written when he was
at liberty, and supposing his first captivity to have terminated
fatally, this consideration alone interposes a period of four years
at least between them 1 .

Thus judging from the style and character of these Epistles
alone we are led to this very definite conclusion.

II. THE HISTORICAL NOTICES.

These are of two kinds : those relating to (1) actual incidents,
affecting himself and his friends ; (2) the general condition of
the Church.

i. Historical incidents.
From the opening verses of the First Epistle to Timothy

1 Wieseler's hypothesis (Chron. p. private letters written to intimate

286), the most plausible of those con- friends, the Pastoral Epistles might

structed on this supposition, arranges be supposed to have a character of

the Epistles in the order Galatians, 1 their own. The peculiarities of style

Timothy, 1 Corinthians, Titus, 2 Corin- are for the most part not of a kind to

thians. Thus we get a series of Epistles be accounted for in this way, though

in which St Paul's styles alternate for some of them might be so explained.

Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinth- And we have an instance of St Paul's

ians are closely allied to each other, familiar style at this earlier date in

and widely different from 1 Timothy the Epistle to Philemon, which has

and Titus. According to this hypo- none of the characteristic features of

thesis, 2 Timothy follows Titus after the Pastoral Epistles. Otto (p. 9) has

an interval of five or six years, and quite failed to grasp the conditions of

with six Epistles of an entirely dif- the problem when he dismisses these

ferent style intervening. The difficulty considerations so summarily,
is not at all met by saying that as

262

404 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

we learn that St Paul, when departing for Macedonia, had
charged Timothy to remain at Ephesus to superintend the
Church there 1 . There are only two visits to Ephesus recorded
in the Acts 2 . On the first of these, which was very brief,
St Paul scarcely did more than prepare the way for the
foundation of a Church, and it is excluded by the fact that
he was then travelling not to Macedonia but in a direction
the very opposite, viz. to Jerusalem 3 . On the second, he
remained at Ephesus for three years, and on departing did go
into Macedonia 4 : but the following reasons are decisive against
this being the visit in question, (i) He did not leave Timothy
in Ephesus, but sent him on to Macedonia 5 , intending that he
should also go to Corinth 6 . That Timothy did actually reach
Corinth is improbable, but that he did not return to Ephesus
before St Paul left is clear : for St Paul joins him in Mace-
donia 7 and is accompanied by him to Corinth 8 , (ii) St Paul
had no such intention of revisiting Ephesus soon, as he declares
in this letter 9 . On the contrary, he was bound for Greece,
intending to sail thence direct to Jerusalem to pay his farewell
to the Holy city before visiting Rome and the West 10 .

This difficulty may indeed be got over by supposing that
St Paul may have paid a visit from Ephesus to Macedonia
during his three years' stay there a visit unrecorded in the
Acts, as he is known from 2 Corinthians to have paid a visit
to Corinth likewise unrecorded 11 . But this is an arbitrary
assumption, and two unsurmountable difficulties still remain:
(i) to account for the growth of the heresies in so short a time
during St Paul's actual presence at Ephesus ; and (ii) to
reconcile the appearance of these heretics at Ephesus, as stated
in this Epistle, with the prediction to the Elders at Miletus 12

1 1 Tim. i. 3. 8 Bom. xvi. 21.

2 Acts xviii. 19, and xix. 1. 9 1 Tim. in. 14.

3 Acts xviii. 21. 10 Acts xix. 21.

4 Acts xix. 21. u This hypothesis is put in the best

5 Acts xix. 22. form by Wieseler, I. c.

1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10, 11. 12 Acts xx. 29 /xerd rty &<j>Lv pov.

7 2 Cor. i. 1.

THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 405

that they would appear hereafter, the fact being on this hypo-
thesis earlier than the prediction 1 .

The notices in the Epistle to Titus enhance the difficulty on
any such hypothesis. St Paul leaves Titus in Crete to organize
the Churches there 2 . There is no record in the Acts of any
such visit to Crete. We have also mention of a winter to be
spent in Nicopolis 3 which Nicopolis is meant, I need not stay
to enquire at present. This also is passed over in silence in
the Acts. But not only are these incidents unrecorded ; there
is no place in the narrative of St Luke where we can inter-
polate them 4 . It has been suggested indeed that they must
be taken out of the long residence at Ephesus, extending over
from two to three years. That St Paul paid a brief visit to
Corinth during this period, unrecorded by St Luke, we are
forced to conclude by some incidental allusions in the Epistles
to the Corinthians. But if we add to this a visit to Macedonia,
as required by the First Epistle to Timothy, and then a
residence more or less prolonged in Crete, and a winter passed
at Nicopolis, as inferred from the Epistle to Titus, and make
allowance for the journeys to and fro, we have to assume a
prolonged absence from Ephesus which could not have been
unknown to St Luke, or, if known, passed over in silence, and
which would render St Paul's language to the Ephesian Elders
at Miletus 5 quite incorrect and inappropriate. It may be added
also that the projected mission of Artemas or Tychicus to
Crete 6 , or the expected visit of Zenas and Apollos and of
Titus himself 7 , have no points of correspondence with the
incidents of St Luke's narrative a remarkable circumstance
if they fell within the same range of time.

The notices in the Second Epistle to Timothy are still more
unaccountable. This Epistle, as is generally supposed, was

1 Futile attempts are made to meet m. p. 79 sq., Wieseler, p. 286 sq., Otto,
this difficulty in Hemsen, Paulus, and p. 357 sq.

Davidson m. p. 25. 5 Acts xx. 31 rpieriav vvK.ro. /cat i)(j.tpa.v

2 Tit. i. 5. OVK CTraucrciyUT/i' vovder&v.

3 Tit. iii. 12. e Tit. iii. 12.

4 For various shifts see Davidson 1 Tit. iii. 13.

406 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

written while St Paul was a prisoner at Rome, and when his
captivity was soon to terminate in death. According to the
hypothesis which I am now considering, this was the same
captivity with which the history of the Acts closes. Thus he
had been a prisoner for more than four years, first at Csesarea,
then at Rome. The incidents therefore which occurred when
St Paul was in the East the sojourn of Erastus at Corinth 1 ,
and his leaving Trophimus ill at Miletus must have happened
previously to this. Even if we suppose with some that it was
written at the beginning of his stay at Rome, there is still a
period of two or three years, yet he feels it necessary to inform
him by letter of these occurrences after so long a lapse of time.
Nay more, Timothy had been staying with the Apostle mean-
while at Rome 2 ; he was in fact with him during this very tour
in Greece and Asia Minor when, on the supposed hypothesis,
these incidents must have occurred. Why then should the
Apostle offer this information so superfluous and uncalled for ?
But indeed the incidents themselves militate against the hypo-
thesis. Erastus indeed might have remained at Corinth on
that occasion, for about him St Luke is silent. But Trophimus
was certainly not left at Miletus sick, for we find him with the
Apostle immediately afterwards at Jerusalem 3 . It is unneces-
sary to dwell on minor difficulties, such as his leaving the
cloak and books at Troas 4 so many years 5 .

This accumulation of historical contradictions is quite unsur-
mountable on the supposition of the earlier date of these Epi-
stles. De Wette's phrase of the ' historical unaccountableness ' of
the Pastoral Epistles then becomes most appropriate. And if no
alternative remained, there would be an overwhelming difficulty
in accepting these writings as genuine. This historical difficulty
disappears, if we prolong St Paul's life beyond the period com-
prised in the Acts, and place the Pastorals at a later date.

1 2 Tim. iv. 20. 5 To escape this difficulty Hug and

2 Phil. i. 1 ; Col. i. 1 ; Philem. v. 1. Hemsen take d-n-^Xenrov to mean ' they

3 Acts xxi. 29. left' (see Davidson in. p. 53). Who

4 2 Tim. iv. 13. 'they' are, is not clear.

THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 407

ii. The condition of the Church.

Very exaggerated and unwarrantable views have been taken
of the notices in the Pastoral Epistles relating to the condition
of the Church, as indicating a later date, and this circumstance
may perhaps prejudice the consideration of them. But on the
other hand these Epistles leave on the mind the impression of
a definite and various organization, which must have taken
some time in forming, and of a progress and development of
opinion and action for good or evil, inconsistent with a very
early stage of the Church. This consideration becomes of
importance when we apply it to the particular case of the
Church of Ephesus. According to the hypothesis we have
been combating, the First Epistle to Timothy was written not
later than A.D. 57, before the close of St Paul's protracted stay
in that city. Now that stay was practically the foundation
of the Church there, for on his previous brief visit St Paul did
but break ground. Thus on this theory in the course of two or
three years the Church has attained this advanced development,
and what is more improbable still, false and heretical opinions
have grown up and spread before the Apostle's own eyes.

The three points which deserve considering in the condition
of the Church are (a) the ministry and in general the offices
connected with Church government, (6) the heresies, (c) the
traces of a Church literature.

(a) I do not lay any stress on the existence of the two
orders of presbyters and deacons, as a recognised institution.
Evidence is not wanting to show that these existed in some
Churches at least at a very early date 1 ; but the directions
given (1 Tim. iii. 1 sq., v. 17-21 ; Tit. i. 7) imply that these
offices had assumed a very definite form, that serious irregu-
larities had crept into the ministry of the Church and that alto-
gether there had been long experience of the working of the
system. I would point particularly to the direction that the
presbyter must not be ' a novice, lest he be lifted up with pride 2 /

1 Acts xi. 30, xiv. 23 ; Phil. i. 1. 2 1 Tim. iii. 6.

408 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

as savouring of a later date. Again the term Trpea
implies that the office was consolidated. Provision is also
made for the maintenance of church officers 2 . Altogether the
tone of these injunctions is inconsistent with the very first
stage of the Church before carelessness and insincerity had
grown with the growth of its numbers.

Again, the systematic employment of women in offices
connected with the ministry is another proof of a later date.
We read of a deaconess of the Church of Cenchre^e 3 , about the
time when on the hypothesis of the earlier date the First
Epistle to Timothy was written, but with this single exception
there is no distinct trace in the other Epistles of St Paul
of a special ministry of women. Here on the contrary the
deaconesses are a recognised class of officials 4 . The diaconate
of women however would not create any serious difficulty. It
is more important to observe that ' the widows 5 ' also are spoken
of as a separate class, specially appointed (/caraXeyeo-Oct)) with
functions of their own, and spoken of in such a way as to show
that the institution had been working for some time.

(b) The picture drawn by St Paul of the state of opinion in
theological matters tends to the same result ' the endless fables
and genealogies,' ' the questionings arid battles of words/ 'the pro-
fane and vain babblings 6 .' The ' oppositions of science so called 7 '
must have come to the surface after a long seething of specula-
tion, and betoken the conflict of various elements of philosophical
opinion with the Gospel, so that a considerable time is required
for their development. Again, if we compare these notices
in the Pastoral Epistles with those elsewhere, we arrive at the
same conclusion. In the Apostle's farewell address to the
Ephesian Elders at Miletus, these irregularities in the Church

1 1 Tim. iv. 14. 4 1 Tim. iii. 11.

2 1 Tim. v. 17. On the other hand 5 1 Tim. v. 3 sq.

promotion from one office to another 6 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 1, vi. 20; 2 Tim.

is not implied in 1 Tim. iii. 13, as ii. 16; cf. also 2 Tim. ii. 23, iii. 13;

some have supposed (e.g. Blunt, Tit. i. 10, iii. 9 sq.

Wordsworth). 7 1 Tim. vi. 20.

3 Bom. xvi. 1.

THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 409

of Ephesus are an anticipation, a prophecy ; here they are a
painful fact. Thirdly, comparing them with the phase of heresy
prevalent in these same regions of Asia Minor, as presented in
the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, we find that
though they have much in common, the latter are an advance
upon the former 1 . Whereas in the former no charge of immor-
ality is brought against the false teachers, but on the other
hand they are reproved for their strict asceticism, in the
Pastorals the heretical spirit is one of profligate, reckless
self-seeking. Without pressing the prophetical passages 2 , this
tendency is apparent enough 3 . Now this sequence is natural.
Loose and idle speculation, freedom from restraint in matters
of opinion, ultimately begets immorality of conduct, for it
throws off the sanctions of authority which kept it in check.
But all this requires time. Lastly, it should be observed that
the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles made a traffic of their
false doctrines. They found advantage in vending their wares
to foolish purchasers who in turn were interested in being
deceived 4 . Now all this militates against a very early date.
There is little chance of deceiving and nothing to be gained
by it, where all are poor and all honest alike. It is only later
that the theological adventurer has any chance and that,
having first deceived himself, he finds it worth his while to
deceive others 5 .

(c) We find here and there in the Pastoral Epistles traces
of a liturgical form, snatches of hymns, and fragments of creeds
or formularies. It will be sufficient to point out one or two
of these. They are to be distinguished by their balanced,
rhythmical form, as if framed to assist the memory and perhaps
to be sung. They are besides introduced in many cases by

1 On the relation of these two heresies 4 1 Tim. vi. 5

see the additional note at the end of dvai TT\V eiVe/Setai' : 2 Tim. iii. 6 ai'x-

this Essay (p. 411 sq.). [juiXuTifovTes ywcu.Ka.pia creffupevfj^va

- 1 Tim. iv. 1 sq.; 2 Tim. iii. 1 sq., d/ta/m'cus, dyofj-eva tiridv/juais Trot/ct'Xcus.
iv. 3 sq. 5 2 Tim. iii. 13.

3 See below, p. 415.

410 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

the formula ' faithful is the saying.' Such are especially
2 Tim. ii. 11 el yap avvaTreddvofjiev, ical avvtyo-o/Aev K.T.\. and
1 Tim. iii. 16 09 ecfraveptodrj ev aap/cl K.T.\. Now we should
perhaps expect to trace the origin of a devotional and ecclesi-
astical literature back to the close of the Apostolic age, but not
much earlier. At first the oral teaching, the communion of
soul with soul, ' the spirit and not the letter,' was the para-
mount, as it always will be the most effectual, mode of
instruction ; but as the Apostles foresaw their speedy removal
from the scene of their labours, it is not unnatural that they
should have countenanced efforts of this kind, for the guidance
and instruction of the Churches after their death. It is worth
observing here, that outside the Pastoral Epistles there is no
distinct trace of a liturgical or devotional form of words in
St Paul's writings but one. Both the rule and the exception
are instructive. The rule shows the practice of the earlier
Apostolic age. The exception occurs in the Epistle to the
Ephesians 1 , probably the latest of St Paul's Epistles antecedent
to the Pastorals. It is therefore the first trace of the transition
to the fixed form and prepares the way naturally for the
phenomena of his latest group of letters.

1 Ephes. v. 14, dib \tyef "Eyape expression did \tyei compare the later
6 leaded 8 <i)v || KCU avaara. ^/c T&V veKp&v\\ formula TTIGTOS 6 \6yos.
Kal ^7ri0cw/(ret crot 6 Xprr6s. With the

[1862.]

THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 411

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE HERESY COMBATED
IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

The form of heresy presented to us in the Pastoral Epistles has
been much canvassed. Some have recognised in it a Judaism of the
extreme Pharisaic type. To others, it has appeared in the directly
opposed form of strictly Gentile Gnosis. Some again have traced
one form of error in this group of Epistles, while others have
discovered as many as four distinct heresies.

It will be necessary to start from a careful examination of the
passages in which the false doctrine is alluded to. From the results
thus obtained, with the light thrown by the false teaching com-
bated in the Epistle to the Colossians and by the form of heresy
known to have prevailed in the age which followed upon the
Apostles, we are enabled to draw a tolerably vivid and consistent
portrait of this branch of false doctrine.

From the Pastoral Epistles themselves these five characteristics
of the heresy are elicited :

(1) It was Jewish in its origin, promulgated chiefly by converts
from Judaism and maintaining the observance of the law as a
fundamental tenet.

Cf. 1 Tim. i. 7, 8 $e'A.ovT9 elvai. vo//,oSi8acr/caXoi /c.r.A., Tit. i. 10
tcrtv yap 7roAAot dvvTrora/cTOt, /xaratoA-dyot /cat c^pcvaTrarat, p;aA.t<TTa ot
CK rrjs Treprro^uys, 14 p.1] Trpoore'^ovres 'louSai'/cots /xu$ot? /cat ei/ToA.ats
avOpwirfDv, iii. 9 /xoopas 8e ^-n^creis /cat ycveaAoytas /cat Iptj/ /cat /xa^as
i/o/xt/ca? Trepucrrao'o.

(2) It vaunted a superior knowledge (yi/dxrts) and busied itself
in idle speculations. Under this head the three points, on which
we may fix attention, are (a) its foolish and profane disputations
and combats of words, (6) fables, (c) genealogies.

Cf. 1 Tim. i. 4 Trpocre^ctv /xv$ots /cat yeveaAoyiais dTrepavrois atrtves
Trape^ovtrt fJiaXXov rj ot/co^o/Atav Oeov rrjv ev TTttrret, 6 e^erpa-
eis /xarato/Xoytav, iv. 7 rovg /?/3/;Aous /cat ypatuSct? /zv#ou5, vi. 4
vocrtuv Trept ^T7^(7ts /cat Xoyo/xa^tas, 20, 21 e/CTpeTro/xei/o? TO,? /3/3tj\ovs
Kevoc/xovi'a? /cat avri^eVets T^S j^evSwvu/xov yvworeoo? /c.r.X., 2 Tim. ii.
14 fji-rj A.oyo/xa^tv CTT' ouSev xpijori/j.ov } 16 ras
23 /jttopas Kat ajratSevTovs ^T^crct?, iv. 4 a.7ro /xev T

liri Se TOV? /otv^ovg e/cTpaTrr/croKrai, and Tit. iii. 9 already

412 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

quoted. It would seem that in some cases at least this speculation
assumed the form of denying the resurrection of the dead (2 Tim.
ii. 18).

(3) Its adherents practised mysterious or magical rites. They
are spoken of as wizards.

Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 13 irovrjpol dvOpwirou KOL yd^res, to which perhaps
we may refer 1 Tim. iv. 1 Trpoo-e^ovres Trveu/xacrc 7rA.avois /cat SiSacr-
/caAicus Scu/Aovicov.

(4) There was a strongly ascetic tendency in their teaching.
Marriage was forbidden, and they distinguished between meats
clean and unclean.

Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 3 KwAvdi/Twv ya/x,iv, aTre^eo-^at /3p(o/x,aT<Dv, 8 tj
crw/xartK^ yv/x,vacria Trpos oAiyoi/ CCTTIV <o<eA.i/xos, Tit. i. 15 iravra. KaOapa

TOt? KaOapOLS K.T.X..

(5) In character they were corrupt, deceitful and selfseeking.
Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 2 KCKavo-TTypiao-yaevwv rr)v iSiav (rwctStyCTty, vi. 5

SiaTraparpi/Sai Ste<$ap/x,ei/u)v a.v6p<j*Trwv rov vovv KO.L aTrecrrep^/xevaJV TTJ<S
aA.?70ia<?, vo/xt^dvrcoi/ iropia^ov ivat TTJV evcre^eiav, 2 Tim. iii. 6, 8

TO-S OtKlO.5. . .CUvQiffTCLVrOLl T^ d\Y)0l.a OLvOpWlTOl KaTfffjOoLpfJifVOL
7T6/31 T^V TTtCTTtV, iv. 3 KCITO, TttS tStttS 67Tt^V^.taS aVTOlS

7rtcru>pvo'ovcnv StSacrKaAovs KVtf]96^.voL rrjv aLKorfv, Tit. i. 16
6^/,oAoyovcrtv eiSe^at, rots 8c epyots apvovi'Tai, fiBth-VKrol o^res /cat
^ets /cat TT/OOS Trav Ipyov dyaOov aSo/a/xoi.

In this enumeration I have made two assumptions. First, that
all the passages refer to one and the same heresy. Now there is
nothing in the Epistles themselves from which to infer that distinct
forms were contemplated. The characteristic elements, which I
have elicited, do not refuse to combine, and, strange as the resulting
compound may appear to modern habits of thought, it was in one
guise or another a common phenomenon when Oriental mysticism
and Greek thought came in contact for the first time with the
ordinances of the law and the spiritual truths of the Gospel. On
the other hand, it would be anticipating history to regard the
heresy as having assumed a definite creed or a distinct organisation.
Floating speculation, vague theories, coalescing gradually to a
greater consistency and tending more or less in one direction this,
and not more than this, we are at liberty to assume at the date of
the Pastoral Epistles. Indeed the phenomena do not justify more.

Secondly, I have drawn my deductions not less from the pro-
phetical warnings than from the historical statements. Whoever
will read these predictions in connexion with their context will see

THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 413

that they are but a declaration of the inevitable consequences to
which the spiritual insight of the Apostle foresaw the irregularities
of the present would lead, that in fact these irregularities were in
themselves the beginning of the end.

Now, combining these features together, we obtain a portrait of
an early phase of Jewish Gnosticism, very similar in character to,
but more advanced and definite than, that which appears in the
Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians. The later date appears
in the directions for dealing with the heretics, pointing to them as
recognisable enemies to be treated as such (e.g. Tit. iii. 10 CU/OCTIKOV

On a previous occasion 1 I devoted some time to the study of
the origin and character of Gnosticism ; it will therefore suffice to
recapitulate as briefly as possible some of the most important points
arrived at, as serving to explain the allusions in the Pastoral
Epistles. The three notes of Gnosticism were found to be (1) its
intellectual exclusiveness ; (2) certain speculative tenets chiefly
relating to the creation of the world and the existence of evil,
creation being accounted for by the doctrine of emanations, the
existence of evil by postulating matter as an antagonistic principle
independent of God ; (3) as a practical consequence of these specula-
tions, a twofold and divergent result upon the ethical systems of
their advocates, either rigid asceticism, or unrestrained licence. I
proceeded to point out distinct traces of all these three characteristics
of Gnosticism in the heresy portrayed in the Epistle to the Colos-
sians. St Paul is there confronting false opinion itself : he argues
against it directly, and opposes to it the truths of the Gospel.
Consequently from that Epistle we get a fuller conception of its
ge.neral principles and bearing. Here the case is different. St Paul
is writing to a friend, and instructing him to deal practically with
the question. No lengthy exposition is necessary, nor would such
be in place. It is from a single word here and there a descriptive
epithet or attribute that we gather the character of the heresy
in the Pastoral Epistles. But these notes are significant enough
when we get the key to their interpretation ; and with the light of
the Colossian Epistle thrown on the previous era and the light of the
heresiologists on the succeeding, we are at no loss to elucidate the
intermediate stage in the progress of the error. The heresy in both
cases has its root on the same ground, in Asia Minor, the fittest
meeting-point of Oriental mysticism, of Greek thought, of Judaism,
1 See Colossians, p. 73 sq., esp. pp. 76-80.

414 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

and of Christianity. It is evidently the same in most of its features,
though, as was natural, in the earlier Epistle the picture given us is
fuller, the canvas broader, but on the other hand, the individual
features of the landscape are less clearly marked.

1. With respect to the esoteric spirit, the intellectualism of
Gnosticism.

The phase of heresy in the Pastoral Epistles is an advance on
that exhibited in the Colossians. 'Knowledge' is in the Colossian
Epistle a favourite word with the false teachers, a word constantly
on their lips ; but it has not yet become the watchword of the sect.
In these later Epistles, we find it as a distinct title, adopted by
them and vaunted as peculiarly their own (1 Tim. vi. 20 rfjs
\j/ev8wufjiov yi'ojo-o>s). We may compare also the antithesis between
knowledge and faith implied in 1 Tim. i. 4 atrtves cK^nJo-eis Trape-
Xovon /xaXA.ov rj otKovo/xiav Ozov rrjv V Tri'crrei. Perhaps the emphatic
declaration of the universality of the Gospel (1 Tim. ii. 4-6) is a
protest against this intellectual aristocracy in religion. From this
intellectualism arose those questionings, vain-talkings and combats
of words, which the Apostle so frequently and so severely rebukes.

2. Again, in the speculative theories which characterize the
Gnostic system especially as regards the doctrine of emanations
we have an advance upon the yi'oxris of the Colossian Epistle. There
the emanation of angels, the mediation of superior essences, appears
in a vague, shadowy form (Col. ii. 18 Oprjo-KtLa ro>v dyyeA.wv). Here
it has assumed a definite shape. The 'genealogies' are mentioned
twice over (1 Tim. i. 4, Tit. iii. 9), in the former passage with
the epithet 'endless' (aTrepavrot). The term certainly does not
explain itself, but by the light of the later Gnostic systems it
becomes clear enough. It refers to the successive generations of
seons, or emanations from the pleroma, which occupy so important a
place in the speculations, for instance, of the Ophites and Valen-
tinians. To the Apostle they are but tiresome pedigrees. To the
same feature in Gnosticism may be referred the expression ' fables '
or 'myths.' No term would better express the manner in which
the Gnostics embodied these speculations, representing them in the
concrete form of stories, as nobler teachers, like Plato, had done
before them. There may be a reference to these false mediators in
the emphatic declaration of the one, only mediator in 1 Tim. ii. 5,
and perhaps also to the dualistic tendencies of the heresy in the
doxology of 1 Tim. i. 17 (jaoVa> 0e<3).

These theories respecting the invisible world, proceeding from, or

THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 415

at least fostered by, a love of the marvellous, found a practical
expression in mystic or magical rites, the common refuge of oriental
superstition. Hence the Apostle says that these heretics were
misled by 'doctrines of devils' (1 Tim. iv. 1), and calls them
'wizards,' 'enchanters' (2 Tim. iii. 13).

3. We saw that in the case of the Colossian heretics the doctrine
that matter was the source of evil led to the nobler of the two
extremes, a rigid asceticism. In this earlier stage there is no trace of
immorality. In the Pastoral Epistles, however, we find that we
are on the confines of a new development of Gnostic ethics. It is
true the ascetic theory still prevails. This asceticism, as in the case
of the Colossians, is partly based on the Mosaic law, partly indepen-
dent of, and contrary to, the spirit of Judaism. Of the former class
is the abstaining from meats (1 Tim. iv. 3), though doubtless it went
beyond the Mosaic distinction of meats clean and unclean ; of the
latter the prohibition of marriage (ib.), a tenet of many of the
Gnostic sects. Having debarred themselves from the lawful use of
God's creatures under the idea of keeping themselves clean from the
contamination of matter, they fell into vices of another kind. Avarice,
selfishness and deceit are their prevailing sins (see esp. 1 Tim. vi. 5).

But there are besides this traces, more or less distinct, of the
opposite extreme, deduced from the Gnostic principle a reckless
sensuality, an indulgence in profligate habits themselves and a
pandering to the vices of others (Tit. i. 16, 2 Tim. iii. 6). The wild
and unbridled profligacy of some of the later Gnostic sects is a
constant theme of reproach with the writers of the Church. In
the Pastoral Epistles we discern only the first beginnings of this
tendency, which is spoken of as future rather than present, having
hitherto, it seems, manifested itself only in a few.

All the later Gnostic sects were essentially anti-Judaic ; but this
is not the case with the earlier forms of Gnosis. Arising as it did
from an oriental mysticism, it took up its sojourn first in Judaism
and Judaic Christendom, with which it came in contact first. But
it was only by violent wresting and distortion that the teaching of
the Old Testament could be brought into any sort of fellowship with
the Gnosis. The fundamental principle of the Old Testament, the
immediate and direct control of the supreme Lord over the material
world and over the affairs of men, was diametrically opposed to the
fundamental principle of Gnosticism, which was dualism in some
form or other. The whole spirit of the Mosaic legislation, the high

416 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

honour in which marriage was held, especially, was a protest equally
against the asceticism and the unbridled profligacy of the two
extremes of Gnostic practice. Thus Gnosticism soon found that it
was unequally yoked with Judaic Christianity, and betook itself to
a more congenial, or at least a less impracticable, companionship in
Gentile Christendom. Here at all events it was not fettered by any
allegiance to the Mosaic dispensation. So it severed its connexion
with the Old Covenant, and assumed a position of direct antagonism
to Judaism.

But the earlier forms of Gnosticism are all, or nearly all,
Judaic. The uses which it made of Judaism were twofold both of
them abuses.

(1) The narrative of the Old Testament, its antiquity and its
supernatural element, yielded a rich harvest for mystic application.
The real significance of this narrative, as the history of the progres-
sive dealings of God with man, was entirely lost sight of.

(2) The ordinances, especially with reference to clean and
unclean things, were made a starting-point for asceticism. It is
needless to say that in this their spirit was entirely misapprehended.
They were intended to serve as a disciplinary training. They were
perverted into a condemnation of God's creatures.

Speaking then of the heresy of the later Epistles with reference
to its position in the Gnostic systems, we may call it Judaic Gnosti-
cism. Speaking of it with reference to its position as a phase of
Jewish thought, we may call it Essene Judaism.

Having thus drawn the portrait of this heresy, the infancy of
which we trace in the Epistles of the First Roman Captivity, and
the early childhood in the Pastoral letters, we are led to enquire
whether it corresponds to any form of error of which we have a
historical record.

The discovery of the treatise of Hippolytus on heresies has
thrown great light on this, as on many other points in early Church
history. First in the series of his heresies, before Simon Magus,
before Cerinthus, he places the Ophites or Naasenes, so called from
the fact that the serpent (o<ts KTO) was the symbol of their worship
(Hippol. Refut. v. 6, p. 132 ed. Duncker et Schneid. ot ovv tcpets KOL
irpoa-TOLTai rov Soy/taros yeyev^vTCU Trpwrot ot eTriKXyBivTZS Naao-crryvot, rrj
'E/?pat'Si <f>wfj OVTWS (jJvo/xao-/xi/oi' vaas 8e 6 o<is KaXctrat). His order is
generally chronological, interrupted now and then to keep the same
knot of heresies together. We may therefore assume that the

THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 417

origin of the Ophites was contemporaneous with the Apostles. On
the other hand, in the documents of the sect, which he quotes
largely, we find citations from the Gospel of St John, and perhaps
traces of the influence of Gnostic speculations of the second century.
We must not therefore suppose that he presents the original form of
the heresy. It is evident that later accretions have gathered
about it.

Now as to this heresy we have the following facts from
Hippolytus.

(1) It took its rise, or flourished chiefly, in Phrygia. It
delighted especially in the Phrygian rites of Cybele (p. 170 Trape-
Spcvovo-i rots Xeyo/xevot? Mirrpos /xeyaXrys /xuo-n/pi'ois), and Phrygian
legends are referred to frequently in the books of the sect (e.g. p. 154
TOVTOV paxes Kopv/?cuTa Ka\ov(TL Kol paiv ot <l>puyes 7rap<nr\r]cri(DS t

P. 156 TOVTOV <I>pVyS Kat ndVaV KaXoVOH, p. 160 OVTOS V7TO TCOV ^pVytOV

KCU ajcapTro? KaXetTcu, p. 162 Xeyovcri 8e avrov <E>pvyes /cat ^Xoepov CTTO\VV
T^pto"yu,evov, etc.).

(2) It was Jewish. The name 'Naasene' indicates this. The
Ophites professed to derive their Gnosis from James the Lord's
brother (p. 134 Tavra rri...Ta /ce<aXaia a <f>r)crl TrapaSeSto/ceVeu
Mapia/AVTy TOC 'IaKto/3ov TOV Kvptov TOV aScXc^ov). Some of their
mystical formulae were derived from the Hebrew of the Old Testa-
ment (p. 150 KavXaKOLv crauXao-av ^erjcrap : cf. Is. xxviii. 10).

(3) They called themselves 'Gnostics.' Indeed Hippolytus
seems to imply that they were the first to assume that name (see
esp. p. 132 /xTa Se Tavra eTre/caXecrai/ eavTOv? yvwtrrtKOvs <^>ao-KovTs
JJLOVOL TO. fldOr) ytvoxr/ceij/ : cf. p. 160 ol yvwoTiKoi TeXeiot, p. 176 TO.
KCKpr/x/aeVa 1-179 dyia.9 6Sov yvwo-iv KaXeo-a?).

(4) They dealt largely in mystic rites. The mysteries of Osiris
(p. 142 1. 11), of the Assyrians (p. 140 1. 90), of Samothrace
(p. 152 1. SO), of Eleusis (p. 146 1. 80, p. 162 1. 58), but especially, as
remarked before, of the Phrygian Cybele, all contributed their quota
to the Ophite system. We may believe that many of these were
incorporated at a later date into their system, to give a comprehen-
siveness and universality to it ; and that originally it dealt with the
Old Testament chiefly or solely, putting a mystical sense upon it.
Thus the Apostle might well refer to them the term yorjres.

(5) As the whole of Hippolytus' account shows, they taught by
myths (e.g. p. 134 o0cv avrots OVTOS 6 /xv$os).

(6) They forbad marriage (p. 170 Trapayye'XXovo-iv a.Tre)(e<r6ai ws

rrjs Trpos yvvat/ca 6/xtXtas).
L. E. 27

418 THE DATE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.

(7) They maintained that the resurrection was a spiritual
resurrection, i.e. they said in other words that the resurrection was
past (p. 158 f^aXovvrai IK rtav pfq/ACtft)? ot ve/cpot Tovreo-Tii/ CK TO>I>
(rw/xarcDV TWI/ XOIKWV dvayfvvrjOfVT&s Trvcv/xartKot ov (rap/aKOi, and the
whole passage).

(8) Though the genealogies referred to by St Paul are not so
distinctly traced in the Ophite system, as painted by Hippolytus, as
in later Gnostic sects, still there are evidences of these. Compare
especially the hymn, which, as Hippolytus says, contains a summary
of all their mysteries (p. 174 vd/u-os rjv ytvt/cos TOT) Travros 6 Trpwros
vdos- 6 Se Sevrepos rfv /c.r.X.). And other accounts of the Ophites are
very full on this characteristic of the sect (cf. Neander Ch. Hist. ii.
p. 109 Engl. transl. ed. Torrey).

There is therefore sufficient correspondence between the two
systems to enable us to conclude that the heresy combated by
St Paul in the Pastoral Epistles was identical with the heresy of the
Ophites, or at least partook largely of an Ophite character.

[1865.]

XII.

ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER THE CLOSE OF
THE ACTS.

272

Printed from Lecture-notes.

XII.

ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER THE CLOSE OF
THE ACTS.

THE conclusion, at which we have arrived in the last section,
assumes St Paul's release from his captivity at Rome. We
must suppose that he resumed his active missionary labours,
and that these were terminated by a second captivity ending in
his martyrdom, of which the Second Epistle to Timothy sounds
the knell. In the present section it will be my business,yirs, to
show that there are sufficient grounds independently for assuming
this release, and secondly, considering this as established, to
sketch out his movements by the help of the record in the
Pastoral Epistles.

I. Of this release, with the subsequent events, there is no
intimation in the New Testament beyond the notices in the
Pastoral Epistles which seem to demand it. In the memoir of
St Luke there is not the slightest intimation of the future.
The Epistles of the First Roman Captivity hover between hope
and fear, between anticipation of release and forebodings of
condemnation. They contain nothing which leads directly to
the result we are seeking.

One passage indeed has been adduced as conclusive against
a subsequent visit of St Paul to Ephesus; and as, by sur-
rendering this visit, we should be surrendering all the
advantages gained by the assumption of his release, and should
be thrown back upon our difficulties with respect to the
Pastoral Epistles, it is important to consider what is the value

422 ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER

of this argument. St Paul in his farewell address to the
Ephesian Elders on the eve of the First Captivity, says 1 , ' And
now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone
preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.'
This is supposed to be inconsistent with a later visit to
Ephesus, and pro tanto with his release from captivity. But in
no other province of history would it be allowable to convert a
presentiment, however strongly expressed, into a fact ; and as
this is purely a personal matter, inspiration does not enter into
the question. A presumption might indeed have been founded
on this expression, if no intimation existed of a release ; but the
notices in the Pastoral Epistles to the contrary are in them-
selves more than sufficient to set this presumption aside. Then
again, in what infinite difficulties does this supposition involve
us ! To the Romans he says ; ' I will pass by you into Spain 2 .'
This however, it may be said, was before the conviction (or the
revelation) declared to the Ephesian Elders had seized him.
What are we to say of the expressions scattered through the
Epistles of the First Captivity ? Why does he waver between
hope and fear, if the fatal result was certain ? Why does he
entreat the prayers of his converts for his release, if he knew
that release to be absolutely impossible ? Writing to the
Philippians he says that he trusts in the Lord, that he himself
also will come shortly 3 . Nay, he even affirms positively that
he will be released. ' Having this confidence/ he says, ' I
know (rovro TreTrot&w? ol&a) that I shall abide and continue
with you all 4 .' Why is the ol$a to be regarded as decisive in
the one case, and disregarded in the other ? But it may be
urged that the supposed revelation did not negative his release
in toto, that it is limited, that it referred only to his revisiting
these Churches of Asia Minor. To this too St Paul's own
language furnishes a reply. He bids Philemon ' prepare him a
lodging ' at Colossae, he c trusts that through their prayers he

1 Acts xx. 25 Kdl vvv Idoti efycb oI6a 2 Rom. xv. 28.

&TL OVKTI 8\]/e(T0e rb trpbawTrbv JJ.QV vfj.eis 3 Phil. ii. 24.

4 Phil. i. 25.

THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 423

shall be given unto them 1 ' language which he could not have
held, if he had had a revelation to the contrary. And if here
again it be urged that he might have gone to Colossae without
revisiting the neighbouring Church of Ephesus, to this we
should reply, firstly, that when the inference from oZSa is pared
down to these dimensions, we have obtained such a concession
as will explain the notices in the Pastoral Epistles, for, though
a visit to Ephesus is much more probable, a visit to the
neighbourhood would suffice ; and secondly, that it will be felt
that so limited an inference is meaningless, and of course value-
less to those who refuse to allow the release of St Paul.

But though the New Testament, with the single exception
of the Pastoral Epistles, is silent about this release, it is most
satisfactorily established from external tradition.

CLEMENT OF KOME [f c. A.D. 96], a contemporary of the
Apostles, after mentioning several incidents in St Paul's life,
and saying that he had preached in the East and the West,
adds that he was ' a teacher of righteousness unto the whole
world,' and, before his decease ' reached the furthest bounds of
the West and bore testimony before the ruling powers ' (eVt TO
rep/j-a TT)? Sucreo)? \6a)v real fjLaprvprjcras eVt TWV ijyov/j,evct)v).
Considering that Clement was writing from Rome, and bearing
in mind the common significance of the expression ' the extreme
West' 2 at the time, as referring to the Pillars of Hercules 3 , we

1 Philemon 22. ras Ttppovas elvai rrjs oiKOV/j^vrjs . . .TO,

2 For the expression, referring to &Kpa, ib. (p. 170) frTeiv tiri TWV Kvplws Xe-
the western extremity of Spain, the yo/j-evwv arrj\Civ TOI)S TT?? olKov/j.vr)s opoi/s
pillars of Hercules, comp. Strabo ii. 1 (these references are corrected from
(p. 67) irtyaTa 6e O.VTT)S (rfjs oiKovfj.evr)s) Credner's Kanon, p. 53), and see Stra-
Ti0?7(n rrpbs Stivei \iJev ras 'HpaxXfious bo's whole account of the western
trr^Xas, ii. 4 (p. 106) fJ.txP l T & v o-Kpwv boundaries of the world and of this
T?75 'I/Sepias ciirep dvo-fjuKwrepd ttrn, iii. coast of Spain. Similarly Veil. Paterc.
1 (p. 137) TOVTO (TO iepbv aKpurripiov) i. 2, ' In ultimo Hispaniae tractu, in
&TTI TO 8vTiKura.Toi> ou Trjs EvpwTTijs (j-bvov extreme nostri orbis termino.'

dXXa Kol TT?S oiicov[j.vr)5 airdo-ys cnj/j.f'iov 3 It is instructive to mention some

ireparoGrat yap VTTO T&V dveiv rj-jrelpuv i] interpretations by which the force of

oiicovfj.fVT] Trpds dfoiv, rots re 7-775 Evpu- these words has been evaded : (1) ' to

irr)s a/cpois /cat rots Trptirots TT}S At/Sir^s, his extreme limit towards the west'

iii. 5 (p. 169) eVetST? Kara rbv TropdfJMv (Baur Paulus der Apost. p. 230, Schen-

tyfrovTo TOV Kara rijv KdXTTTjv, vofjiiffav- kel Studien und Kritiken p. 71, Otto

424 ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER

can scarcely be wrong in concluding that St Paul was released
from captivity and fulfilled his purpose, expressed years before,
of visiting Spain 1 .

It might be urged indeed that Clement has here the
passage in the Epistle to the Romans in his mind, and that he
assumes the intention was carried out. But seeing that at least
one of the facts mentioned in the context the Apostle's seven
captivities (eTrra/a? Seo>ia (ftopeaas) is not recorded in the New
Testament, he must be deriving his information from inde-
pendent sources, as indeed, living at Rome and having perhaps
known the Apostle personally, he was very competent to do.
And it may be argued further that this fact obliges us to prolong
the Apostle's labours beyond the captivity with which the Acts
closes.

2. Two generations later (c. A.D. 180), the anonymous
writer of the MURATORIAN CANON gives the following account
of the Acts of the Apostles. ' Luke comprises in detail in his
treatise addressed to the most excellent Theophilus the
incidents in the lives of the Apostles of which he was an eye-
witness. As he does not mention either the martyrdom of
Peter, or the journey of Paul to Spain, it is clear that these
took place in his absence 2 .'

Pastoralbr.) taking the word subjec- geration, but not as it stands. [See
tively, (2) 'the sunset of his labours' the notes on the passage in Apostolic
(Eeuss Gesch. des N. T. Schrift. p. 124) Fathers, Pt. i. Vol. n. p. 30 ed. 2,
explaining metaphorically, (3) 'to the from which the above are expanded.]
boundary between the East and West' l It has been urged (e.g. by David-
(Hilgenfeld Ap. Vat. p. 109, Schrader son Introd. n. p. 101 ed. 1) that
Paulus), (4) 'to the goal or centre of the Clement cannot have meant this, be-
west' (MatthiesPastoraZ&r.), (5) ' before cause in that case Eusebius (H. E. iii.
(v-rrb for CTTI) the supreme power of the 4) would certainly have adduced the
west' (Wieseler Ghron. der ap. Zeitalt. passage, which he does not. To this
p. 533, followed by Schaff History of the reply is twofold: (1) that all argu-
Apost. Gh. i. p. 400). Such attempts ments drawn from the silence of a
are a strong testimony to the plain writer are in the highest degree pre-
inference which follows from the pas- carious ; and (2) that we are quite as
sage simply interpreted. Had the competent to judge what Clement
expression been eiri TO. T^p^ara rov meant, as Eusebius was.
K()(TIJLOV, it might be explained (as 2 'Lucas obtime Theofile (L opti-
Meyer proposes) as a rhetorical exag- mo Theophilo) comprindit, quia (I.

THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS.

425

3. EUSEBIUS speaks of St Paul's release and second visit to
Rome, which ended in his martyrdom, as a common report (\6yos
xei) 1 . It is true that he goes on to COD firm this report by
a false interpretation of 2 Tim. iv. 16, explaining the two
apologies there mentioned of the Apostle's two captivities ; but
the worthlessness of his own comment does not affect the value
of the tradition on which it is founded, and which must be held
quite distinct 2 .

4. In his Epistle to Dracontius, ATHANASIUS holds up for
imitation the earnestness of the Apostle of the Gentiles, whose
zeal prompted him ' to preach as far as Illyricum, and not to
hesitate to go even to Rome, nor to take ship for Spain, so that
the more he laboured the greater reward he might receive for
his labour 3 .'

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, in his second catechetical lecture

upon the Holy Spirit, adduces as a witness of the power of the
Spirit St Paul's conversion, and his missionary labours, which
he names in the following significant order, Jerusalem,
Illyricum, Rome, Spain 4 .

quae) sub praesentia eius singula gere-
bantur sicuti et semote passionem
Petri evidenter declarat, sed et pro-
fectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam
proficiscentis,' Fragm. Murat. (pp. 19,
40 ed. Tregelles Oxon. 1867; Westcott
Hist, of Canon pp. 517, 528 ed. 4).
The drift of the latter part of the
sentence seems to have been generally
misunderstood. I take ' semote ' to be
opposed to ' sub praesentia eius,' in
the sense 'at a distance,' 'in his ab-
sence.' Other solutions, either in the
way of interpretation or of correction
of the text, may be found in Routh
R. S. p. 394, Bunsen Anal. Antenic. i.
p. 125, Westcott p. 528, Credner Kanon
p. 141 (ed. 1860) and Wieseler Chron.
p. 536.

1 Eus. H. E. ii. 22, rare u,kv ovv
dTro\oy7]crd/ui.evov avdis eiri rr\v TOV Krjpvy-
/xaros diaKovlav \oyos % <rTeL\a<rdai
TOV diroa-ToXov, devrepov 5' t-rrtpdvTa rrj

O.VTTJ ir6\ei ry /car' avrbv

2 Meyer's inference (on Romans
Einl. 1, p. 15) from Origen's silence
that he was ignorant of this release
is quite arbitrary. At least it did
not strike Eusebius so, who quotes
Origen in the following words : Tt 8ei
wepi Hav\ov \tyeiv aTro'IepowaX^u fj-expi
TOV 'IXXiyHKoC ireirXijpwKoTos TO evay-

ye\lOV TOV XpHTTOV, Kal VffTCpOV iv Trj

'Pc6/t477 4irt IXtpwvos ILC naprvp-ri KOTOS ;
(H.E. iii. 1).

3 Athanas. Ep. ad Dracont. 4, i.
p. 265 ed. Bened. dia TOVTO /cat <nrov8ri
TUV ay'uav (1. Tip ayiqi) ftexpt TOV 'IXXu-

plKOV K1)pVTTtl> KO.I fJiTJ OKVLV fJ.T)0 eis TT]V

'PW/J.TJV a.Tre\deiv, fiyd^ ets rds Ztravias
dva^rjvai, iva offov KOTTIO. TOGOVTOV Kal

TOV K&TTOV TOV fUffdbv fJLL^OVa dlToXd^TJ.

4 Cyrill. Hier. Catech. xvii. pp. 276,
7, OTTO 'T.epocro\v[j,(>}v /j.v Kal fJ.exP l T v
'IXXupi/coO ireirX^puKOTa. TO evayy\iov

426 ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER

6. EPIPHANIUS, in the account which he gives of the
succession of the episcopate at Rome, explains his theory of the
appointment of Linus, Cletus and Clement as bishops in the
lifetime of the Apostles Peter and Paul by the frequent journeys
which the Apostles had to take from Rome, and the impos-
sibility of leaving the city without a bishop. ' For Paul/ he
says, ' even went as far away as Spain, and Peter was frequently
superintending Pontus and BithyniaV

7. JEROME appeals to the testimony of older writers in
support of his statement of St Paul's release from his first
imprisonment, which was arranged in God's providence ' that so
he might preach the gospel of Christ in the West also 2 .'

8. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA speaks in the plainest way
of St Paul's two visits to Rome in the reign of Nero. After
relating how he was sent as prisoner there on his appeal from
Festus, he goes on to say that he was ' set free by the judgment
of Nero and ordered to depart in safety. But after stopping
two years at Rome, he departed thence and appears to have
preached to many the teaching of godliness. However, coming
a second time to Rome, while still stopping there, it happened
that by the sentence of Nero he was punished with death for
his preaching of godliness 3 .' The passage is somewhat obscure
owing to its survival in the Latin version only.

9. When we come down to the time of PELAGIUS, we
find the release from the first imprisonment generally main-

occidentis quoque partibus praedica-

rty irpodv/j,iav TOV ret'; cf. Comm. in Amos v. 8, 9 Vol. vi.

KT)pvy[J.a.Tos CKTeivavTa. p. 291.

1 Epiphan. Haer. xxvn. p. 107 ed. 3 Theod. Mops. Argum. in Eph. i.
Pet. 6 fjitv yap IlaCXos KOA eirl rrjv ZTTCI- p. 116 ed. Swete, 'Inde judicio Neronis
vlav dfaKveiTai, Utrpos dt 7roXXd/as H6v- liberatus, securus abire jussus est.
TOV re Kal EidvvLav tveo-Ktyaro. duobus vero annis commoratus Ro-

2 Hieron. de Eccles. Script. 5, Vol. mae, exinde egressus, multis pietatis
ii. p. 823 ed. Vallarsi, ' Sciendum au- doctrinam praedicasse visus est. se-
tem in prima satisfactione, necdum cunda vero vice Romam accedens
Neronis imperio roborato, nee in tanta dum illo adhuc moraretur, contigit
erumpente scelera, quanta de eo nar- ut sententia Neronis ob praedicatio-
rant bistoriae, Paulum a Nerone di- nem pietatis capite puniretur.'
missum, ut evangelium Christi in

THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 427

tained. Commenting on the Apostle's request to Philemon ' to
prepare him a lodging,' he says : ' Here it is shown that on the
first occasion he was sent away from the city'; though of the
journey to Spain he speaks more doubtfully 1 .

10. THEODORET, commenting on the Apostle's expression of
confidence addressed to his Philippian converts that he would
abide and continue with them, remarks : ' and the prediction
was fulfilled ; for at first he escaped the wrath of Nero.' Then,
after quoting the passage in 2 Tim. iv. 16, 17, and appealing to
the last verses in the Acts, he continues: 'Thence (i.e. from
Rome) he departed to Spain, and carried the divine gospel to
the inhabitants of that part also, and so he returned, and was
then beheaded 2 .' Other references to his release and visit to
Spain are given below.

On the statements of Eusebius and later writers however no
stress should be laid. Even if it were clear that they relied on
some independent testimony, and did not found their belief on
deductions in some cases erroneous deductions from St
Paul's own language, they are too far removed from the time of
the events to be of any real value as guides. With Clement
and the author of the Muratorian fragment the case is different.
The former wrote from Rome, at a place where and at a time
when the memory of the Apostle's labours was fresh, and his
testimony is explicit, so far as relates to St Paul's preaching in
the West. The latter, though living at a later period, is a
witness of some importance, for he too was probably a Roman 3 ,
and he distinctly attests the journey to Spain. Indeed, so irre-

1 Pelagius Comm. in Philemon, v. 22, in Ps. cxvi. Vol. i. p. 1425,

' hie ostenditur quia prima vice sit ex pevroi /cat TT?S 'IraXtas eirtp-rj, /cat eis rds

urbe dimissus' ; in Rom. xv. 24, 'utrum 2iravt'as d^t'/cero, /cat rats iv T$ ire\dyfi

in Hispania fuerit incertum habetur.' Sta/cetyue^ats VTI<TOIS r^v ufaXetav 717)00-17-

2 Theodoret Comm. in Phil. i. 25, veyice: in 2 Tim. iv. 17, diroXoyiffd-
Vol. in. p. 451 ed. Schulze, /cat rAos pevos u>s d0wos aQeid-rj Kcd rds ZTTCU/ICIS
i) irpopp'rja'is IXa^Se Sietyvye yap TO Trpu- /careXa/3e /cat eis ?re/wr lQvr\ dpa/.iiov TT\V
rov TOU X^pwi/os rbv 6v/j.6v...KeWv de rrjs didaffKaXias Xa/jurdda TrpoffriveyKe.
eis ras Ziraja'aj d-jreXduv, /cat TO detov 3 His use of the expression 'ab

irpofffveyK&v evayyeXiov t-rrav- urbe,' referring to Home, shows this.
, /cat Tore TT/V Ke<pa\rjv

428 ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER

sistible has this evidence appeared to impartial critics, that the
release has been accepted as a fact by many writers who cannot
be suspected of any bias towards this result by Hug, for
instance, who places the Pastoral Epistles earlier in St Paul's
life, and by Ewald, who denies their genuineness entirely.

But it has been urged that, though there is evidence for the
journey to Spain after the Apostle's release, there is none for
another visit to the East. This is true, if the notices in the
Pastorals themselves are not to be put in evidence; but even then,
how does the case stand ? St Paul, while still a prisoner but
anticipating his release, expresses his intention of visiting the
Philippians again, and writes to Philemon at Colossae to prepare
him a lodging. He does obtain his release. In the absence of
evidence either way, is it not more probable that he did fulfil
his intention of visiting Macedonia and Asia than the contrary?

II. Assuming then that St Paul was released from his first
captivity at Rome and resumed his missionary labours, we shall
have to sketch in the events which took place between this
date and his final imprisonment, from the notices in the
Pastoral Epistles, aided by such probabilities as circumstances
suggest. If an intelligible and reasonable account of St Paul's
doings during this interval can thus be given, we shall have
found a possible place for the Pastoral Epistles, and shall have
furnished an answer to objections raised from the point of view
of historical unaccountability ; and, in the absence of full and
direct information, nothing more than this hypothetical solution
can be expected.

Before entering into details, however, we must clear the
way by settling two main questions; first, what was the
probable length of this interval ; and, secondly, supposing that
St Paul visited both East and West, in what order did he make
these journeys.

(1) According to the chronology I have adopted 1 , St Paul
arrived in Rome early in the year 61. The closing verses of

1 See above, pp. 217 sq., 222.

THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 429

the Acts speak of his remaining there without any change in
the circumstances of his captivity for two whole years 1 . This
brings us to the beginning of the year 63 at least. Here St
Luke's narrative ends abruptly ; so that we are without infor-
mation as to what occurred afterwards, but the natural inference
is that at the end of the two years there was a change in the
prisoner's condition a change either for the better or for the
worse, but a change of some sort. Perhaps the most probable
supposition is that his trial came on then. If so, we may place
his release riot later than the summer of 63, at all events it
must have taken place between that date and the summer of
the following year, for the great fire which broke out in July 64
was a signal for a fierce persecution of the Christians in Rome,
and a teacher of the hated religion so zealous and so distin-
guished could not have escaped the general fate, had he still
remained a prisoner.

The data for determining the close of the period are still
more vague. Ecclesiastical tradition fixes the martyrdom of
St Paul in Nero's reign, and this is probable in itself, for,
after the tyrant's death, the Romans were too much occupied
with their own political troubles to pay any attention to the
Christians, even supposing the succeeding emperors were
animated by the same bitter spirit. It cannot therefore have
been later than June 68, the date of Nero's death. Now, when
we examine the Pastoral Epistles with a view to obtaining
some result, opposing considerations present themselves. On
the one hand, their marked difference in style leads us to
prolong the interval between them and the earlier Epistles
as far as possible, while on the other hand the mention of
Timothy's youth is an ever-increasing difficulty as we postpone
the date of the letters addressed to him. On the whole, perhaps,
the later consideration must give place to the former. The
death of the Apostle will then be placed at the very close of
Nero's reign, and the Pastoral Epistles will have been written
in the year 67 or 68.

1 Acts xxviii. 30, 31.

430 ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER

(2) Next, as to the order in which St Paul visited the
East and West. On the whole, it is probable that he went
eastward immediately after his release. It is true that he had
intended, when he first thought of visiting Rome, to proceed
thence westward to Spain 1 . But circumstances might have
occurred in the intervening period of about five years to alter
his purpose and determine him to revisit the troubled Churches
of Asia, before he entered on a new mission field in the far
West. Such is the impression left by his language to the
Philippians and to Philemon 2 .

But if it is probable that St Paul was in the East im-
mediately after his release, it is certain that he was there
towards the very close of his life. The notices of his transactions
in the East scattered through the Pastoral Epistles reach
continuously to the time of his second imprisonment at Rome,
which ended in his death. If this be so, the visit to Spain and
the West must have intervened between two visits to the East.
For these incidents there is ample time in the four or five years
which elapsed before his martyrdom.

We obtain then

(i) A visit to the East, probably brief, according with
his intention expressed to the Philippians and to Philemon.

(ii) The fulfilment of his long-cherished purpose of
preaching in Spain and the West,
(iii) A return to the East.

Eastward then the Apostle hastens after his release. First
of all perhaps he revisited the Macedonian Churches, fulfilling
his promise to the Philippians. We may imagine him next

1 Rom. xv. 24, 28. if the Apostle had said, ' You may cer-

2 Phil. i. 24 ; Philem. v. 22. This tainly expect to see me. I shall my-
conclusion however must not be re- self observe what treatment Onesimus
garded as absolutely certain. It may has received from you. ' With delicate
be that we should not press the rax^ws tact, the Apostle's language, suggested
of Phil. ii. 24. And the injunction to by some slight misgiving, assumes the
Philemon to prepare him a lodging form of an appeal to Philemon's hos-
may point rather to the certainty than pitality and kindly feeling towards
to the nearness of the visit. It is as himself.

THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 431

directing his steps towards the Churches of Asia and Phrygia.
The unhealthy tone of religious speculation in these districts
needed correction. And to ColossaB moreover he was drawn
by a personal motive. He was anxious to assure himself that
Onesimus was fully restored to his master's favour, and to carry
out his undertaking of staying with Philemon. We can scarcely
suppose that he left these regions without a brief visit to the
Church of Ephesus, which had occupied so much of his time
and thoughts ; and it is possible that some of the notices in the
Pastoral Epistles refer to incidents which occurred on this
occasion, though it is on the whole more probable that they
took place on a later visit.

We may conjecture also that, before he left the neighbour-
hood of the Mgseau, he laid the first foundations of a Church in
Crete. There was in this island a large Jewish population 1
a circumstance which would press itself on the Apostle's
attention. Possibly also St Paul's anchorage there 2 on his
voyage to Rome may have been accompanied by incidents
which dwelt on his mind, and stimulated his desire to preach
the Gospel in Crete. At all events a few years later we find a
Christian Church established here, and, if its foundation is to
be attributed to St Paul, no occasion is more probable than
this of his first visit to the East after his release.

Having thus taken a rapid review of the Churches of the
East, the Apostle hastened to fulfil his long-postponed intention
of visiting the hitherto unexplored region of Spain. There
was a considerable Jewish population settled in many of the
towns on the Spanish coast 3 , and the Apostle would make
this his starting-point. This course had many advantages in
itself, but a deeper principle of obligation commended it to the
mind of the Apostle, who seems to have held sacred the maxim,
' To the Jew first, and then to the Gentile.' Whether St Paul

1 Philo. Leg. ad Caium ii. p. 587 2 Acts xxvii. 7-12; esp. v. 9, ka-

(ed. Mangey), ov pbvov at -rjireipoi /xea-rat vov 8e XP<> VOV Siaytvofdvov.

T&V 'lovdaiKuv diroiKLuv ei<riv dXXd Kal 3 See Kemond Ausbreitung des Ju-

vf)<ruv at doKifJubrarai, EtfjSoia, KI/TT/XJS, denthums 31.

432 ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER

extended his labours in the West beyond the limits of Spain
must remain a matter of speculation. At the close of his life
we find him sending Crescens on a mission to Gaul for so we
may perhaps understand by 'Galatia 1 ' and if this interpretation
is correct, it would seem to imply some previous communication
with this region. It is highly probable indeed that, either on
his way to or from Rome, he should have visited the famous port
of Marseilles 8 , and having once set foot in Gaul, he would
naturally avail himself of the opportunity of furthering his
Master's cause. At all events, the Churches of Spain and Gaul
were founded at a very early date, so that Irenaeus appeals to
them 3 along with others, as witnesses of the primitive tradition
in matters of doctrine. On the other hand, had he remained
long either in Spain or Gaul, we should have expected to find
in those parts a more direct tradition of his visit 4 .

Moving eastward, perhaps passing through Rome, the
Apostle may possibly have visited Dalmatia, for with this
region again we find him in communication at the close of his
life 5 . If so, he may have continued his journey along the
Adriatic coast to Epirus, so that, by wintering at Nicopolis on
a subsequent occasion 6 , he purposed renewing an intimacy
already formed, thus following out his general practice of
confirming the Churches of his founding.

We find the Apostle then in the East once more. The
slight fragmentary notices in the Pastoral Epistles may be
pieced together variously, so that any particular plan of his
journey must be more or less arbitrary. The object of framing
such a plan is to show that it is possible to give a consistent
and intelligible account of his movements, on the supposition of

1 2 Tim.iv. 10; see Galatians pp. 3, 4 The journey to Britain must be
31. On Crescens see esp. Gerarius abandoned, as highly improbable,
Mogunt. Resp. p. 225, and on the early though maintained with a patriotic
Church in Gaul, Neander Ch. Hist. i. urgency by many able advocates (Stil-
p. 116 (Eng. transl. by Torrey). lingfleet, Burgess, etc.); see the refer-

2 See the interesting speculations of ences in Soames Anglo-Saxon Church,
Blunt The First Three Centuries, p. p. 21 sq. (1844).

184 sq. (1861). 5 2 Tim. iv. 10.

3 Iren. Haer. i. 10. 2. 6 Tit. iii. 12.

THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 433

his release; and under the circumstances no more than this
can reasonably be demanded. The scheme which I shall give
differs from those generally adopted in assuming that the
winter which he purposed spending in Nicopolis was in fact
spent in Rome 1 . We may suppose that his abrupt arrest and
imprisonment frustrated his previous plans. In this way the
events are gathered within narrower limits of time ; and, the
Pastoral Epistles being thus brought into closer chronological
connexion, the striking coincidences of thought and language
between them are the more easily explained. This arrangement
of the incidents seems to me slightly more probable than any
other, but I lay no stress on it.

Once in the East then, he would naturally revisit the
Churches of Phrygia and Asia, which had caused him so much
anxiety. There he found that his gloomiest anticipations had
been realised. Grievous wolves had indeed entered the fold,
as he had predicted years before. His personal influence had
gone. 'All in Asia turned away from him 2 .' Phygellus and
Hermogenes are especially named among these timid or recreant
Christians. There was one bright exception however in
Onesiphorus, whose attentions repeated afterwards when the
Apostle was a prisoner in Rome are gratefully recorded 3 .
It was probably at Ephesus too and on this occasion that
St Paul encountered the opposition of Alexander the copper-
smith 4 . And this is perhaps the same Alexander whom,
together with Hymenaeus, the Apostle 'delivered unto Satan,
that they might learn not to blaspheme 5 .' If we are right in
assigning all these notices to this one occasion, it would seem
that the Apostle's residence was more or less prolonged. Alto-
gether the visit was one of bitter trial. It was evident that
the clouds were gathering about the Church, and that a period
of storm and tempest was imminent.

From Ephesus the Apostle turned northward into Mace-

1 Thus the winter of Titus iii. 12 3 2 Tim. i. 15-17 ; cf . iv. 19.
becomes identical with that of 2 Tim. 4 2 Tim. iv. 14.

iv. 21. 5 1 Tim. i. 20.

2 Tun. i. 15 sq.

L. E. 28

434 ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER

donia. At the same time he left Timothy behind to preside
over the Church there in his absence 1 . He would gladly seek
consolation after these sad experiences in the affection of that
Philippian Church, of which he entertained the most tender
remembrance, and which more than once had relieved his
wants 2 .

What country St Paul visited next, we cannot say; it is
not unnatural to suppose that, following his old route, he would
turn towards the Churches of Achaia. Somewhere about this
time we may perhaps place the writing of the First Epistle to
Timothy. Its exact time and place cannot be ascertained, but
the following data should be observed. (1) It cannot have
been written very long after St Paul left Ephesus, as the whole
tenour of the Epistle shows. It betrays a nervous anxiety such
as might be expected from one who had recently delegated a
very arduous task to a young and inexperienced successor. Such
advice to have any value must be given at once, and indeed
the Apostle's ardent temperament would admit of no delay in
a matter so important. (2) It would seem to have been
written before the incidents occurred which St Paul relates to
Timothy in the Second Epistle 3 . When the letter was written,
St Paul hoped to revisit Ephesus soon, but foresaw that he
might possibly meet with some delays 4 .

About this time he also visited Crete. A hypothetical
account of the origin of this Church I have given already 5 .
Having been recently founded, its organization was still very
imperfect ; and, as St Paul himself could not stay to do all that
was needful, he left Titus behind him to complete his arrange-
ments there 6 .

From Crete we may suppose that he went to Asia Minor,
and somewhere about this time he directed a letter of advice
and exhortation to Titus. For ascertaining the time of writing
of the Epistle to Titus we have the following data. (1) As in

1 1 Tim. i. 3. 4 1 Tim. iii. 15.

2 See above, pp. 249, 260. 5 See above, p. 431.
a e.g. iv. 9-13, 20. 6 Tit. i. 5.

THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 435

the case of the First Epistle to Timothy, it cannot have been
written long after St Paul left Crete. (2) Tychicus was still
with him when he wrote ; and therefore it is before the point
of time noted in 2 Tim. iv. 12. (3) He has no forebodings of
his coming fate, for he purposes wintering at Nicopolis, not
expecting to have his movements constrained 1 . (4) On the
supposition that this winter is identical with that mentioned
in his Second Epistle, the year cannot have been far advanced
now. There is time for him to despatch a messenger to
Titus, for Titus to join him (at Corinth or Nicopolis) and
to leave him again for Dalmatia, for him to reach Rome
himself, for several incidents at Rome, e.g. his trial, etc.,
for him to despatch a messenger from Rome to Timothy,
for Timothy to join him in Rome ; all this before the
winter.

In this letter he tells Titus that he will send Artemas or
Tychicus perhaps to act as his deputy and bids him hasten
to join him at Nicopolis. He asks him to provide Zenas the
lawyer and Apollos with the necessaries for their journey 2 .

From this point onwards we can trace the Apostle's course
westward with some degree of continuity 3 . We find him at
Miletus, where he dropped Trophimus on account of illness 4 .
Hence perhaps he despatched Tychicus to Ephesus 5 . Miletus
was a convenient point from which to communicate with
Ephesus, as he had found it on a former occasion 6 , and we may
conjecture that, having abandoned his purpose of revisiting
Ephesus, he sent Tychicus to Timothy to inform him of this 7 .
From Miletus he sails northward to Troas, where he lodges
with Carpus 8 . What were the intermediate stages, we do not
know, but we next find him at Corinth, where he leaves Erastus
behind 9 . He was now on his way to Nicopolis probably the

1 Tit. iii. 12. phimus were 'Aaiavoi ; cf. Acts xx. 4,

2 Tit. iii. 12, 13. xxi. 29.

3 The journey is the reverse of that 6 Acts xx. 17.
in Acts xx. 13 sq. 7 1 Tim. iii. 14.

4 2 Tim. iv. 20. 8 2 Tim. iv. 13.

5 2 Tim. iv. 12. Tychicus and Tro- 9 2 Tim. iv. 20.

282

436 ST PAUL'S HISTORY AFTER

city of that name in Epirus, where he purposed passing the
winter. Whether he reached Nicopolis or not must remain
uncertain. A probable, though a conjectural, account seems to
me this. While he was at Corinth, his old enemies, the Jews,
informed against him, as the leader of the hated sect of male-
factors, who had roused the indignation of Rome ; and on this
information he was seized and imprisoned and ultimately
carried to the Metropolis to await his trial 1 .

Meanwhile, finding his plan of wintering at Nicopolis
frustrated, he despatches his messenger probably Artemas 2 ,
since he had left Tychicus behind 3 to Titus in Crete to join
him, not in Nicopolis, as he had intended, but either in Corinth
or in Rome itself, whither he was soon to be conveyed. At all
events Titus did join him at some point in his route 4 .

Arrived at Rome, the Apostle found himself almost deserted.
Onesiphorus, who lived in Ephesus 5 , and whose kind services
the Apostle had experienced during his stay there, coming to
Rome sought him out and with some difficulty found him 6 .
But these friendly offices ceased with the departure of Onesi-
phorus. Of all his more intimate friends and companions in
travel Luke alone remained with him 7 . Titus had gone to
Dalmatia, Crescens to Gaul, probably despatched thither by the
Apostle on some missionary errand. Demas had forsaken him,
and gone to Thessalonica, probably his native place 8 . Certain
Christians of Rome, Eubulus, Pudens, Linus and Claudia, join
in the salutation, but these must have been comparative
strangers 9 . In this forlorn condition he writes his Second
Epistle to Timothy. He urges Timothy to join him as soon as

1 We know that Nero was in Greece 4 2 Tim. iv. 10.

at this time, and that he was still 5 2 Tim. iv. 19.

there in August 67, though he was 6 2 Tim. i. 17.

recalled to Eome towards the close of 7 2 Tim. iv. 9 sq.

the year by Helius (see Clinton Fasti 8 See above, p. 247.

Eomani i. p. 50). Perhaps the Em- 9 [On the supposed connexion of

peror himself sent the Apostle to the Pudens and Claudia with Britain see

capital. Apostolic Fathers Pt. i. Clement of

a Tit. iii. 12. Eome i. p. 76 (1890).]

3 2 Tim. iv. 12.

THE CLOSE OF THE ACTS. 437

possible 1 , at all events to come before the winter sets in and
while the sea is yet navigable 2 . At the same time he charges
him to perform a commission at Troas; he had left his cloak
with some books and parchments, and he requests Timothy, as
he passes, to fetch these 3 . He evidently contemplates that
Timothy will follow the coast to Macedonia, and then take the
great Egnatian Road from Philippi to Dyrrachium and cross
over the straits thence to Italy. It was perhaps already late
in the season, and a voyage on the high seas was hazardous.
Timothy is to pick up Mark on the way and to bring him with
him 4 . Timothy appears to be still at Ephesus, for the Apostle
in this letter salutes the household of Onesiphorus, doubtless
resident there 5 ; he also salutes Aquila and Priscilla 6 , and they
too seem to have had connexion with Ephesus 7 .

The legal proceedings have already commenced when the
Apostle writes. He has had his first hearing, and has a respite
for a time 8 . But he is full of gloomy forebodings, or rather he
foresees but one termination to the trial. And here, with the
notes of his dying strain ringing in our ears, we take leave of
the Great Apostle.

[1862.]

1 2 Tim. iv. 9. ^ himself seems to be absent (i. 17).

2 2 Tim. iv. 21. * 2 Tim. iv. 19.

3 2 Tim. iv. 13. i i Co r. xvi. 19.

4 2 Tim. iv. 11. 8 2 Tim. iv. 16.

5 2 Tiia. iv. 19, i. 16. Onesiphorus

INDICES

I. INDEX OF PASSAGES.
II. INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

PAGE

Genesis

xxxi 47, 48

127

Proverbs iii 34

xlix 11

Isaiah vi 10

20, 137

Exodus

xii 48

139

viii 6

172

xvi 33, 34

154

viii 8

153

xxv 7

143

ix2

150

Numbers

ix!2

139

ix6

153

xxix 35

166

xxxiii 21

172

Deuteronomyi 1 sq

129

x!3

139

xvi 13 sq

166

xiii 6, 7

150

xviii 15 25, 150,

154

liii 1

140

xix 15

138

liii 4

148

xxi23

162

liii 8

152

xxxi 7, 23

Iivl3

138

xxxiii 21

143

Ixil

150

Joshua

i 6, 7, 9

Jeremiah xxiii 1

147

xv 25

144

xlviii 24, 41

144

xv 32

179

Ezekiel xxxi 4

141

xviii 23

177

xxxiv 2, 3

147

Judges

xi3

143

xxx vii 27, xliii

7 153

1 Samuel

xiii 17

177

xlv 25

166

2 Samuel

x6, 8

143

Daniel vii 13, 14

153

xiii 23

177

Amos ii 2

144

xv 23

173

Micah v 2

152

xviii 6

177

vii 15

151

1 Kings

xii 1 sq

130

Zechariah ii 10 sq

153

xv 13

173

viii 3

153

2 Chronicles

xiii 19

177

ix9

136, 151

Nehemiah

iii 1, 32

170

xll

151

iii 15 141,

172

xii 10

20, 136

viii 18

166

Malachi iv 2, 3

150

xii 39

170

Ecclus. xxiv 8 sq

153

Psalms

ii7

149

1 Maccabees iv 59

167

xxi (xxii) 19

140

xi34

17-7

xxxiii (xxxiv) 21

139

2 Maccabees ii 1 sq

154

xxxiv (xxxv) 19

139

166

xl (xii) 10 21,

137

St Matthew ii 16, 22

xlv (xlvi) 5

172

iii 1

179

Ixviii (Ixix) 5, 10

139

iii 3

139

Ixxvii (1 xx viii) 24

139

iii 15

Ixxxi (Ixxxii) 6

139

vii7

103

Ixxxii (Ixxxiii) 10

174

vii 15

147

ciii (civ) 10

141

144

cviii (cix) 3

139

x!6

442

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

St Matthew

St Mark

St Luke

PAGE

xii 33

xiii 14, 15

138

xiii 54 sq

159

xiv 28, 30

184

xv 15

184

xvi 16

149, 184

xvi 17, 18

18, 19

xvi 22

184

xvi 23

185

xvii 4

184

xviii 21

184

xix 12

xix27

184

xxi 5

136

xxiii 14

147

xxiii 39

149

xxvi3

163

xxvi 5

161

xxvi 7, 8

182

xxvi 14

144

xxvi 36

176

xxvi 33, 58,

69 184

xxvi 55

xxvi 63

149

xxvi 40, 74

185

xxvii 2

xxvii 11, 22

187

xxvii 27, 35

161

xxvii 33

142

xxvii 62

168

139

137

184

hi 19

144

iv 12

138

vi37

182

viii22

178

viii 33

185

x51

140

xi9

149

xi21

184

xii 40

147

xii41

169

xiv 4

182

xiv 32

176

xiv 37

185

xiv 51

180

xiv 70

159

xiv 71

185

xv 12

187

xv 16

161

xv 22

142

xv 26

161

xv 42

168

i 1 sq

55, 62, 135

i!3

139

179

180

153

ii 32

150

iii 1, 23

57, 58

iii 2

163

St Luke

St John

iii 4

iii 19, 20
iv 16 sq
iv 19
iv29
iv 41
v8

vi 16, 71
viii 10
viii 45
ix 51 sq
x 38 sq
xi9
xii 41
xiii 1
xiii 4
xiii 35
xx 47
xxii
xxii 3
xxii 54 sq
xxii 70
xxiii 34
xxiii 54

116,23, 83,101
12

1383,90, 94, 95
HI,

14 92,

17,8

i 9 88, 106, 108,
110
112
i 13

i 14 88, 101,
i 18 73, 89, 101,
119sq
i 20

i 21, 25
123
128
129
131
132
134
136

i 37, 40
138
139
i 40 sq

14124,139,181,
i 42 18, 19, 132,
i 43 132,

144

14624,150, 158,
i 49 24,

ii 1 sq 106,

ii 4
116

101,

74,

41,

PAGE

139
179
159
57
175
149
185
144
138
184
159

37, 181
103
184
160
141
149
147
169
144
191
149
161
168
106, 112

92, 106
, 96, 106,
112, 132

106, 112
90, 131

150

112, 115
101, 131
88, 133
88, 105
112, 154
112, 134
89

107, 132
25, 150

139

178, 179
148, 181
153
134
149

148, 194
40, 189

140
181

133, 189
189, 197
141, 195
181, 187
41,69
159, 181

149, 182
176, 181

108, 182
165, 182

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

443

St John

PAGE

iill

92, 176, 197

ii!3

167

ii!6

112

ill?

139

ii 19 sq

30, 101

ii22

193

iii 2

195

iii 3

87, 120

iii 5

106, 114

iii 6 101,

106, 107, 132

iii 8

82, 112

iii 10, 11

131, 157

iii 14, 15

87, 106, 115,

151

iii 16

94, 134

iii 17

94, 106

iii 18

149

iii 23

178, 179

iii 24

197

iii 29

165

iii 31

101, 132, 133

iv 1 sq

33 sq, 190

iv 4

159

iv 6

120, 175, 181

iv9

175

iv 10

106, 107

iv 14 77,

106, 107, 134

iv20

131

iv21

106

iv24

87, 90, 112

iv25

24, 141, 155

iv27

165

iv34

101

iv 40, 43

181

iv42

24, 115

iv45

159, 167

iv 46

176

iv52

181

iv54

197

v 1

167

29, 169, 175

182

134

vll

134

v!7

132

v23

v 25, 36

101

v27

115

v29

v33

v37

106

v38

133

v39

17, 24

v40

131

v45

24, 88, 146

v46

vi 1

176, 195

vi2

153

vi 5 sq

189

vi 7, 8, 9

182, 189

St John

vi 11
vi 14
vi!5
vi!6
vi!7
vi!9
vi22
vi23
vi27
vi 28, 30 sq

PAGE
194

25, 149, 150

181

176

181

176, 181

176, 194

101

vi 31 24, 26, 89, 139, 152

vi 35
vi 38
vi 39
vi 44
vi 45
vi 53
vi54
vi 59
vi 62
vi 68
vi 69
vi 70
vi 71
vii 2 sq
vii 6, 7
vii 8
vii 12
vii 14
vii 15
vii 17
vii 19
vii 22, 23
vii 26 sq
vii 30, 33
vii 35
vii 37
vii 38
vii 39
vii 40
vii 41
vii 42
vii 49
vii 50
vii 52
vii 53 sq

82, 101
82
134
106

101, 138

106

181

115

182, 186
149
131

18, 143
165
132

132, 167

181

157

17, 131
134

24, 152

17, 107

157

166, 181

193

24, 25, 150
158
152
157
195
158
69

viii 12 101, 112, 115, 150,
166

viii 14 132

viii 15 69

viii 17 138, 165

viii 20 167, 169, 181
viii 21 106

viii 26 73

viii 30 sq 24, 69, 155
viii 44 61, 68, 106, 114,
165

viii 56 61, 112, 115, 146
viii 57 57, 58

ix 1 106

444

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

St John

PAGE

ix2

158

ix7

141, 171

ix 21, 22

132

ix28

156

ix32

134

ix 35

149

x 1 sq

74, 96, 103

x 7

82, 106, 112

110, 146

97, 106, 114

xll

133

x 12

x!8

97, 101

x22

167, 181

x23

168

x24

x 27

114

x30

101

x34

139

x36

150

x38

102

x40

178, 179

xi 1 sq 38,

175, 178, 181

xi6

181

xi7

178

xi!6

37, 182, 195

xi!7

181

xi 18

175

xi25

112

xi27

149

xi35

101

xi 38, 41

165

xi39

178

xi48

160

xi 49 sq 27

, 28, 163, 195

xi51

165, 193

xi 52

101

xi 54

177

xii 1 sq

38, 181

xii 3

182

xii 4

18, 143, 182

xii 6

182

xii 7

165

xii 10

xii 12 sq

30, 149, 181

xii 14, 15

136

xii 16

193

xii 20 sq

128, 182, 189,

195

xii 24

xii 27

111

xii 28, 29

xii 31

xii 33

71, 193, 194

xii 34

153

xii 35

107

xii 38

140

xii 40

20, 137

xii 41

146

xii 46

134, 150

St John

xiii 2
xiii 8, 9
xiii 18
xiii 20
xiii 23
xiii 24 sq
xiii 25
xiii 26
xiii 30
xiii 31
xiii 33
xiii 36
xiv 2
xiv3
xiv 6
xiv 7
xiv 8 sq
xiv 12
xiv 13
xiv 22
xiv 26
xiv 29
xv 13
xv 15, 19
xv 25
xvi 2
xvi 11
xvi 12
xvi 13
xvi 21
xvi 24
xvi 28
xvii 3
xvii 11

PAGE
18, 143
182, 186
21, 137
82
195

182, 186
75

143, 182
181
92
106

182, 185
60, 61, 67
107
69, 97, 101, 112

18,

101, 182

101

18, 143, 182

77, 104

108

139

xvii 17
xvii 21
xvii 23, 25
xviii 1
xviii 3
xviii 9
xviii 10
xviii 12
xviii 13
xviii 14

103
101

72, 73, 95, 150
14, 16 94, 108,
132
73

95, 150
108

172, 175, 176
160
193

182, 186
160

28, 163, 197
195

xviii 15 sq 98, 128, 163,
181

xviii 27 185

xviii 28 160, 168, 181,

191

xviii 31 187

xviii 32 71, 194

xviii 36, 37 149, 188
xviii 38 73, 188

xviii 39 187, 188

xix 3, 5 149, 188

xix 12 149, 160, 187, 262
xix 13 142

xix 14 29, 101, 149, 168,
181, 188

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

445

St John

Acts

PAGE

xix 15

160, 188

xix 17

142

xix 19 149,

159, 187, 188

xix 20

176, 182

xix 22

188

xix 23

161, 182

xix 24

140

xix 26

99, 107, 195

xix 28

xix 30

71,72

xix 31, 32

162, 168

xix 34 71,

75, 120, 182,

197

xix 35

71, 197, 198

xix 36

139, 168

xix 37

20, 101, 136

xix 39, 40

165, 183, 195

xix 42

168, 175

XX 1

101, 165

xx 2

195

xx 5

165

xx 6

186

xx 7

165, 183

xx 11 sq

165, 194

xx 16

140

xx 17

101

xx 19

181

xx 20

120

xx 22, 23

xx 24

111, 141

xx 25 sq

113, 182

xx 27

xx 28

xx 29 sq

194

xx 30

195

xx 31

197

xxi 1 sq

176, 194 sq

xxi2

39, 141, 176

xxi 3, 4

181, 182

xxi 6

183

xxi 8

181

xxi 11

183, 186

xxi 14

197

xxi 15 sq

18, 182

xxi 17

186

xxi 20 sq

99, 182, 186

xxi 23

197

xxi 24

41, 99, 196

iii22

25, 150

ivl

iv6

163, 165

v!7

v 35 sq

147

v 37

160

vii37

25, 150

viii 32

148

ix 35

142

xi28

216

xi30

407

xii4

161

PAGE

Acts xii 23 215

xiii 1 305

xiii 10 61

xiii 15, 42 sq 259

xiv 23 407

xvi 6 sq 237

xvi 9 sq 239, 245

xvi 11 241

xvi 13, 16 243

xvi 17 245

xvi 37 203

xvii 1 243, 259

xvii 4 261, 262

xvii 5 sq 243, 257, 305

xvii 6 247, 256

xvii 14, 15 245, 284

xvii 17 259, 262

xvii 28 206

xvii 30, 31 228

xviii 2 300

xviii 5 245

xviii 11 275

xviii 19, 21 210, 300, 404

xviii 26 300

xix 1 404

xix 21 245, 325, 404

xix 22 245, 277, 278, 283,
305

xix 26 394

xix 29 246, 247, 262, 268

xix 30, 33 257

xix 41 283

xx 1, 3 245, 283

xx 4 246, 306

xx 6 241, 282

xx 13 sq 435

xx 16 210, 217

xx 21 387

xx 25 387, 422

xx 29 404

xx 31 387, 405

xxi 13 336

xxi 27 217

xxi 29 406, 435

xxi 31 sq 161

xxi 38 218, 387

xxi 39 205

xxii 3 208

xxii 25, 28 203

xxiii 6 208, 211

xxiii 27 203

xxiv 10 217

xxv 12 203

xxvi 4, 5 208

xxvi 6, 7 211

xxvii 2 246

xxvii 7 sq 431

xxviii 11 sq 220

xxviii 26, 27 138

xxviii 30, 31 219, 325, 429

446

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

PAGE

Komans i 1 sq 328 sq

1 Corinthians ix 19 sq

232, 240

i 5, 13 312

x 1 sq

151

i 7 287 sq, 310, 316,

172

344 sq, 364, 378

xll

328

i 11 sq 296, 319, 325

x 14 sq

232

i 15 287, 316, 364, 444 sq

xi3

232

i 25 323

xi 4, 5

115

ii 16 294

xii 12 sq

232

ii 17 313

xiv 3 sq

264

iii 9 313

xiv 34 sq

322

iii 21 sq 329

xv 25

iii 24 231

xv 26

322

vii 4 313

xv 32

283

vii 12 209

xv 33

206

viii 18 sq 326

xv 36, 37

ix 5 323

xv 56

209

xi 13 294, 312

xvi 1 sq

342

xi 15 239

xvi 5

276

xi 21 sq 304

xvi 7

274

xi36 298,323,326

xvi 8, 9

283

xii 11 362

xvi 10 sq

276, 277, 280,

xiv 10 354

281, 283, 404

xiv 14 231

xvi 19

300, 437

xiv 20 401

2 Corinthians i 1

378, 404

xiv 23 287 sq, 319, 329 sq,

232

340, 349 sq, 363 sq

283

xv 5, 6 297, 323

i 12 sq

278

xv 15 295, 297, 324, 326

115

276

xv 16 297, 312, 324, 326

i!7

280

xv 17 sq 324 sq

ii4

278

xv 19 244

ii 12

282

xv 24, 28 422, 430

iv 10 sq

232

xv 29 sq 325

v 10

335

xv 30 297

v 17 sq

232

xv 33 294, 307, 323

vi 14 sq

135

xvi 3 sq 300 sq

vii 8

276

xvi 17 sq 326

viii 1 sq

246, 247, 250

xvi 20 307, 308, 319, 324

viii 16

281

xvi 23 319

viii 18, 22

282

xvi 21 sq 246, 304, 404

ix 2 sq

246

xvi 24 307, 308

xi9

246, 260

xvi 25 sq 288 sq, 317 sq,

xi 22

208

326 sq, 366 sq

xii 14

274

1 Corinthians i 2 378

xii 17, 18

277, 279, 281

i 14 305

xiii 1, 2

274

i 20 81

xiii 11

298

ii 1 sq 325, 328

Galatians i 5

298

ii 4 206

i 13, 14

208

iv4 81

ilSsq

221

iv 9 283

ii 6

119

iv 17 279, 283, 404

ii9

112

iv 19 283

ii 15 sq

232, 240

v 6 sq 232, 283

iii 2 sq

232

v 9 275

iii 28

239

v 12 281

v 3 sq

232

vi 9 sq 81, 232

vi 1

296

vii 19 sq 232

vi!4

232

viii 1 296

vi!6

298

viii 8 sq 232

Ephesians i 1

377 sq

ix 10 sq 335

396

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

447

PAGE

Ephesians i 10 89, 232

i 15 388
i 20 sq 232, 395, 396

ii 14, 15 239, 395

ii 19 205, 232

ii 21, 22 396

iii 2 389

iii 3 sq 318

iii 15 232
iii 20 298, 318, 327, 367

iv 15 232

iv 17 396

iv 20, 21 389

v 14 410

v 22 396

v 25 sq 395, 396

v29 81

vi5 396

vi 9 232

vi 21 391, 393

Philippians i 1 378, 406, 407

i 14 sq 313

i 24 430

i 25 422

i 27 205

ii 6 sq 232

ii 19 246
ii 24 245, 422, 430

ii 25 sq 246

iii 2 243

iii 5 207, 208

iii 15 296

iii 20 204, 232

iv 1 249

iv 8 401

iv 9 298
iv 15 237, 246, 260
iv 16 259, 260, 267

iv 19, 20 298

Colossians i 1 406

i 15 sq 232, 395

i 20 239

i23 81

ii 1 389

ii 9 sq 232, 395

ii 18 414

ii 19 204

iii 1 sq 232

iii 11 239

iii 18, 19 395

iv 7 391
iv 10, 11 246, 261, 305

iv 16 383 sq

1 Thessalonians i 6, 8 261, 263

i9 262

i 10 260

ii 1 261

ii 2, 3 258, 259

ii 5 sq 260
ii 12 sq 260, 262, 263, 265

PAGE

1 Thessalonians ii 19 249

iii 1 sq 245, 260, 263, 265

iii 4 260

iii 6 sq 264 sq, 279

iii 11 sq 298

iv 3 sq 257, 264, 265

iv 10 264

iv 11 248

iv 12 261

iv 13 sq 264

v2 260

v 12 sq 248, 265

v 19, 20 264

v 23 298

v 27 266

2 Thessalonians i 3 sq 267, 329

i5 263

ii 2, 3 266

ii 7 204

ii 8 402

ii 15 247, 267

ii 16, 17 298

iii 4 267

iii 5 298

iii 7 sq 248, 260, 265

iii 10 261

iii 14, 15 267

iii 17 247, 266

1 Timothy i 3 245, 404

i 4 sq 328, 408, 411, 414

i 17 298, 318, 367, 414

i 20 433

ii 4 sq 414

ii 10 402

iii 1 sq 407

iii 11, 13 408

iii 14 404, 435

iii 15 434

iii 16 174, 410

iv 1 sq 408, 409, 412, 415

iv 7 411

iv 9 sq 434

iv 14 408

v 3 sq 408

v 10, 25 402

v 17 sq 407, 408

vi4 411

vi 5 409, 412, 415

vi 16 298

vi 18 402

vi 20 229, 408, 411, 414

2 Timothy i 9, 10 318, 328

i 14 229

i 15 sq 433, 436 sq

ii 8 318

ii 11 410

ii 14 411

ii 16 408, 411

ii 21 402

ii 23 408

448

INDEX OF PASSAGES.

PAGE

2 Timothy

iii 1 sq
iii 6, 13

409
409, 412, 415

Hebrews xii 16
xiii 11

401

176

iv3

409, 412

xiii 20, 21

298

iv 4

411

xiii 22

276

iv9sq

435 sq

James iv 6

iv 10

247, 267, 432

1 Peter i 3

396

iv 13, 20

245, 406, 434,

i!9

149

435

ii 5, 18

396

iv 14

433

iii 1, 7, 22

396

iv!8

298

iv3

396

iv!9

301, 433

iv21

433

v!2

276

iv24

299

1 John i 1

62, 99, 102

Titus

i2, 3

318, 328

ii 27

405, 434

iii 1, 2

402

iii 8, 10

407

iv3

i 10, 14

408, 411

iv 9

63, 94

i!2

206

iv 10, 11

i 15, 16

402, 412, 415

iv 12

iii 7

402

iv!4

115

iii 9

408, 411, 414

v 6sq

198

iii 10

413

2 John 7

iii 12, 13

405, 432, 435 sq

Kevelation i 7

137

iii 14

402

ii 17

154

Philemon

406

vii 15

153

423, 430

xiii 6

153

246

xiv 4

Hebrews

xv 3

150

viii 5, 6

151

xv 5

153

ix4

154

xix!3

ix7

xxi3

153

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

'Abraham's seed,' 156

Acta Pilati; date, 120; shows ac-
quaintance with the Fourth Gospel,
120

yEnon, 178 sq

Africa, the Church of; characteristics
of, 101 ; testimony to the Fourth
Gospel from, 101 sq

Albinus, 220

Alexander the coppersmith, 433

Alexander the Great ; his work as a
reconciler of the world, 239 sq;
points of affinity with St Paul, 241,
254 ; his policy towards the Jews,
244

Alexander the physician, 77

Alexandria, the Church of; its litera-
ture, 91 sq; its evidence for the
Fourth Gospel, 92

Alexandria Troas, 241

Alford, 279 sq, 318, 324

Alogi ; their motive in rejecting the
Fourth Gospel, 5 sq, 49, 115 sq, 121,
its authorship according to, 6, 118;
rejected the Apocalypse also, 6, 117,
118 ; anti-Montanists, 116 ; the
name, 116 sq

Ambrosian Hilary ; see Hilary the
Deacon

Amelius shows acquaintance with the
Fourth Gospel, 120

Amiatinus, codex, 337, 351, 355 sq

Amphipolis, 243

Ananias the highpriest, 163 sq

Anastatius of Sinai, 92

Andrew (St) ; not the author of the
Fourth Gospel, 41 ; in Asia Minor,
52 ; character of, 128, 189 ; Papias
on, 69 ; the Muratorian Canon on,
190

Annas, the official life of, 162

Antioch, the Church of, testimony to
the Fourth Gospel from, 81 sq

L. E.

Antipater, poet of Thessalonica, 256

Antoninus Pius, 86, 94, 244, 267

Apion, on the slavery of the Jews to
the Gentiles, 156

' Apocalypse of Peter,' 97, 99

Apocalypse of St John ; why attacked
by the Alogi, 6, 117 ; probable date
of, 52 ; the Muratorian Canon on,
99

Apollinaris ; date of, 74 ; testimony
to the Fourth Gospel from, 58, 75

Aquila and Priscilla, movements of,
300, 437

Aramaic, general characteristics of, 16,
127 sq

Archetypes, characteristics of certain
lost, 346, 350

Arianism and the Fourth Gospel, 5

Aristarchus of Thessalonica, 246, 261,
306 ; traditional bishop of Thessa-
lonica, 268

Aristion, 53, 67

Aristobuliani, 302 sq

Arnold, Matthew, on the Pauline
doctrine of justification by faith,
231

Arsinous, 98

Artemas, 405, 435, 436

Asia Minor ; the establishment of
Christianity in, 394 ; apostolic
letters written to, 393 sq, 396 ;
St John resident in, 51 ; the metro-
polis of Christianity, 51 ; testimony
of its Churches to the Fourth Gospel,
51 sq ; their tradition as to the
chronology of our Lord's life, 56 sq,
58, 75, 93 ; see also Ephesus

Athanasius (St), on St Paul's visit to
Spain, 425

Athenagoras ; date and country of,
94 sq ; his Apology, 95 ; coincidences
with the Fourth Gospel in, 95

Attalus of Pergamum, 77

450

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Augiensis, codex ; its relation to codex
Boernerianus, 316, 338 sq, 367 sq ;
characteristics of these MSS, 339 sq,
369 sq; of their archetype, 346; joint
divergences from codex Bezee in
Rom. xv, xvi, 370 sq

Augustinian phraseology in capitula-
tions, evidence of date from, 351,
361

Aurelius, Marcus, 83, 85 sq, 94, 95,
104

Avidius Crassus, 95
, 335

(6), of the Messiah, 150
(o)> use f the word in Jose-
phus and in the N. T., 163

Bardesanes, 104

Bar-Jona, 18 sq

Barnabas, Epistle of, date and country
of, 91

Basil (St), on the text of Eph. i. 1,
379 sq

Basilides; his date, 8, 98, 108; his
work on the Gospel, 109 ; extracts in
Hippolytus from, 8, 108 sq ; quotes
from the Fourth Gospel, 108 ; his
followers few, 109

Baur, 4, 10 sq, 28, 42, 50, 146, 173,
289, 303, 326, 366, 423

Bengel, 343, 363

Beroea; geographical importance of,
242 ; a Jewish centre, 243 ; not
chosen by St Paul as a hiding-
place, 244, 263 ; why preferred to
Pella, 243

Bertholdt, 312

Bethany, accurate description in the
Fourth Gospel of, 30, 175, 181

Bethany beyond Jordan, 178

Bethesda, 29, 169 sq

Bethlehem, as the birthplace of the
Messiah, 152

Bethsaida, the pool of, 29

Bethzatha, 29, 169 sq

Bezae, codex, its relation to F and G of
the Paulines, 339, 369 sq

Bleek, 49, 136

Boeckh, 247, 256

Boernerianus, codex ; its relation to
codex Augiensis, 316, 338 sq, 367 sq ;
characteristics of these MSS, 339 sq,
369 sq ; of their archetype, 346 ;
joint divergences from codex Bezse
in Bom. xv, xvi, 370 sq

Book of Baruch, 107

Bordeaux Pilgrims, on the pool of
Bethesda, 170

Bretschneider, 50

Britain, not visited by St Paul, 432

Bunsen, 8, 94, 98, 112, 276

Burrus, 219

Cabiric worship ; at Thessalonica, 257
sq; royal and imperial patronage
of, 258

Caiaphas ; tenure of office by, 28 sq,
162 ; his designation in the Fourth
Gospel, 195 ; passages there ex-
plained, 28 sq, 195

Cana, site of, 176

Capitulations ; (1) used in certain
Vulgate MSS, 289, 337, 342; dis-
tinct forms of, 356 sq ; one form
derived from the Old Latin, 362,
372 ; their connexion with lection-
aries considered, 342, 361 sq ; (2)
Greek ' Euthalian ' capitulations,
342

Carlyle, 195

Cassandreia, 254

Cedron, 172 sq

Celsus, reminiscences of the Fourth
Gospel in, 119 sq

Cephas, the name, 17, 19, 141

Ceriani, 343

Cerinthus ; authorship of the Fourth
Gospel assigned to, 6, 118; his
nickname ~M.r)ptv6os, 119

Christian literature, first traces of,
409 sq

Christian ministry, as evidenced by
the Pastoral Epistles, 407 sq

Chronology ; of our Lord's life, 30 sq,
56 sq, 75, 85, 180 ; of St Paul's life
and epistles, 215 sq, 282 sq ; of
Herod's restoration of the temple,
30 sq

Chryseros, 83

Cicero ; his language on Roman citi-
zenship transferred by St Paul to
the Church, 202 sq, 204 sq ; other
references to, 244, 255

Circular letters of St Paul, 319, 391 sq

Claudius Apollinaris ; see Apollinaris

clausula, as used in Tertullian, 289,
335, 336, 354

Clement of Alexandria ; traditions
about St John in, 93 ; Valentinian
fragments in, 112 ; his teachers, 51,
92

Clement of Rome ; on the composition
of the Roman Church, 314 ; on the
release of St Paul, 423 sq, 427

Clementine Homilies ; date, 113 ; its
testimony to the Fourth Gospel, 7,
113 sq ; its contrasts to it, 15, 40 ;
on the composition of the Roman
Church, 314

Clementine Recognitions, on Samari-
tan Messianic expectations, 154

Coleridge, 400

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

451

Colossians, Epistle to the ; date and
circumstances of writing, 224, 232
sq ; compared with that to the
Ephesians, 232, 389, 395 sq ; salu-
tations to the Church of Laodicea
sent through the, 393 ; the heresy
attacked in, 233, 394 sq ; compared
with that combated in the Pastoral
Epistles, 408 sq, 411, 413 sq

Constantino the Great, sumptuous
bibles ordered by, 346, 351

Conybeare and Howson, 256, 258, 267

Corinth, the Church of; missions of
Timotheus and Titus to, 273 sq ; an
unrecorded visit of St Paul to, 222,
274, 405 ; the chronology of St Paul's
Epistles to, 222 sq, 275 sq, 282 sq

Cousinery, 253 sq

Credner, 383

Crescens, 432, 436

Crete ; when Christianized, 431 ; visit
of St Paul to, 434; missions to,
405; Jews at, 431

Crucifixion ; time of the, 58, 73, 93 ;
place of the, 175

crurifragium, 162

Cumanus, 161

Cureton, 104

Cuspius Fadus, 216

Cyprian (St), probably does not quote
Bom. xv, xvi, 336, 355

Cyril of Jerusalem, on St Paul's visit
to Spain, 425

Davidson, 275, 400, 405, 424

de Wette, 275, 388, 406

Deaconesses and widows in the early
Church, 408

Demas; perhaps from Thessalonica,
247, 436; the name, 247

Demetrius, martyr of Thessalonica ;
his cult and day, 268 ; his title
Atu/x>\i5r7?s, 268

Diatessaron ; see Tatian

Diognetus, Epistle to ; date and locality
of its two parts, 91 sq, 94 ; each part
presents coincidences with the Fourth
_Gospel, 92, 94

Dion Chrysostom, 248

Dionysius of Corinth, 266

Dispersion, the Greek ; despised by
Palestinian Jews, 157; not so the
Babylonian Dispersion, 157

Docetffi, and the Fourth Gospel, 113

Doctrine of St Paul's Epistles, de-
velopment of, 227 sq, 231, 315 sq,
324 sq, 402

Dressel, 8, 114

5iao"jropa (77) TUV 'EXX^wp, 157

Ebionism, 7

Egnatian Road, 254, 437

Eichhorn, 292

Elders, quoted by Ireneeus ; belonged
to the Asiatic School, 56 ; appealed
to collectively, 56 sq ; and individu-
ally, 58 sq ; an identification at-
tempted, 59 sq

Eleutherus of Borne, 116

Epeenetus at Borne, 301

Epaphras, 394

Epaphroditus, 246

Ephesians, Epistle to the ; evidence
for the omission of & 'E0&ry, 377
sq; a formal treatise rather than a
familiar letter, 387 sq ; yet regarded
by the early Church as addressed to
the Ephesians, 389 ; the exception,
Marcion, 390 ; conclusion, a cir-
cular letter to proconsular Asia, 390
sq ; motive of writing, 394 ; resem-
blances to the Epistle to the Bomans,
388, 395 sq ; comparisons and con-
trasts with the Epistle to the Colos-
sians, 232, 389, 395 sq ; used in
1 Peter, 396; the first example of
Christian hymnology in, 410

Ephesus ; St John at, 51 ; St Paul at,
274 sq, 387 sq, 404 sq, 431, 433;
heretics at, 404, 409 sq; as shown by
the Pastoral Epistles, 408 sq, 411 sq

Ephraim, site of, 177

Ephrem Syrus, commentary on Ta-
tian' s Diatessaron by, 4

Epiphanius ; on the name Alogi, 6,
116 sq; indebted to Hippolytus, 118;
on Marcion's Epistle to the Laodi-
ceans, 383 ; to the Bomans, 334; on
St Paul's visit to Spain, 426 ; on
other points, 172

Episcopacy unnoticed in the Fourth
Gospel, 12

Erasmus, 321, 344

Erastus of Macedonia, 245, 305, 406

Essenes, longevity of the, 54 ; view of
Jewish law taken by the, 208

Eusebius; his practice in notices of
evidence for the Canon, 64 sq ; on
Papias, 63, 66, 69 ; on the Letter of
the Gallican Churches, 77 ; on
Theophilus, 83 ; on Pantsenus, 92 ;
on Bethzatha, 170; on St Paul's
release, 425

Ewald, 292, 428

'Eppcwrrl, 127

2ypa\f/a, use of, 275

ev 'E06r^, omission of the words in
Eph. i. 1, 377 sq

tv Kupi'y, tv Xpurrf, 231

tv 'Pw/^Tj, omission of the words in
Bom.'i. 7, 15, 287 sq, 310, 316, 321,
344 sq, 364

452

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

IrtoroXal, of a single letter, 99
epx6/Jievos (6), a title of the Messiah,
149

Felix, date of the recall of, 217 sq

Festivals, Jewish ; disturbances at,
161 ; minute acquaintance displayed
in the Fourth Gospel of, 165 sq

Festus, 217 sq

Field, 341

Flatte, 248

Florinus, the letter to, 55

Fourth Gospel; the traditional view
of its authorship, 5, 125 ; when first
impugned, 5 ; significance of this
unanimity, 5, 9 ; the most decisive
testimony from heretical writers, 7,
8, 104 sq, 120 sq ; importance of
the truths which it embodies, 43 sq,
47 sq ; two classes of its assailants,
50 ; biographical sketch of some of
them, 50 ; their hypotheses con-
sidered, 10 sq ; compelled to throw
back the date, 11 ; EXTERNAL EVI-
DENCE for, 45 sq ; cumulative cha-
racter of this evidence, 48 ; (1)
the Churches of Asia Minor, 51 sq,
(i) Elders quoted by Irenaeus, 56 sq ;
(ii) Polycarp, 62 sq ; (iii) Papias,
63 sq ; (iv) the Letter of the Smyr-
nceans, 70 sq, (v) Melito of Sardis,
72 sq ; (vi) Claudius Apollinaris, 74
sq ; (vii) Polycrates of Ephesus, 75 ;
(viii) Montanism, 76 ; (2) the Churches
of Gaul, 76 sq ; (i) the Letter of the
Gallican Churches, 77 ; (ii) Irenseus,
77 sq ; (3) the Church of Antioch, 81
sq ; (i) Ignatius, 81 sq ; (ii) Theo-
philus, 83 sq ; (4) the Churches of
Palestine, 85 sq ; (i) Justin Martyr,
85 sq ; (ii) Tatian, 89 sq ; (5) the
Church of Alexandria, 91 sq; (i) the
Epistle to Diognetus (pt. 2), 91 sq;
(ii) Clement of Alexandria, 92 sq ;
(iii) Origen, 93 ; (6) the Churches of
Greece and Macedonia, 94 sq ; (i)
the Epistle to Diognetus (pt. 1), 94 ;
(ii) Athenagoras, 94 sq ; (7) the
Church of Rome, 96 sq ; (i) the Shep-
herd of Hermas, 96 sq ; (ii) the
Muratorian Canon, 97 sq ; (iii) Hip-
polytus, 100 sq ; (8) the Churches of
Asia, 101 sq ; (i) Tertullian, 102 ;
(ii) Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas,
102 sq ; (9) the Churches of Syria,
104 ; (10) Heretical writers, 104 sq ;
(a) Gnostics, (i) Simon Magus, 105 ;
(ii) Ophites, 105 ; (iii) Peratse, 106 ;
(iv) Sethiani, 107 ; (v) Justinus,
107 ; (vi) Pist is Sophia, 107 ; (vii)
Basilides, 108 sq; (viii) Valentinians,

110 ; (ix) Heracleon, Ptolemeeus,
Marcus, 111 sq ; (x) Marcion, 112 ;
(b) Docetffi, 113 ; (c) Judaizing
Christians, evidence of the Clementine
Homilies, the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, 113 sq ; counter
testimony of the Alogi considered, 5
sq, 49, 115 sq, 121 ; (11) Heathen
Writers, 119 sq ; (12) Apocryphal
documents, 119 sq ; retrospect of the
External Evidence, 120 sq ; INTER-
NAL EVIDENCE for, 123 sq ; plan of
treatment of the subject, 125 ; i tJie
writer a Hebrew, probably a con-
temporary, 126 sq, (1) his knowledge
of the Hebrew language, (i) proved
indirectly by his Greek style, 16 sq,
126 sq ; (a) paucity of connecting
particles, 17, 129 sq ; (6) parallelism
of sentences, 17, 132; (c) definite-
ness, 132 ; (d) preference of direct
narrative, 133 ; (e) arrangement,
133; (/) grammatical and lexical
peculiarities, 133 ; (g) imagery, 135 ;
(ii) proved directly by his knowledge
of Hebrew, (a) quotations from the
O.T.,20sq, 135 sq;(b) interpretations
of Hebrew words, 17 sq, 140 sq ; (2)
his knowledge of Jewish ideas, etc. ;

(1) the Messiah, 22, 23 sq, 145 sq ;
and Messianic titles, 148 sq ; (ii)
companions of the Messiah, 25 sq,
150 sq ; (iii) Messianic expectation
among the Samaritans, 154 sq ; (iv)
Jewish beliefs, 155 sq ; (3) his know-
ledge of the history, geography etc.
of the Jews, (i) of their relations to

(a) the Galileans, 158 sq, (b) the
Eomans, 160 sq ; (ii) of Jewish in-
stitutions (a) the high-priesthood,
162 sq ; an objection of Baur, 28 sq ;

(b) Jewish festivals, 165 sq ; (c) posi-
tion of the Sadducees, 26 sq ; (iii) of
the topography of Jerusalem, 28 sq ;
(a) the temple, 168 sq ; its chrono-
logy, 30 sq ; (b) the watercourses,
169 sq ; (c) scenes illustrating the
Passion, 175 sq ; (iv) of the topo-
graphy of Palestine, 176 sq; the
scene of the interview with the
Samaritan woman, 33 sq ; silence
on second-century controversies, 12
sq; contrast with second-century
romances, 15 ; n the writer an eye-
witness of the events recorded, 180
sq ; (1) the minuteness of his details,
22 sq ; (a) time, 180 ; (b) place, 181

(2) the naturalness of his record, (i
the characters, 36 sq, 183 sq ; (a) S
Peter, 183 sq ; (b) Pontius Pilate,

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

453

37, 186 sq ; (c) St Philip, 188 ; (d)
St Andrew, 189 ; () the Samaritan
woman, 34 sq ; (/) St Thomas, 37 ;
(g) Martha and Mary, 37 sq ; (ii) the
progress of events, 190 sq ; (a) in
the conversation with the Samaritan
woman, 190 ; (b) in the judgment-
hall, 191 ; (c) subsequent commen-
tary of the author on the facts
which he records, 192 sq ; in the
writer John the son of Zebedee, 39
sq ; the last chapter an afterthought,
but authentic, 194 sq ; the conversa-
tional character of the Gospel, 197
sq

Fritzsche, 342

Fuldensis, codex, 337, 342, 351, 356,
360 sq

Funeral and marriage customs in the
Fourth Gospel, 165

Gabbatha, the name, 17, 142

Gaius of Corinth, 247, 305

Gaius of Macedonia, 246 ; perhaps
the same as Epaphroditus, 247 ; the
name in Thessalonian inscriptions,
256 ; Origen's confusion as to, 247,
268

Gaius, the Koman Presbyter, 98

Galileans, despised by the Jews of the
metropolis, 158

Gamaliel, 205, 208

Garrucci, 302

Gaul, the Churches of ; early date of
their foundation, 432 ; founded by
the Churches of Asia Minor, 76 ;
correspondence between the two
bodies, 77

German professors, longevity of, 54

Gethsemane, 175

Gfrorer, 151 sq

Golgotha, 142

Gnostic writings, testimony to the
Fourth Gospel from, 7 sq, 105 sq

Gnosticism ; notes of, 413 ; form
attacked in the Epistle to the Colos-
sians, 233, 394 sq ; in the Pastoral
Epistles, 408, 411 sq ; the Fourth
Gospel silent as to, 12, 146 sq

Greece as an educator of the world,
201, 205 sq

Greek philosophy, influence of late, 207

Griesbach, 291

Grotius, 135

Gwynn, 196

', 169

Heathen writers, testimony to the

Fourth Gospel from, 119
.Hebrew language, characteristics of

the, 16, 126 sq

Hegesippus, 98

Helena, Queen of Adiabene, 217

Hemsen, 405, 406

Heracleon ; a western Valentinian,
111 ; his commentary on St John's
Gospel, 111

Heretical writers ; testimony to the
Fourth Gospel from, 7, 104 sq, 121 ;
recent evidence on this subject, 7 sq

Hermas, Shepherd of; date and cha-
racter of, 96 ; coincidences with the
Fourth Gospel in, 97 ; known to the
author of the Acts of Perpetua, 103

Herod Agrippa I. ; date of his death,
215 sq ; considered the Messiah, 148

Herod Agrippa II., 218

Herod Antipas, Messianic hopes set
on, 148

Herod the Great ; the restoration of
the temple by, 30 sq, 169 ; considered
the Messiah, 148

Herodes in the Acts of Martyrdom of
Polycarp, 70

Herodotus, 253, 254

Heumann, 290

High priest ; his tenure of office in the
Fourth Gospel, 28 sq ; relations of
Caiaphas and Annas, 162 sq ; Jewish
belief in the inspiration of the, 165

Hilary the Deacon ; Kom. i. 7, 15 as
read by, 288, 345, 365 ; Eph. i. 1 as
read by, 384 ; on the composition of
the Eoman Church, 313 sq

Hilgenfeld, 10, 50, 146, 173, 424

Hillel, great age of, 54

Hippolytus ; importance of his Refu-
tation, 8, 105 sq ; its date, 105 ; his
testimony to the Fourth Gospel,
100 sq ; perhaps Epiphanius' autho-
rity on the Alogi, 118; his use of
nicknames, 119 ; other references to,
97, 98

'Holy One of God,' a title of the
Messiah, 149

Hort ; on the date of Justin Martyr,
85, 87 ; on the Epistle to the Romans,
321 sq

Hug, 284, 346, 406, 428

Ignatian Epistles ; date of, 81 ; coinci-
dences with the N.T. in, 81 ; with
the Fourth Gospel, 81 ; their silence
as to St John explained, 82 ; the
Epistle to the Ephesians alluded to
in, 389 sq

Inspiration ; its twofold character,
224 sq ; its progress, 227 ; illustrated
by St Paul's Epistles, 227 sq

interpolare, in Tertullian, 330, 382

Ireneeus ; his life, 77 sq ; his impor-
tance as a depositary of tradition,

293

454

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

4, 51, 54 sq, 77 sq; date of his work
on heresies, 79 ; his letter to Flori-
nus, 55 ; his testimony to the author-
ship of the Fourth Gospel incidental,
56 ; but full, 78 ; the elders quoted
by, see Elders ; on Polycarp, 55,
62 sq ; on the Alogi, 115 sq ; the
passage emended, 116 ; Eusebius'
treatment of his evidence, 65 ; no
reference to Horn, xv, xvi in, 289,
336, 355

Iscariot, the name, 18, 143

Isidore, 109

"loro/Sos, 143

James, the son of Zebedee, not the
author of the Fourth Gospel, 41

James, the brother of our Lord, per-
haps connected with Asia Minor, 41

Jason of Macedonia, 247, 261 sq ; per-
haps the Jason of Eom. xvi. 21, 305

Jegar-Sahadutha, 127

Jerome ; on Salim, 179 ; on St Paul's
release, 426 ; on Eph. i. 1, 385 sq ;
on Eph. iii. 5, 333 sq ; embodies
Origen, 333 sq, 354, 386 ; on Pan-
tasnus, 92

Jerusalem ; effect of its destruction by
Titus on the Christian Church, 52 ;
bearing of its twofold destruction on
the authorship of the Fourth Gospel,
13 sq, 125, 156

Jewish ; law and national feeling from
the standpoint of Pharisees, Sad-
ducees and Essenes, 208 sq ; Messi-
anic hopes etc., 22 sq, 145 sq;
institutions, 162 sq

Jews ; in Macedonia, 242 sq, 258, 269 ;
their treatment under the Macedo-
nian Empire, 244 ; at Crete, 431 ;
in Spain, 431 ; in the early Koman
Church, 294 sq ; oppose St Paul,
262 ; effect of Claudius' edict on, 301

John the Baptist ; his designation in
the Fourth Gospel, 42 ; scenes of
his preaching, 179

John, the father of St Peter, 18 sq

John (St) ; his social status and edu-
cation, 128 ; settles in Asia Minor,
51 ; his companions there, 52 sq ;
his longevity, 53 ; first founder of a
Christian School, 53

John (St), the First Epistle of, a pro-
logue to theFourth Gospel, 63, 99, 198

John (St), the Second and Third
Epistles of, mentioned in the Mura-
torian Canon, 99

John the presbyter ; date of, 11 ; the
Fourth Gospel assigned to, 11; in
Asia Minor, 53 ; Papias' connexion
with, 63

John of Thessalonica, 268

Jona, the name, 19

Josephus ; on the Sadducees, 27 ; on
Herod's restoration of the Temple,
30, 32 ; on the Essenes, 54 ; on the
recall of Pilate, 58; on pre-Christian
Messiahs, 147, 148, 151, 154; on
the famine in Judaea, 216 ; on the
visit of Helena, 217 ; on the pro-
curatorship of Felix, 218 ; his use of
the word dpxiepefo, 163 ; of the name
"I(TTO/3os, 143 ; defends the Jews
against Apion, 156; mentions Cana,
176; and Ephraim, 177

Judaizing Christians, 113

Judas, son of Hezekiah, 148

Judas the Gaulonite, a false Messiah,
147

Justification by Faith, not the central
point in St Paul's Gospel, 231

Justin Martyr; date of his writings,
85 sq ; of his martyrdom, 86 ; his
treatise against Marcion, 89 ; uses
the Fourth Gospel, 4, 87 sq

Kedron, 30

Keim, 50, 163

Kerioth, 144

' King of Israel,' a title of the Messiah,

149

Koch, 253 sq
Kostlin, 185

, 172 sq

' Lamb of God,' a title of the Messiah,
148

Laodicea, importance of, 393, 394

Laodiceans, Epistle to the ; in Mar-
cion's canon, on the evidence of
Tertullian, 380, 382 sq, 392; of
Epiphanius, 383 ; identical with the
Epistle to the Ephesians, 391 sq;
the notice in the Muratorian Canon,
383; the reference in Col. iv. 16
considered, 390 sq, 393 ; forged
Epistles, 383

Larissa, Christianity established at,
244, 267

Lazarus, 27

Leake, 253 sq

Lectionaries ; their relation to capitu-
lations, 342, 361 sq ; date of, 364

Letter of the Smyrnceans presents coin-
cidences with the Fourth Gospel,
70 sq

'Lewd,' the word, 262

' Light, the,' as a title of the Messiah,
150

Lightfoot, John, 152, 156, 158, 159,
165

lithostrata, 142

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

455

Logos-doctrine; the central idea in
the Fourth Gospel, 23 ; yet never
obtruded into the narrative, 23
sq

Longevity of early witnesses to the
Fourth Gospel, considered and paral-
leled, 54

Lord Chancellors, longevity of certain,
54

Lucian; acquainted with the Fourth
Gospel, 120 ; other references to,
244, 255, 257

Liicke, 116, 135, 195

Luke (St); the Muratorian Canon on,
98; his Greek style, 131, 135; his
vagueness as compared with the
Fourth Gospel, 163, 179, 181, 191;
his portraiture of Martha and Mary,
38, 181; his chronology of our Lord's
life, 31, 32, 180; adopted by the
Valentinians, 56; his narrative of
the first missionary visit to Europe,

238 ; his residence at Philippi, 245
Luthardt, 129

Luther, 231
Liitzelberger, 50

Macedonia; its work for civilisation,

239 sq; its connexion with Syria
and Palestine, 245 ; character of
the inhabitants, 248 sq, 257 ; Jews
in, 242 sq, 258

Macedonia, the Churches of; their
foundation, 237; their importance,
238 sq; St Paul's choice of stations,

240 sq; his communications with,
245 sq; companions of the Apostle
from, 246, 3U5; outward condition
and dangers of, 247 sq ; their affec-
tionate relations with St Paul, 249
sq; his last visits to, 430, 433 sq;
subsequent history of, 267

Manna, the giving of, associated with
the coming of the Messiah, 24, 26,
152, 155

Manuscripts ; see Archetypes, Augien-
sis codex, Capitulations, Lectiona-
ries, Menologia, Synaxaria, Vulgate
etc.

Marcion ; his recension of the Epistle
to the Romans, 288 sq, 316, 319,
329 sq, 347 sq, 353 sq ; perhaps
misrepresented by Tertullian, Origen
and Jerome, 331, 334 sq; the Epistle
to the Laodiceans in, 380, 381 sq,
392; importance and credibility of
his statement, 380, 382 sq, 390 sq;
his silence as to the Fourth Gospel
explained, 112

Marcus the Valentinian, coincidence
with the Fourth Gospel in, 111

Marriage and funeral customs in the
Fourth Gospel, 165

Martha and Mary, their characters as
drawn in the Fourth Gospel, 37 sq

Matrona, saint of Thessalonica, 268

Matthew (St), possible connexion with
Asia Minor of, 53

Matthies, 424

Maximus Confessor, 68

Melito ; his travels and learning, 72 ;
date of his writings, 72; coinci-
dences with the Fourth Gospel in,
73 sq ; chronology of our Lord's life
used by, 58, 73 ; tutor to Clement of
Alexandria, 92; Irenaeus indebted
to, 74; on Christianity at Larissa,
244, 267

Menologia, 343, 361 sq

Merinthus, a nickname given by Hip-
poly tus to Cerinthus, 119

Messiahs, false, antecedent as well as
subsequent to the birth of Christ,
146 sq

Messianic hopes and ideas; described
in the Fourth Gospel, 22 sq, 145 sq;
the keynote of that Gospel, 23 sq,
145 sq; Messianic titles applied to
Christ, 148 sq

Messias, the name, 17, 141

Meyer, 275, 279 sq, 342, 424, 425

Miltiades, 98

Mommsen, 248

Montanism; date of, 98; traceable in
the Acts ofPerpetua, 103; dislike of
the Alexandrian fathers to, 333 ; no
allusion in the Fourth Gospel to, 5,
76, 80, 115 sq

Moses; as a type of Christ, 26, 150;
detailed parallelism in rabbinic
teaching, 151 sq; our Lord's atti-
tude towards, 146 ; Jewish reverence
for, 156

Muratorian Canon; place of writing,
97; authorship, 98; language, 98;
date, 98; its testimony to the synop-
tists, 98; to the Fourth Gospel,
99 sq, 121 ; on the circumstances of
the composition of the Fourth Gospel ,
99, 196, 198; perhaps based on
Papias, 100 ; the notice of the Epistle
to the Laodiceans in, 383 ; the pas-
sage explained, 383; on St Paul's
release, 424, 427

t*a6rjTris, 57, 98

Me<nrias, peculiar to the Fourth Gos-
pel, 145

Naassenes; see Ophites

Nablus, 33

Narcissiani, 302 sq

Navigation, ancient, when possible, 220

456

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Nicknames, 119

Nicodemus, designation in the Fourth

Gospel of, 195
Nicophorus Callistus, 95
Nicopolis, 405, 432, 433, 435 sq

Oehler, 336

Onesiphorus, 433, 436, 437

Ophites ; date of, 105 ; a large sect,
109 ; quote the Fourth Gospel, 106 ;
their system compared with the
heresy attacked in the Pastoral
Epistles, 416 sq

Origen; used the Fourth Gospel, 93;
used MSS omitting tv 'E0e<ry in Eph.
i. 1, 377 sq; the passage emended,
378 ; his testimony compared with
Basil's, 379 sq ; his reading of Eom.
i. 7, 15, 287; on Gaius, 247,268;
on Marcion's recension of the Ro-
mans, 288 sq, 318, 329 sq; Rufinus
as a translator of, 329, 345 ; a passage
emended, 330, 341, 353 sq; Jerome
incorporates his commentary, 333 sq,
354, 386 ; and disfigures it, 386

Otto, 399, 423

Lia and #60X0710, 229 sq

Palestine, the Churches of, testimony
to the Fourth Gospel from, 85 sq

Paley, 275, 290, 349

Pallas, 219

Pantaenus ; date of his visit to India,
92, 95; probable author of the end
of the Epistle to Diognetus, 92

Papias ; his history and writings, 63 sq;
probably one of Ireneeus' elders, 67 sq;
Eusebius' evidence considered, 64 sq,
68; Eusebius' antipathy to, 66; his
evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 67 ;
obligations of the Muratorian Canon
to, 100; other references to, 11, 51, 53

Pastoral Epistles ; the problem of their
authorship, 399 sq ; date and charac-
teristics of, 224, 228 sq, 429 ; occa-
sion and purpose, 434 sq, (1) style
and intrinsic character, 400 sq, (i)
vocabulary, 401; (ii) syntax, 402;
(iii) tone of thought, 402; (2) his-
torical notices, 403 sq, (i) actual
incidents, 403 sq; (ii) condition of
the Church, 407 sq, (a) ministry,
407; (b) heresies, 408, (c) church
literature, 409 sq ; the heresy com-
bated in, 411 sq

Paul (St) ; his preparation for the
ministry, 201 sq ; as (1) a citizen of
Rome, 202 sq; (2) a native of a
Greek university-town, 205 sq ; (3) a
Hebrew, 207 sq ; twofold results of
his Hebrew training, 208 sq ; of his

position as a Pharisee, 210 sq; his
intellectual power gauged, 206; his
love for the Jews continuous, 209;
chronology of his life and Epistles,
215 sq, 428 sq; groups and leading
characteristics of his Epistles, 224 sq ;
justification by faith not the central
point in his Gospel, 231; import-
ance of his first visit to Macedonia,
237 sq ; his choice of missionary
stations there, 240 sq; area of his
preaching in Macedonia, 244; fre-
quent communications with the
Macedonian Churches, 245 sq ; his
extant letters to them, 247 ; his
Macedonian companions, 246, 305;
affectionate relations with Mace-
donia, 249 ; at Thessalonica, 259 sq ;
topic of his preaching there, 260;
of his Epistles to the Thessalonians,
263 sq; at Ephesus, 274 sq, 387 sq,
404 sq ; pays an unrecorded visit to
Corinth, 222, 274, 405 ; joins Titus
in Macedonia, 283 ; circumstances
and object of writing his Epistle to
the Romans, 285 sq, 321 sq, 352 sq;
evidence for his release from cap-
tivity, 399, 403 sq ; a counter argu-
ment disposed of, 421 sq ; his release
supported by tradition, 423 sq ; its
date, 429 ; his subsequent move-
ments, 428 sq ; date of his martyr-
dom, 221, 429; see also Pauline
Epistles

Pauline Epistles ; groups and charac-
teristics of, 224 sq ; Wieseler's order
of, 403 ; circular, 319, 391 sq ; lost,
275; forged, 383

Paulus, 178, 291, 405

Pelagius on St Paul's release, 426

Pella in the time of St Paul, 243

PerataB quote the Fourth Gospel, 106

Pericope adulterae, 69

Perpetua and Felicitas, Acts of; date
of, 103 ; bear testimony to Johannine
writings, 102 sq

Peter (St) ; his character in the Fourth
Gospel, 182, 183 sq; called son of
John, 18 sq ; the order of his denials,
191

Peter, First Epistle of; as restored by
Bunsen, 276 ; indebted to the Epistle
to the Ephesians, 396

Pharisees; contrasted with the Sad-
ducees in their attitude towards the
Jewish law, 208 sq ; in their patriot-
ism, 210 sq ; effect of their system
on St Paul, 208 sq

Philip the Apostle ; in Asia Minor,
53; mentioned by Papias, 69; his
character, 128, 188

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

457

Philip the Evangelist, in Asia Mi nor, 5 3

Philippi ; its name, 241, 253 ; its geo-
graphical importance, 242 ; Jews at,
248 ; St Luke at, 245 ; gold-mines of,
248; social status of the Church
of, 248 ; see also Macedonia, the
Churches of

Philippus Sidetes, errors of, 95

Philo, 165, 167

Phlegon, 303

Phoebe in the theories as to the struc-
ture of the Epistle to the Romans,
291, 292

Pilate ; his character as drawn in the
Fourth Gospel, 37 sq, 186 sq; irony
of circumstances illustrated in his
case, 29; date of his recall, 58

Piatis Sophia, correspondences in the
Fourth Gospel with, 107 sq

Plutarch, 166

Pococke, 253 sq

Polycarp; a pupil of St John, 53; his
great age, 54 ; his martyrdom, 79 ;
his testimony to the Ignatian Epi-
stles, 4; to the Johannine writings,
62 sq ; notice in Irenseus of, 55,
62 sq; the Church of Philippi in
the time of, 248

Polycarp, Martyrdom of; see Letter of
the Smyrnceans

Polycrates, his testimony to the Fourth
Gospel, 51, 75

Poppasa, funeral of, 165

Pothinus, great age of, 54

Procurators of Judaea, 58, 162, 216 sq

'Prophet, the'; in Messianic expecta-
tion, 25; by Jews distinguished from,
by Christians identified with the
Messiah, 25, 150

Protevangelium, 15, 40

Ptolemseus quotes the Fourth Gospel,
111

Public lections, 312, 342 sq

jroAircipxat, 256

Trpo^ariK-ri (17), 169 sq

TUX?; and dvpa, 97, 114

Quartodeciman controversy unnoticed
in the Fourth Gospel, 13, 80

Quotations from the 0. T.; in the
Fourth Gospel, 20 sq, 136 sq ; in St
Paul's Epistles, 20; in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 20

Rabbinic teaching on the Messiah, etc.

151 sq

Rabbouni, 17, 140
Ranke, E., 342, 343, 360
Rationalists, importance of the Fourth

Gospel against, 47
Reiche, 312, 342

Renan ; his theory as to the Epistle to
the Romans, 287 sq ; other references
to, 50, 174, 185, 269

Reuss, 423

Roberts, 128

Robinson, 171, 175, 176, 177

Roman ; citizenship, 202 sq ; military
terms and customs, 160 sq

Romances of the second century, 15

Romans, Epistle to the; phenomena
of the text, 288 sq; theories as to
its structure, 289 sq, 349 ; Renan's
theory of a quadripartite epistle,
293 sq; his arguments stated and
considered, 294 sq ; the four endings
tested by textual criticism, 307 sq,
321 sq, 329 sq; other objections
urged to Renan's view, 309 sq ;
counter theory of a longer and a
shorter form, 311 sq, 321 ; supported
by the mixed character of the Roman
Church, 312 sq ; the Apostle's object
in writing the Epistle, 315 sq, 324 sq,
366 sq ; the abridged recension to form
a circular letter, 315 sq, 319 ; textual
evidence for the abridged recension,
316; Dr Hort's criticism of this
evidence. 329 sq; recapitulation, the
evidence chiefly western, 272 sq ;
the final doxology belongs to it, 317,
366 sq ; style of the final doxology,
317 sq, 324 sq, 347 sq, 367; its
purpose, according to Dr Hort, 324,
328 sq; the salutations, 298; the
whole theory criticised by Dr Hort,
348 sq ; negative evidence against
the last two chapters, 289, 336, 355,
362; the evidence of capitulations,
337, 342, 355 sq; resemblance of
the epistle to the Epistle to the
Ephesians, 388, 395 sq; the epistle
a revelation of St Paul's personal
experiences, 208, 209

Rome, as an educator of the world,
201

Rome, Church of; its composition in
the time of St Paul, 294, 296 sq,
311, 312 sq; its literature, 96 sq;
evidence for the Fourth Gospel sup-
plied by, 96 sq

Rufinus; as a translator of Origen,
288, 329, 345, 365 ; a passage emend-
ed by Dr Hort, 330, 341, 353 sq

Sabatier, A., 180

Sadducees ; composed the chief priests'
party in the time of our Lord, 26 sq ;
their contrasts with the Pharisees,
208 sq

Salutations ; in Pauline Epistles gene-
rally, 298, 388; in the Epistle to

458

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

the Komans, 299 sq ; these last not
applicable to the Church at Ephesus,
300 sq ; no salutations in the Epistle
to the Ephesians, 388

Samaritan Messianic expectations, 154

Samaritan woman, incident of the ; as
a delineation of character, 190 ; as
an evidence of topographical accu-
racy, 33 sq, 191

Sanday, 49, 135, 148, 149, 164, 174,
178

Schaff, 400, 424

Schenkel, 423

Scholten, 50, 52, 146

Schott, 292

Schrader, 424

Schulz, 292

Secundus of Beroea, 246, 306; the
name, 256

Sedulius Scotus, on Eph. i. 1, 385

Semler, 292, 336

Serapion, 74

Sethiani, coincidences with the Fourth
Gospel in the writings of the, 107

Severianus, 388

Shechem, 33

Shechinah, its return expected with
the Messiah, 153

Sibylline Oracles show acquaintance
with the Fourth Gospel, 120

Silas in Macedonia, 245

Siloam ; the name, 17, 141 ; situation
of, 171 sq; associated with the Feast
of Tabernacles, 166, 171 ; with Mes-
sianic expectations, 172

Simon Magus, the Great Revelation
ascribed to, 105

Sin, Jewish doctrine of transmitted,
157 sq

Solomon's Porch, 29, 168, 181

* Son of God,' ' Son of Man,' Messianic
titles, 149

Sopater of Thessalonica, 246, 305;
perhaps not the Sosipater of Bom.
xvi. 21, 246, 305; the name, 256

Spain, St Paul's visit to, 423 sq

Stanley (Dean) ; his description of
Nablus, 33; his edition of the Epis-
tles to the Corinthians, 273 sq

Stichometry in manuscripts, 346

Strabo; on Tarsus, 205; on Thessa-
lonica, 255

Sufferings of Christ reflected in His
saints, 70

Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, great
age of, 54

Synaxaria, 342 sq, 363

Syria, the Church of, early literature
of, 104

160
i', 351

Tafel, 253 sq

Tarsus, intellectual prominence of,
202, 205 sq

Tatian ; his history, 89 ; his Diates-
saron, 4, 90; his other works, 90;
accepted the Fourth Gospel, 90

Tayler, 10, 50, 100

Temple; its restoration by Herod,
date, 30 sq; and character, 169;
detailed knowledge in the Fourth
Gospel of, 169

Tertius, 305, 323

Tertullian ; quotes the Fourth Gospel,
102 ; on the ending of the Fourth
Gospel, 194 ; on Marcion's Epistle
to the Laodiceans, 380, 381 sq ; did
he know Rom. xv, xvi? 289, 334 sq,
354; his use of clausula, 289, 335,
336, 354 ; of interpolare, 330, 382 ;
of titulus, 382; other references to,
267

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ;
date and character of the work, 114;
its coincidences with the Fourth
Gospel, 114

Texier, 253 sq

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 388, 426

Theodoret, 427

Theodotion's version of the LXX, date
of, 79

Theophilus ; his date, 83 ; quotes the
Fourth Gospel by name, 83, 120;
his lost commentaries, 84 ; appa-
rently a harmony, 85

Therma; see Thessalonica

Thessalonians, Epistles to the, occa-
sion and contents of the, 224 sq,
263 sq

Thessalonica; the name, 241, 253;
situation and history of , 254 sq; geo-
graphical importance of, 242, 254;
nearly made the capital of the world,
255; a large Jewish centre, 243, 258,
269 ; present condition of, 255, 269 ;
medieval and modern names of, 255 ;
inscriptions at, 256 sq ; St Paul at,
259 sq; his teaching there, 260; its
effect, 261; subsequent history of
the Church, 267 sq; of the city,
268

Theudas ; date of his rebellion, 147;
its Messianic character, 151

Thomas (St) ; the name, 18, 141 ; his
character as drawn in the Fourth
Gospel, 37 ; his connexion with
Asia Minor, 53 ; significance of his
mention by Papias, 69

Tiberias, 176

Timotheus; his communications with
Macedonia, 245, 263, 276, 278; sent
to Corinth from Ephesus, 222, 273

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

459

sq, 404; but failed to reach Corinth,
276 sq, 404; events in the subse-
quent history of, 404 sq

titulus, 382

Titus; sent to Corinth from Ephesus,
222, 273 sq; fulfils the abortive
mission of Timotheus, 280 sq; his
mission identical with that of the
'brethren' in 1 Cor., 280; why not
mentioned by name, 281 ; his status,
281; his route, 282; events in the
subsequent history of, 405 sq

Tradition, as evidence to authorship,
8, 40

Trophimus ; his position in the apos-
tolic age, 281 ; his movements, 406,
435

Tubingen School, 10, 42, 80; see also
Baur, Hilgenfeld

Turpie, 136 sq

Tychicus, 281, 391, 393, 395, 405, 435

#60X074 a and ot/covo/uct, 229 sq

6Tjpiofj.ci.xe MI 283

0vpa and wtXr), 97, 114

Tp/j.a rrfs dvffews (TO), 423

TTpd5lOV, 161

Uncritical character of the apostolic
age; alleged, 14 sq ; the argument
double-edged, 14, 32, 34

Unitarians and the Fourth Gospel, 47
Ussher, 392

Valentinians ; prominence of, 109 ;
schools of, 111 sq ; opposed by
Irenffius, 55; used St Luke's chrono-
logy of our Lord's life, 56 sq ; quote
the Fourth Gospel, 110

Van de Velde, 179

Vegetius, 161, 220

Victorinus Afer, 355, 384

Vienne and Lyons ; persecution at, 54,
77, 95; coincidences with the Fourth
Gospel in the record, 77, 121

Vulgate manuscripts ; capitulations
used in certain, 289, 337, 342, 351 ;
distinct forms of, 356 sq ; one form
derived from the Old Latin, 362,
372 ; connexion of these forms with
lectionaries considered, 342, 361 sq

Westcott, 94, 99, 155, 174, 312
Wetstein, a manuscript referred to by,

289, 337, 355
Wieseler, 275, 278, 282 sq, 400, 403 sq,

424

Winer, 130, 134, 244
Witnesses required by Jewish law, 165

Zacagni, 342 sq

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY j. AND c. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW

AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS

WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN
THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY
WILL INCREASE TO 5O CENTS ON THE FOURTH
DAY AND TO $t.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY
OVERDUE.

MAY 21 1936

MAY 24 1937

t-, + S /

&$&**_

M Pr'82JW

REC'D LD

MAR 1 R 196Z

IVIAK JL ^fe

LD 21-100m-7,'33

YC 407!

301618

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY