Criticism of the New Testament

Shelf No.

C .8(>

Register No..

19..

CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

ist Edition, October, 1902.
2nd Edition, April, 1903.

/ J /

CRITICISM OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT

ST. MARGARET'S LECTURES

1902

BY

W. SANDAY, D.D. F. H. CHASE, D.D.

F. G. KENYON, D.Litt., Ph.D. A. C. HEADLAM, B.D.
F. C. BURKITT, M.A.

J. H. BERNARD, D.D.

Second Edition

GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO.

Prefatory Note

THE condition of sound interpretation of Scripture
is honest and thorough criticism. Ultimately all our
theological and ecclesiastical discussions turn on
the treatment of the sacred text, and it is
beyond question that within the last two genera
tions the traditional treatment has been to an
extent which is difficult to exaggerate disallowed.
Much of our standard theological literature is
practically worthless because based on a discarded
exegesis ; and it is humiliating to reflect that
much current preaching and teaching of religion
is only tolerated because the religious public remains
extraordinarily ignorant of the assured results of
Biblical Science. In the prevailing ignorance un
warrantable fears invade the general mind, and create
a panic-stricken prejudice against critical studies,
eminently favourable to that resuscitation of fanaticism
which is one of the most curious and melancholy
characteristics of our time. It becomes therefore a

VI PREFATORY NOTE

matter of no slight importance that sound knowledge
as to the methods and conclusions of criticism should
be disseminated as widely as possible among the
people. The lectures here printed were designed as
a first step in a serious effort to awaken popular
interest in Biblical Science, and to set out clearly the
broad principles on which that criticism proceeds. Of
course only the fringe of the subject is here touched.
The names of the lecturers will sufficiently commend
their work to all who have any acquaintance with the
world of contemporary scholarship. Without ex
ception they speak with the authority of recognized
experts. I may be permitted to set on record my
cordial thanks for the ready kindness with which they
consented to co-operate with me in an undertaking,
which, apart from them, I should have been power
less to carry through. The famous and beautiful
Church of S. Margaret, Westminster, is, in many
notable respects, well suited to be a teaching-centre
of that New Learning, which is slowly but surely
revolutionizing Christian thought. I have always felt
that the critical results, secured by the labours of
scholars in the Universities, ought to be more directly,
and, so to speak, naturally communicated to the
Church at large, and given their proper effect in the
current doctrine and worship. There are many
educated laymen, who have no time for reading
elaborate works, and whose lack of acquaintance with

PREFATORY NOTE Vll

the technicalities of criticism makes such works un
interesting and even unintelligible, who yet are keenly
interested in the honest treatment of Scripture, and
fully able to appreciate critical methods and results
when these are set before them with reasonable
lucidity. No worse disaster to religion could well be
imagined than the divorce of critical scholarship from
average belief. Criticism must not be allowed to
take an esoteric character, but, at all hazards, must
be held closely to the current teaching of the Church.
These lectures will have justified their publication,
and answered to the purpose with which they were
originally planned, if, in however small a measure,
they contribute to this end.

It is requisite that I should state clearly that every
lecturer's responsibility is strictly confined to his own
contribution, and that I myself must answer for the
plan of the lectures and the choice of subjects and
lecturers.

H. HENSLEY HENSON.

WESTMINSTER, August, 1902.

Contents

PAGE

INTRODUCTORY LECTURE : THE CRITICISM OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT, i

By PROFESSOR W. SANDAY, D.D., Canon of Christ
Church, Oxford ; Lady Margaret Professor
of Divinity in the University of Oxford.

MANUSCRIPTS, - 31

By F. G. KENYON, D.Litt., Ph.D., Assistant
Keeper of MSS., British Museum.

THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 68
By F. C. BURKITT, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb.

THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT, - 96

By PROFESSOR F. H. CHASE, D.D., President of
Queen's College, Cambridge.

THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS, - 145

By REV. A. C. HEADLAM, B.D., Rector of

Welwyn.

THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE ACTS OF THE

APOSTLES, - - 208

By J. H. BERNARD, D.D., Trinity College,
Dublin, Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral,
Dublin.

The
Criticism of the New Testament

THE Criticism of any work of antiquity has two
branches, which are commonly distinguished as the
Lower Criticism and the Higher.

The Lower Criticism deals with the smaller
questions of words and text. Its problem is to
determine as nearly as may be what the author
really wrote.

The Higher Criticism deals with the larger
questions of authorship, date, sources, composition,
literary and historical character. Its problem is to
set the writing in its place among other writings ;
to determine where it comes in place and time and
what are its relations, internal and external : I mean
what are the relations of the parts that compose it
to the whole, and what are the relations both of the
parts and of the whole to the surrounding literature
and history, i.e. broadly to the intellectual, and in

2 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

the case of the N.T., to the religious conditions
of the time.

These two groups of questions mark respectively
the spheres of the Lower and of the Higher Criticism.

The names are not altogether fortunate. They
have lent themselves to a rather natural misuse and
misunderstanding:.

o

It is obvious to take the Lower Criticism as mean
ing the inferior, and the Higher as meaning the
superior branch of the science. The Lower Criti
cism is apt to seem a work of drudgery. And it
is possible to discern sometimes in the Higher
Critic just a shade of self-complacency, as though
he were in possession of a mystery not to be shared
with the profane crowd. And where the critic
does not make this assumption for himself the
outside world is apt to make it for him. It is
better to dismiss any such associations as these,
and to treat the two departments as being what
they are, simply two branches of one science that
come into the day's work each in its turn.

My duty on the present occasion is, not to go into
any details, which will be dealt with by my successors,
but to describe to you as shortly and as broadly
as I can the main problems and the present position,
first of the Lower and then of the Higher Criticism
of the New Testament.

THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 3

It is well at the outset that you should realize
the extraordinary intricacy and subtlety of the
questions arising under each of these heads, but
especially under the first.

No other book comes anywhere near the N.T.
in the extent, the variety, and the excellence of
the evidence of its text.

The Greek MSS. alone are said to number some
three thousand. Some of these go back to the
fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries of our era : one
recently-discovered fragment is said to be even as
old as the third.

Then there is a series of very ancient and
important versions, each with a number, and some
with a very great number of MSS. of its own.

Besides these, there is the almost inexhaustible
field of Patristic quotations in Greek and Latin
which render valuable aid in determining the text.

Two ancient authors, Homer and Virgil, have
MSS. (in the first case only fragments) as old,
or even older than the MSS. of the N.T. And
for these poems, quotations, and the writings of
early grammarians supply material of value. But
the limits of variation in verse are less than those
in prose ; and the N.T., from the peculiar cir
cumstances of its early transmission, is exceptional
among prose writings. The text of Virgil has
been well preserved, and presents few difficulties ;

4 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

while the chief of those which beset the text of
Homer go back behind the MS. tradition.

The real problem of the text of the N.T. has
a parallel only in the case of the O.T., and that is
in some important respects different.

It has come to be understood that the only way
of approaching a problem of this magnitude and
complexity is by first seeking to recover the history
of the text that has passed through so many vicis
situdes. For this purpose direct historical state
ments help us but little, and we are thrown back
upon critical analysis — a process which is itself
subtle and complex in proportion to the extent
of the field which it covers and the multitude of
documents which it includes.

The first writers to grapple with this problem
of recovering the history of the N.T. text at close
quarters and in its full extent were the two
Cambridge scholars, Westcott and Hort. Of
course they had predecessors, more particularly
Griesbach and Lachmann ; and the materials on which
they worked were contributed mainly by others
(especially Tischendorf and Tregelles). But no
one before them had confronted the problem with
the 'same penetration and breadth of view. The
two volumes of introduction published in the same
year as the Revised Version (1881) were an heroic
achievement, the greatest single achievement that

WESTCOTT AND HORT S THEORY 5

English theological science has to show in the
century now past. It was a complete science in
itself, built up from the very foundation. Ten
years ago the text and system of Westcott and
Hort seemed to be in full possession of the field.
It had of course opponents, but no serious rivals.
To-day the situation is different. Still we may
say that there is no fully elaborated system to
compare with theirs ; but important discoveries
have been made which are thought in some quarters,
and those not the least scientific, to affect the
balance of the evidence as they had left it. There
is a spirit of enterprise and experiment abroad,
which has nowhere as yet attained mature results,
but which is actively at work, and the success of
which remains to be seen.

Westcott and Hort had made it clear that the
two oldest families of texts are that which they
called Neutral and that which they called Western.
The Neutral is in the main the text of the two
oldest (i.e. fourth century) MSS., the Vatican and
the Sinaitic. The Western is the text mainly
represented by the Latin Version, but really
diffused throughout the Christian world.

It is to this latter type of text that recent
discoveries have made the most marked additions.
The Sinai Syriac, brought to light by Mrs. Lewis
and Mrs. Gibson, is a text of first-rate importance.

O THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

It has stimulated the hope that a comparison of
the oldest forms of the Syriac Version with the
oldest forms of the Latin may reveal a text
worthy to be put in competition with that of the
famous Greek i uncials.

It is in this shape that I should like to state
the problem, as it appears to me to show the
greatest promise. An accomplished classical scholar,
Dr. Blass of Jena, has worked out a theory with
much ingenuity, which, however, 1 do not think
will permanently hold its ground. He would
make the two competing texts in the most con
spicuous instances represent different editions, both
proceeding from the hands of the original author.
It is true that we can trace up the types nearly
to the time when the writings were composed ;
but there is still a gap to be bridged, and Dr.
Blass' methods of reconstructing his text seem to
me open to some exception. My successors per
haps will treat of these issues more in detail.

The most interesting textual questions are con
cerned with the Gospels and Acts. Questions of
a similar kind arise specially in connection with
the Pauline Epistles ; but here they are less
important.

We may congratulate ourselves on the appear
ance within the last few weeks of a Handbook to
the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, which is

THE HIGHER CRITICISM

quite a model of its kind. Not only does the
writer, Dr. F. G. Kenyon, of the British Museum,
give an account of the materials of Textual Criticism,
which is remarkably full, accurate, and readable, but
his whole attitude towards the principles and methods
of the science is, I believe, the very best possible.
Dr. Kenyon's book brings English scholarship once
more to the front in this branch of the subject.1

For the general public the questions of the
Higher Criticism must have a greater interest than
those of the Lower. They are less technical, and
they touch points of greater moment. For what
ever the results of the Lower Criticism may be,
they are not likely to touch anything that is vital.
Only a small proportion of the various readings
that come in question affect in any degree signifi
cant points of doctrine or of practice.

But, when we pass over to the Higher Criticism,
the case is altered. Here far larger interests are
at stake. Questions of date and authorship that
might be indifferent in themselves become serious
through the facts which depend upon them. We
say that Christianity is a historical religion. That

1 Other books that may be recommended are Nestle's Intro
duction to the Textual Criticism of N.T. (E. T., 1901), the new
edition of Mr. Hammond's Outlines (1902), and a useful little
Primer by Mr. K. Lake (1900).

8 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

means that it rests to a large extent, on historical
evidence ; and it is the function of the Higher
Criticism to determine the exact nature and weight
of that evidence.

For this reason, the process is felt to be one of
no light responsibility. There is no other field in
which hasty theories or conclusions are more to be
deprecated. The unsettling effect of such theories
is often out of all proportion to the solidity of the
grounds on which they are based.

It should be said frankly that those who are
engaged upon the criticism of the N.T. in this
country are agreed in the principle that it must
be approached "like any other book." Their
position is, that if they would discover in what the
N.T. differs from other books they must begin by
making no exceptions, but applying to it the same
methods that they would apply to them.

Sometimes English critics are taunted with not
doing this. But the taunt is not well founded.
From a rather wide acquaintance with those who are
employed in this work, I can take it upon myself
to say that they have an absolutely sincere and
honest intention to look the facts in the face as
they are. If they can be shown to depart from
this principle, they would be the first to acknow
ledge their fault.

There are, however, just two reservations that

CHRISTIAN TRADITION 9

they think it right to make. To one of these 1
have already alluded, viz., that, in view of the
importance of the subject, they think it specially
incumbent upon them to proceed with great care
and caution, embracing, as far as they can, all the
facts, and rigorously testing each step before they
go on to another.

And the other reservation is, that, if they make
no assumptions in favour of the Christian tradition,
they also refuse to make any assumptions against
it. In other words, they refuse to put a docu
ment out of court simply because it contains the
miraculous. As this is the very element that they
wish to probe to the bottom, and to discover its
full significance, they feel it their duty not to pre
judge the case against it. There are abundant
indications of other kinds by which they can test
the literary relations of a writing without reference
to this question of the supernatural ; and, therefore,
they prefer to leave this till the last, when the
strictly literary criteria have had full weight allowed
to them. There is scope enough in the N.T. for
the Higher Criticism, properly so called, going its
own way, and following its own methods and its
own laws.

Each section of the Sacred Volume has its own
peculiar problems, many of them of great per-

IO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

plexity ; so that, in spite of the immense labour
expended upon them, there are still many on
which there is not as yet any clear agreement.

I will go rapidly through the N.T. section by
section, trying to show what are the main issues,
and how they arise, endeavouring also to give yon
some idea of their present position.

It should be distinctly understood that the
questions raised — at least those on which I shall
touch — are real questions, and are not wantonly
invented. They demand an answer ; and criticism
is doing its best to answer them. For this it should
not be condemned, even though some of the
hypotheses employed should seem far-fetched and
complicated. Complex facts require what will seem
to be complicated hypotheses. And although the
effort is always after simplicity, there are some
solutions that cannot be simple. It is easy to cut
the knot, but not so easy to untie it. Much
patience therefore is needed — patience on the part
of the critic and patience also on the part of the
public that judges of his criticism.

That which makes the first three Gospels stand
out as a group unique in literature is the extra
ordinary relation between them at once of close
verbal resemblance and of marked difference. If
either of these phenomena stood alone, we should

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM II

have no great difficulty. If we took the resem
blances, it would be easy to say either that the
three Gospels were copied from or based freely
upon one another (e.g. St. Matthew following in
the steps of St. Mark, and St. Luke following upon
St. Matthew), or that they were all three based
upon a common original. But then there come in
the differences ; and it is asked how are we to
account for these ?

There have always been some, but there are
probably fewer at this moment than at any time
previously, who have held, or hold, that the peculiar
relations in which the Gospels stand to one another
are to be explained by oral tradition. They think
that nothing was written until we come to the
Gospels as we have them, but that the resemblances
are caused by the way in which the narrative was
committed to memory and repeated by the different
narrators to a large extent in the same words. This
view had the high authority of the late Bishop
Westcott.

It is, however, held now quite by a minority, and
even a small minority. Most scholars think that the
resemblances are too ck>se to be explained in this way.

The same large majority are agreed in holding
that the three Gospels are really based on a common
original which very nearly coincided with our present
St. Mark.

12 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

I say " very nearly coincided " — nearly but not
quite. And in that distinction lies the delicacy of
the problem and the necessity for theories that may
seem to be fine-spun.

I must not go into these ; but speaking broadly
it may be said that on what is called " the priority
of St. Mark " there is an imposing amount of
agreement among scholars of all nationalities. If
any one wants to know the oldest form in which a
complete Gospel narrative was drawn up he has
only to read our present St. Mark, all but the last
twelve verses, which have a history of their own.

That is the first document. Then there is also
considerable agreement in the view that there was
a second primitive document, to which perhaps only
two out of the three Evangelists had access, but
which in any case was most largely used in the First
Gospel and the Third. This document would
include the common matter, which is mostly dis
course, in St. Matthew and St. Luke.

Taken together these two assumptions, of the
priority of St. Mark, and a second source consisting
mainly of discourse, constitute what is known as
the Two-Document Hypothesis.

It has the advantage that it corresponds roughly
to a statement by a very early writer called Papias
in regard to the Gospels — a statement probably going
back to the first decade of the second century.

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 13

This Two-Document Hypothesis is at the present
moment more largely accepted than any other,
though it is right to say that the second half of
the hypothesis is not quite so generally accepted as
the first ; and among the dissentients are some whose
opinions deserve attention.

The principal difficulty in regard to the second
document is, that of the passages that would natur
ally be referred to it some are so much closer
in their wording than others. Some sections
of the common matter in St. Matthew and
St. Luke are almost verbatim the same, whereas
others are widely divergent. It is not surprising
that the question should be asked how it is possible
to refer these to one and the same document ?
Perhaps this difficulty may be removed by a further
hypothesis which is finding favour in some quarters,
viz., that besides the second document, commonly
called the Logia or Oracles, St. Luke has also a
special document of his own, which in part over
lapped the Logia. The theory is that for some
reason, probably derived from the way in which it
reached him, St. Luke attached a special weight to
this document and, where it contained the same
matter as the Logia, preferred its wording. Besides
a part of the common matter in St. Matthew
and St. Luke, this special source would include
that group of parables in chapters x.-xviii. which

14 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

give such a distinctive character to the Third
Gospel.

It may be said that average opinion, agreeing in
this with an ancient statement in Irenaeus, would
place the composition of the first three Gospels
within the twenty years 60-80 A.D.

In regard to the Fourth Gospel, although there
has been some approximation between the opposing
views, and although even in their more extreme
forms these are not so widely removed as they were,
there is still a rather sharp opposition.

The great question arises from the comparison of
this Gospel with the other three.

Now it is of interest to note that the ancients,
as well as the moderns, made this comparison and
observed the differences which it brought out. I
do not mean that they observed all the minute
differences of which we are conscious, but broadly
speaking they were aware of the facts, and they had
their own way of accounting for them.

According to them St. John had the other Gospels
brought to him and approved them, adding his own
testimony to their truth ; but they add that he noticed
an omission of some things, more particularly at the
beginning of our Lord's public ministry. They said
that, at the instance of the disciples by whom he
was surrounded, he undertook in part to supply this

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 15

omission, and at the same time to write a Gospel
which should lay more stress upon the Divine side
of the history, the human side having been suf
ficiently treated. As Clement of Alexandria puts
it, writing about the year 200 A.D. : " Last of all
John, perceiving that the bodily [or external] facts
had been made plain in the Gospels, being urged by
his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a
spiritual Gospel." l

In other words the ancients held that the
deliberate object of the author of the Fourth
Gospel was to supplement the other three.

As a matter of fact this is just what it does.
It supplements the other Gospels both as to time
and as to place. The ancients noticed that
whereas the other Gospels began their main
account of the public ministry from the imprison
ment of John the Baptist, the Fourth Gospel
records a number of events before John was cast
into prison. And again, whereas in the other
Gospels our Lord's ministry was almost confined
to Galilee, St. John alone gives considerable space
to events that occurred at Jerusalem. It is
coming to be seen that the events of the Last
Week imply that our Lord did not then come
to Jerusalem for the first time. Both the enthu
siasm with which He was welcomed and the
lEus. H.E., vi. 14. 7.

1 6 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

animosity against Him require previous visits
to account for them. So that this supple
mental matter is rather in favour of St. John's
narrative than in any way adverse to it.

But no doubt the main point is that which
Clement of Alexandria had in his mind when
he spoke of St. John's as a " spiritual gospel."
This agrees with what St. John himself meant
when he wrote : " These [things] are written that
ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God ; and that believing ye may have life in
His Name."1 It was his object to bring out the
Divine side of the history ; he had felt the power
of that side himself, and he desired that others
should feel it.

All this we may distinctly recognise. When it
is said that the picture in the Fourth Gospel is
a one-sided picture, we admit that it is. The
Evangelist singles out one set of facts to put
prominently forward. This is just the intention
which Clement ascribed to him. He saw that
one side of things had been sufficiently narrated,
and he set himself to do fuller justice to the other.

The picture in the Fourth Gospel supplements
that in the other three ; but does it in any way
contradict it ? I do not think it does. We
might describe the teaching of the Fourth Gospel

1 John xx. 31.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL lj

as a series of variations upon the one theme which
has its classical expression in a verse of the Synop
tics. " All things have been delivered unto me
of my Father : and no one knoweth the Son, save
the Father ; neither doth any know the Father,
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
willeth to reveal Him."1

St. John is constantly playing round and setting
in new lights the filial relation of the Son to the
Father. But that relation is really the key, not
to his Gospel alone, but to all the four ; and in
deed we may say not to the Gospels alone, but
to the whole of Christianity.

I doubt if it would be easy to suggest a better
summary of the mental attitude of the author of the
Fourth Gospel than is contained in Browning's lines :

" I never thought to call down fire on such

But patient stated much of the Lord's life

Forgotten or misdelivered, and let it work :

Since much that at the first, in deed and word,

Lay simply and sufficiently exposed,

Had grown (or else my soul was grown to match,

Fed through such years, familiar with such light,

Guarded and guided still to see and speak)

Of new significance and fresh results ;

What first were guessed as points, I now knew stars,

And named them in the Gospel I have writ."2

1St. Matt. xi. 27. 2 A Death in the Desert.

B

1 8 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

It is just that. The Evangelist had learnt by re
flexion and experience that what he had recognised
as " points," as simple facts, were really some
thing more; they were luminous points, or "stars."

The Book of the Acts is a continuation of the
Third Gospel, and it is probable, that like the
Gospel, it is composite, or at least that to some
extent older sources, written or oral, lie behind it.
Here, however, we have no longer the advantage
of being able to compare other texts, and with
their help to define or discriminate these sources.
An interesting theory has been put forward, that
the document which served as a foundation for
the first twelve chapters originally formed part of
the "Special Source" of the Gospel. If this were
so it would not only be the oldest bit of con
tinuous Church History that we can trace, but it
will have suggested to St. Luke the idea of
following up his first volume by a second. Some
attempt has been made to test this theory by a
careful examination of the language of chapters
i.-xii. compared with that of the supposed " Special
Source" of the Gospel. But as yet the theory can
hardly be said to be either proved or disproved.

The critical question that is most important for
an estimate of the whole book is that which is
concerned with the later chapters.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 19

One of the first and most elementary lessons in
N. T. criticism will have been suggested to most
of us by what are called the " We-passages," i.e.
those passages in the later chapters of the Acts
in which the writer speaks in the first person
plural, as though he were himself included in the
party whose travels and adventures he is narrating.

Was the author of the Acts really himself one
of these companions of St. Paul, or is he incor
porating in his book what may be called a diary
written by some one else who had been such a
companion ?

English scholars generally have been of opinion
that the first of these hypotheses explains the facts
in the way that is simplest and; best. In this
instance the criterion of language .can be applied
more effectively than in the case of the earlier
chapters. And I would commend to your notice
especially the severely statistical argument in Sir
John Hawkins' Horae Synopticae, pp. 148-154,
which leads to the conclusion that " the original
writer of these sections was the same f person as
the main author of the Acts and of the Third
Gospel, and consequently, that the date of those
books lies within the lifetime of a companion of
St. Paul."

In keeping with this conclusion English scholars
have also as a rule attached a high degree of value

2O THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

to the historical narrative of the Acts. This is
equally true of Bishop Lightfoot,1 Professor
Ramsay,2 Mr. Headlam,3 Dr. Knowling,4 and of
the two most recent writers, Mr. Rackham,5 and
Dr. Chase.6 There is some exception in Prof.
P. Gardner's Historic View of the New Testament ;
but Dr. Gardner's disparagement is only an echo
of certain foreign writers and is not supported by
argument. There is more argumentative basis
for the destructive criticism of Prof. Schmiedel in
the Encyclopaedia Biblica, on which reference may be
made to the Church Quarterly Review for October,
1901.

The external evidence for the Epistles of St.
Paul is very strong. It goes to show not only
that individual epistles existed, but that the whole
body of thirteen epistles had been already collected
about the year no A.D. Still, there is a real
problem in connexion with these epistles, which

1 Art. "Acts" in Smith's Diet, of the Bible (ed. 2, 1893).

2 St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (London, 1895).

8 Art. " Acts " in Hastings' Diet, of the Bible (Edinburgh,
1898).

4 In the Expositor? Greek Testament, vol. ii. (London, 1900).

5 The Acts of the Apostles. An Exposition by R. B. Rackham
(London, 1901).

6 The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles by F. H.
Chase (London, 1902).

ST. PAULS EPISTLES 21

justifies to some extent the questions that have
been raised.

The Epistles of St. Paul fall into four clearly
marked groups : (i) a preliminary group contain
ing i and 2 Thessalonians ; (2) a central group,
i and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans ; (3) the
Epistles of the Imprisonment, Ephesians, Colos-
sians, Philippians, Philemon ; (4) the Pastoral
Epistles, i and 2 Timothy, and Titus.

Now it is true that if a literary critic were to
compare these groups together, he would soon
discover certain differences between them. He
would find in them differences both of style and
of subject matter. The epistles of the central
group have certain marked characteristics. They
are controversial ; and the controversies with
which they deal are conducted with great vivacity
of expression, and with rapid changes of tone
and manner. Sharp dialectic, stern denunciation,
and affectionate entreaty alternate with each other
in rapid succession. The sentences are frequently
short, and couched in the form of challenge.
They give the impression of a temperament keenly
sensitive, quickly roused and as quickly subsiding ;
of great powers of mind, applied in the most
varied directions ; of profound thoughts combined
with soaring aspirations.

When we turn to an epistle like the Ephesians

22 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

it is impossible not to feel a difference. The pro
fundity is there ; the aspiration is there ; but the
controversy seems to be in the background. With
it the old vivacity appears to be lost. The
sentences and paragraphs become longer and more
involved. The tone of challenge dies out. Even
the affectionateness seems buried in weighty but
almost laboured disquisition.

Along with this difference of style the subject
matter also appears to change. We hear less of
the law, of circumcision, of Christian liberty, and
the struggles of the sin-burdened conscience. The
leading thought is now that of the Church as the
Body of Christ, and of Christ as the Head of
the Church.

Again, when we pass on to the Pastoral Epistles,
here too there appears to be a change. The
number of peculiar words not used by St. Paul
elsewhere increases ; and the exposition of doctrine
gives place to details of ecclesiastical discipline and
practical organization.

All these things together make up a real pro
blem at which students of more conservative and
of more liberal tendencies have worked side by
side.

It has been observed in mitigation of the apparent
contrast —

(i.) That although there is a certain change of

ST. PAUL S EPISTLES 23

subject in the later letters as compared with the
earlier, there is never any real inconsistency ; the
germs of the later teaching are always to be
found, and are often expressed very distinctly, at
the earlier stages. The development can be shown
to be easy and natural ; and it is always develop
ment, not contradiction.

(ii.) Not only are the changes such as might
naturally take place in the same mind, but they
are also such as would inevitably arise out of
the course of events and through the shifting of
circumstances. The great controversy as to cir
cumcision rapidly reached its climax and rapidly died
down. The reconciliation of Jew and Gentile was
becoming daily an accomplished fact. The Apostle,
sensitive to every movement within his little world,
felt the progress that was being made and, like
the statesman that he was, lost no time in taking
advantage of it, to consolidate the advance by con
structive doctrine. The teaching of Ephesians and
Colossians only marks the phase which naturally
succeeded to that of Romans and i and 2 Corin
thians. And in like manner the peculiarity of
the Pastoral Epistles arose out of the situation
to which they belonged. There is not a single
Epistle or group of Epistles that is not connected
by manifold links of connexion with those which
had gone before.

24 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

(iii.) In regard to style it must be remembered
that St. Paul was a genius of extraordinary ver
satility. The differences of tone and structure
between the Epistles of one group and those of
another is not greater than that between different
portions of the same Epistle and of the same group.
We must allow for the fluctuations and oscillations
of a mind at once of remarkable sensitiveness and
remarkable range. St. Paul was a whole man ; the
emotional side of his nature was as strong and as
active as the intellectual, and the spiritual dominated
over both.

(iv.) St. Paul lived intensely, but more intensely
at some times than at others. A nature like his
implies a highly strung nervous organization. Such
a temperament has its ebbs and its flows, to which
physical conditions would contribute not a little. It
would be one thing to be moving about freely from
place to place, in daily intercourse with the brethren,
hearing their wants, entering into their disputes, and
seeing their dangers, — and a wholly different thing to
be living in confinement, actually chained to a
Roman soldier, and with only distant echoes of
what was going on in the Christian world borne
to him from without. It is not really surprising
that in the Epistles of the Imprisonment, the currents
of the blood and of the brain should seem more
torpid than in the rest. Neither is it surprising

ST. PAUL S EPISTLES 25

that the pressing controversy and stirring human
interests of the central group should be reflected
in a style more passionate and accentuated than the
Apostle's wont. Bishop Lightfoot has somewhere
pointed out that we make a mistake in taking these
Epistles as a standard of St. Paul's normal habit
of writing ; he thought that for this purpose the
two Epistles to the Thessalonians were better suited.

Following such lines of argument as these the
great majority of English scholars have satisfied
themselves that although there are these differences
between the groups, it is still more than possible
that the Epistles are all by the same hand, and
that St. Paul's. The differences are not to be
overlooked, but they cast an interesting light upon
the successive phases of the intense and strenuous
life of the great Apostle.

In Germany, too, there has been a steady reaction
from the extreme scepticism of the middle of the
last century ; so that at the present time Harnack
accepts ten of the thirteen Epistles, and only makes
the reserve that in the case of the Pastorals
materials taken from genuine letters of St. Paul
have been enlarged and expanded into their present
form. The other Epistles that are most questioned
are Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians.

The Epistle to the Hebrews stands rather by

26 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

itself. The main critical question in regard to it —
that as to its authorship — has made but little pro
gress since it was discussed by the scholars of the
end of the second and the third centuries, Clement
of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. Then, as
now, it was agreed that the writer was some one
allied in spirit to St. Paul, but the best opinion
was that he was not St. Paul himself : according to
Clement some said that the Epistle received its
actual wording from St. Luke, others from his own
namesake, the Roman Clement. Tertullian alone
states positively, as if from knowledge, that the
Epistle was the work of Barnabas. Origen says that
" who actually wrote it God alone knows." Since
that date the only plausible suggestion that has
been made is Luther's of Apollos ; and now quite
recently Harnack1 has thrown out the idea that
it may be the work of the pair, Aquila and Prisca
or Priscilla, and more particularly of the latter.
This too will seem to be a mere guess, but it is at
least supported with much skill.

The question as to the authorship of the Epistle
is closely bound up with that as to its address ;
and the question as to the address turns very much
upon the observation which has gained strength in
recent years, that the indications in the Epistle

1 In the new Zeitschrift ftir die N cutest. Wissenschaft, i. 1 6 ft".
(1900).

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES 2J

do not point to any large church or group of
churches (such as the churches of Palestine), but
rather to some small community like those which
are described as meeting " in the houses " of the
wealthier Christians. Just such a community met
in the house of Prisca and Aquila (Rom. xvi. 5,
i Cor. xvi. 19) ; and the personal greetings and
very individual allusions look as if they might
have been meant for a gathering of this kind. The
leading German scholars at the present moment
would seek the destination of the Epistle in
Rome.

The different constituents of the group of Catholic
Epistles stand upon a different footing. It is well
known that the books for which there is the
oldest evidence are i St. Peter and i St. John.
The criticism of the Epistles of St. John is naturally
bound up with that of the Gospel. The most in
teresting question raised by any member of the
group is perhaps that as to i St. Peter, how on
the supposition of its genuineness we are to account
for the relation in which it stands to the teaching
of St. Paul. It is now generally agreed that the
Epistle shows marked signs of Pauline influence.
On this question — and indeed on all points relating
to the Epistle — I should like especially to commend
to you the commentary recently published on the

28 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

two Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude by Dr.
Bigg.1 On all the problems both of criticism and
of interpretation, it is written with much freshness
and independence, not at all in the groove of any
particular school, and with a lively sense of what
is natural and human. Dr. Bigg states in an

OD

attractive way the view, which is also adopted by
Zahn, that Silvanus acted as the amanuensis of St.
Peter, and that the letter owed not a little of its
actual shape to him. In any case, we may think
of Silvanus as a living link between the two
Apostles.

Side by side with Dr. Bigg's commentary are
the two elaborate and even exhaustive articles by
Dr. Chase on the two Epistles that bear the name
of St. Peter in Hastings' Dictionary. A compari
son of these articles with the commentary will
place the reader in a good position for forming his
own conclusions.

I hesitate rather to speak about the Book of
Revelation, of which I have not made any recent
study, and in regard to which the critical problems
are so complex that no one who has not given
them close study should pronounce upon them.
If, however, I may give such impression as I
have for what it is worth I might almost do so in

xln the series of International Critical Commentaries : Edinb., 1901.

THE BOOK OF REVELATION 29

words recently used by my friend, Dr. Robertson,
of King's College. " The difficulty of reconciling
the indications which point respectively to the
Neronic or Domitian dates may be due to the use
by the seer, writing under Domitian, of earlier
materials. This is too thoroughly in keeping with
the phenomena of apocalyptic literature to be set
aside as very improbable. But the book as it
stands is too entirely the work of its final author
to encourage us to hope that the derivative passages
can be disengaged with any certainty from their
present context. In particular, the hypothesis of
a non-Christian Jewish original document appears
quite gratuitous. Nor can it be said that the
Neronic date for the whole book, in spite of the
present tendency to revert to the tradition to
Irenaeus, is wholly argued out of court." 1

I am inclined to agree with this estimate even
in the points in which it deviates somewhat
from that which would be held by many
scholars, except that I am not quite so sure that
the hypothesis of the use of non-Christian materials
is wholly to be excluded.

The rapid survey that I have been taking has
to do with the Literary Criticism of the N.T.,
and more particularly with so much of it as

urn Dei : the Bampton Lectures for 1901, p. 107 n.

3<D THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

English theologians have had no difficulty in
recognising. So far as this literary side of criticism
is concerned the century which has now elapsed
has seen a substantial advance. Many extravagant
theories, put forward by way of experiment, have
been discarded, and other sounder theories have
taken their place. The advance, if slow, has been
sure ; because it has been accompanied by much
careful testing and sifting. The amount of
agreement among scholars of different nation
alities is increasing, and a reasonable spirit on the
whole prevails.

I do not mean that there are not many serious
questions still remaining, but those questions are,
to a comparatively small extent, literary. Within
the region of literary criticism there is enough
common ground to make the conflicting opinions
no longer, as they at one time seemed, irreconcil
able.

The criticism that lies outside the literary sphere
is at the present moment rather in a state of
flux. Neither the questions to be asked nor the
answers to them stand out as yet with sufficient
clearness. It would be better that the professed
scholars should work at it a little more before it
is brought down into the public arena.

Manuscripts

THE criticism of the New Testament, as of any
work of literature of sufficient importance to be
criticised, falls, according to a common division,
into two parts, the higher and the lower criticism.
The higher criticism, as is explained more fully
in the previous lecture, deals with the origin,
history, character, and sources of the books in
question ; the lower with their text. Its function
is to determine, as nearly as may be, the precise
form and language of a book as originally written
down by its author; a task, the difficulty of which
varies greatly in different cases, according to the
age of the book and the extent and character of
the evidence available. It is important, however, to
recognise from the first that the problem is essen
tially the same, whether we are dealing with sacred
or secular literature, although the difficulty of
solving it, and likewise the issues depending on it,
are very different. It is important, if for no other

32 MANUSCRIPTS

reason, because it is only in this way that we can meet
the hostile critics of the New Testament with argu
ments, the force of which they admit. If we assume
from the first the supernatural character of these
books, and maintain that this affects the manner
in which their text has come down to us, we can
never convince those who start with a denial of
that supernatural character. We treat them at first
like any other books, in order to show at last
that they are above and beyond all other books.
It would be a lack of faith to doubt the issue of
such an inquiry, and the history of New Testament
criticism during the last two generations shows that
doubt would be unfounded. The application of
scientific criticism to the books of the New Testa
ment, by laymen as well as by clerics, by classical
scholars as well as by divines, has resulted in
establishing them on a foundation more unassailable
than ever.

But why, it may be asked, is criticism necessary
in order to ascertain the precise text of the New
Testament? The answer is simple. The necessity
arises solely from the conditions under which books
were written and circulated in ancient days. It
is only since the invention of printing that there
has been any possibility of guaranteeing that all
copies of a book should be identical ; and out of
the eighteen hundred or eighteen hundred and

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 33

fifty years which separate us from the time at
which these books were written, only four hundred
and fifty are covered by the existence of printing.
Before printing was invented, every copy of a book
had to be separately written by hand ; and, as those
who have ever done much copying will know, by
no possibility can the human hand and eye be kept
from making mistakes. Mistakes, if not recog
nised, are perpetuated by later scribes ; if recognised,
they will often be wrongly corrected ; and so the
circle of error goes on widening from generation
to generation. Of all the many thousand manu
script copies of the Bible in existence it may safely
be asserted that no two are quite alike, and that
none is wholly free from error.

The function of textual criticism, then, is the
removal of these errors. The basis of its procedure
lies in the comparison of all the available authorities.
We must ascertain what copies of the book in
question are in existence, and which of them come
nearest in date to the lifetime of the original
author. We must also make up our mind, by the
application of the ordinary and common-sense canons
of textual science, as to the comparative merits of
the several authorities. Many errors are manifest ;
and a copy which has evidently been carelessly
made will carry less weight in cases of doubt than

one which has been transcribed with care. Often

c

34 MANUSCRIPTS

one of two rival readings is manifestly derived
from the other ; and a manuscript which is found
to be addicted to such derivative readings will
carry less weight that one which is free from this
charge. By these and similar methods, all based
upon common sense, but which would take too
long to describe here, it is possible to gauge the
character of manuscripts, to divide them into groups
or classes, and to know what manuscripts or what
class of manuscripts most deserve our confidence
in cases of doubt.

Let us see, then, what resources are at our
disposal for ascertaining the true text of the books
of the New Testament. We do not possess, for
example, the very copy of the Epistle which St.
Paul sent to the Galatians, subscribed with large
characters in his own hand, nor that which St.
John wrote to the well-beloved Gaius with pen
and ink ; but we have many and ancient copies
of them in their original language, and still more
copies of translations of them into other tongues.
The number of manuscript copies of the whole or
parts of the New Testament exceeds immeasurably
that which we have of any other work of ancient
literature, and the earliest of them come nearer
to the date at which the books were originally
written. For most ancient Greek and Latin books
the manuscript authorities must be counted by units

AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT 35

or tens, very rarely by hundreds, while for the New
Testament they must be reckoned by thousands ;
and if we find that, out of all these thousands,
comparatively few reach the highest standard of
trustworthiness, we must remember that in the
case of most secular literature, for ^Eschylus, for
Sophocles, for Plato, for Demosthenes, for Livy,
for Tacitus, we are mainly dependent on one or at
most two copies, the value of which far transcends
that of all their companions.

The authorities for the text of the New Testa
ment are of three kinds : first, manuscripts, or
copies of it, or of parts of it, in the original Greek ;
secondly, ancient versions, or translations of it into
other languages — Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and so on —
which show us what form the Scriptures had when
they were translated into those tongues ; thirdly,
quotations in ancient writers, which show us what
sort of manuscripts the early Fathers of the Church
used in different parts of the Christian world. It is
only with the first of these classes, with the manu
scripts in the original Greek, that I have to deal
in this lecture. The versions will be treated by
another hand in the next lecture of this course ;
while both I and my successor will have to refer
to the evidence which the patristic quotations throw
upon the character and history of the authorities
with which we deal.

36 MANUSCRIPTS

Of manuscripts containing the New Testament
in Greek, or some part of it, more than three
thousand are now known ; and the question at
once arises, how are we to choose among so great
a crowd of witnesses ? The first step naturally is
to ask, how near do any of these manuscripts take
us to the date of the original autographs ? Now,
setting aside a few small scraps, which will be
mentioned again later, the earliest manuscripts of
the New Testament are two, the Codex Vaticanus
and the Codex Sinaiticus, which may be assigned,
on fairly satisfactory grounds, to the fourth cen
tury. There is consequently an interval of about
three hundred, or at least two hundred and
fifty, years between the composition of the books
of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies
of them. Is there any explanation of this interval ?
Is there anything abnormal about it — anything which
may be regarded as a ground of suspicion against
the trustworthiness of the sacred Scriptures ? Or,
if not, at any rate what effect has this interval
had on the state in which the Scriptures have
come down to us ? These are questions which
suggest themselves, and to which an answer must
be given.

In the first place, then, there is nothing abnormal
in this state of things. The same state of things
exists, in even greater measure, with regard to

MATERIALS OF ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS 37

practically all the works of classical literature which
have come down to us. With the exception of a
few manuscripts on papyrus which have come to
light of recent years, there are no classical manu
scripts of earlier date than those of the New
Testament, and that although the originals were
composed several centuries before the Gospels and
Epistles. There is nothing in this circumstance to
cast doubt upon our sacred books ; it is merely
the result of the conditions under which books were
produced before the fourth century of our era. To
understand the problems of textual criticism, espe
cially in the New Testament, it is necessary to bear
in mind the conditions under which books were
written and circulated in those far-off days.

During the first century of the Christian era, and
for a considerable period both before and after
wards, the material upon which books were written,
in all the countries in which the various parts of
the New Testament were composed and copied,
was papyrus. This material, made out of the pith
of the papyrus plant, which at that time grew plenti
fully in Egypt, whence it was exported for use in
other lands, was a somewhat delicate fabric, not at
all calculated to resist the wear and tear of time.
Originally perhaps about as strong as modern paper,
it has become, in the specimens of it which still
survive, so brittle that it cannot be handled without

38 MANUSCRIPTS

serious risk of damage, and would speedily crumble
to pieces in the ordinary course of use as a book.
Consequently it is only under exceptional circum
stances that it has survived at all. In any ordinary
climate, damp and decay have inevitably destroyed
it ; and the only place in which it has survived is
in parts of Egypt above the Delta. There the
soil and climate are so dry that even this fragile
material, once buried in the ground, has continued
to exist, becoming more brittle, it is true, and
liable to mutilation in various ways, but still with
out losing legibility ; and hence, from the tombs
and rubbish heaps of buried Egyptian cities, have
been disinterred the precious fragments of Greek
literature, and the great mass of Greek business
documents, which have rewarded explorers during
the past century, and especially during the last
fifteen years. But with these exceptions, all books
written during the period when papyrus was the
material in use have perished utterly, and the litera
ture which they enshrined is known to us only in
copies made at a later date, when papyrus had
been superseded by a more durable fabric.

For more than two hundred years, consequently,
the New Testament Scriptures circulated mainly, if
not wholly, in this perishable material, and from
this period only the scantiest remains have come
down to us. A few scraps which can be assigned

PRESERVATION OF MANUSCRIPTS 39

to the third century after Christ alone survive out
of all the copies which may have once circulated
in Egypt, while outside that country nothing at
all is left. Had the Christian books been ordinary
products of the literature of the day, and subject
only to the same conditions as jfEschylus and
Sophocles, Herodotus and Thucydides, we still could
not be surprised at the disappearance of all copies
from this early period : for these authors have
fared no better than St. Luke or St. Paul. But
when we consider the position of Christians under
the pagan Empire, there is still less room for
wonder. The Christians were mainly a poor folk,
not much given to reading or writing, and
without free command of the ordinary means
of book-production. In Alexandria, where con
ditions were more favourable, and in the Delta
generally, the dampness of the soil is fatal to the
survival of papyrus, so that all copies written in
that part of the country have perished. Further,
the Christians were liable to persecution, and the
records of the persecutions show that their sacred
books were often a principal object of search and
destruction on the part of their persecutors. The
copies possessed by the churches, which would be
most likely to be carefully and correctly written,
would also be the most likely to perish in this
way. In many instances, we can hardly doubt, the

4O MANUSCRIPTS

tradition of the sacred text would be preserved only
in the private copies made by individuals for their
personal use ; and these, as we can see from the
example of similar copies of classical authors which
have actually come down to us, would often be
full of verbal and even substantial inaccuracies.
Opportunities of rectifying errors by comparison
with accurate copies at a distance or in other
countries would be few, and hence divergences
would increase and local types of text be formed.
Moreover, in the early days, when the speedy
coming of the Lord was expected, precise verbal
accuracy was of less importance than the substance
of the sacred record, and we cannot wonder if scribes
felt at liberty to alter the wording of the narrative,
or to insert incidents of our Lord's life which
they believed to be authentic and valuable.

Another characteristic of ancient books must be
mentioned, which had some effect on the textual
history of the New Testament. During nearly the
whole of the period in which papyrus was the pre
dominant book-material, books were not written in
pages, as they now are, but on continuous rolls.
This fact has long been known from the state
ments of contemporary writers, but it is only of
late years that specimens of such rolls have come
to light in considerable numbers. We now possess
papyrus rolls containing literary works, ranging

PAPYRUS ROLLS 4!

from the third century before Christ to the third
century after Christ, or to the seventh century if we
include rolls containing non-literary documents ;
and consequently we know sufficiently well the
general appearance of books at the time when the
New Testament was written. Now these rolls
seldom exceed a length of thirty feet ; indeed they
are generally shorter, and we must take it as
certain that they were never appreciably longer.
This is a length which, with medium-sized writing,
will about suffice for one of the longer books of
the New Testament, — one of the Gospels or the
Acts ; but it would certainly not hold more than
one. Consequently we must regard the New
Testament as circulating, not in complete volumes
such as we now have, but in a number of separate
rolls ; and we must not suppose that every Christian
had a complete set of them. Some would have one
Gospel, some another ; some books would be popu
lar in one country, some in another ; so that the
fact that an early Christian writer quotes some
books and not others affords no presumption that
the latter did not exist or were not recognised as
authoritative in his time. Also it must be re
membered that the text was not divided into
numbered chapters and verses. Divisions between
sentences might be marked, though even this is not
always the case ; but that is all the aid which we

42 MANUSCRIPTS

find given to the reader of an ancient book, and
it must have been far from easy to identify refer
ences. Hence we need not be surprised if early
writers quote inexactly and from memory.

It is during the third century that we find a
change coming over the methods of book-production.
In the place of rolls, we begin to find rudimentary
books. The material is still generally papyrus, but
it is cut into pages, which are fastened together by
strings passing through their left-hand margins, in
imitation of the sets of wax tablets which were
then (and previously) in use as note-books. To
books of this kind — our modern book-form — the
name of codex was given. At first they were used
for note-books, or for inferior copies of works of
literature, the roll form still holding its own for
the better kind of copies. But the Christian writers,
we may be sure, had often to make use of the
inferior and cheaper forms of reproduction ; and
such evidence as has yet come to light tends to
show that it was among the Christians especially
that the codex form was first used to any great
extent. The earliest extant examples of it nearly
all contain Christian writings, while contemporary
copies of pagan literature are still almost all in
roll form. In the few leaves of these codices which
remain to us from the third century — small and
roughly-written for the most part, with little of the

DESTRUCTION OF SACRED BOOKS 43

workmanship of the trained scribe — we may see the
relics of the volumes which the earliest Christians
used, easy to carry on the person, to pass from
hand to hand, and easy also to conceal in days of
persecution. But as roughly written books are
seldom accurately copied, we must not be surprised
if errors in detail crept largely into a literature
which circulated so much in private and half-
hidden ways.

During the third century, no doubt, the external
conditions of Christianity were improving. Its
congregations were larger and more important ;
toleration was more general ; and it could hold its
services and multiply its books with little interfer
ence from the populace or the civil power. But
these improved conditions were liable to sharp
breaches of continuity ; and when persecution came,
as under Decius in the middle of the third century
and under Diocletian at the beginning of the fourth,
it came with great severity. We know also, from
the records of these persecutions, that a special point
was made of the destruction of the sacred books, so
that the surrender of them became an act specially
marked among Christian congregations, into which
inquiries were held, and for which punishments
were inflicted, when the storm of persecution had
gone by. On the whole, then, we must not look
for any great amendment in the chances of survival

44 MANUSCRIPTS

for Christian manuscripts until the fourth century
was well advanced in its course.

We reach here a critical point in the history, not
only of Christian literature, but of Christianity
itself. In 312 or 313 complete religious toleration
throughout the Empire was proclaimed by Con-
stantine ; in 325 the Council of Nicaea was held ;
in 330 the new capital, Constantinople, was in
augurated with Christian ceremonial, and furnished
by the emperor with Christian churches. There
was no longer any obstacle to the free circulation
of Christian literature ; and at the same period a
new departure of the greatest importance was made
in book-production. This was the supersession of
papyrus by vellum as the principal material upon
which books were written. Of course the change
was not made suddenly at a given moment.
Vellum had long been used for note-books and
inferior purposes, and during the third century it
had been coming into use as a vehicle of literature.
A few — very few — specimens have been found in
Egypt which may be assigned to the second and
third centuries ; but outside Egypt, the special home
of the papyrus, the change seems to have gone
further. In the records of the search for books
during the persecution of Diocletian in Africa,
vellum codices and rolls (presumably of papyrus)
are both mentioned, the former oftenest, so that

USE OF VELLUM 45

we may conclude that the use of the new material
was fairly well established by that time ; but it was
only in the fourth century that its supremacy was
finally assured. Papyrus continued to be used, and
books written upon it are extant as late as the
seventh century, while in Egypt it remained in
use still later, after the Arab conquest had practi
cally closed the door to its export to the Christian
world outside ; but from the fourth century on
wards vellum is the material regularly in use for
the best copies of all works of literature.

This victory, which is marked for us by the fact
that the copies of the Scriptures which Constantine
ordered for the churches of his new capital were
written upon vellum, is of fundamental importance
in the history of textual criticism. In the first
place, it now became possible to include all the
books of the New Testament, or even of the whole
Bible, in a single volume, a possibility which pro
moted the consideration, and so ultimately the
determination, of the limits of the Canon. Secondly,
the new material was infinitely more durable than
papyrus, so much so that several volumes have
lasted, often with little damage, from that day to
this, and that not only, like papyrus, in the special
climate of Egypt. It is in fact from the fourth
century that the earliest extant manuscripts of the
Greek Bible (small scraps excepted) have come

46 MANUSCRIPTS

down to us ; and consequently it is from this
point that we begin to gather in the materials of
textual criticism.

In this manner the papyrus period may be
characterised as the period in which the textual
problems came into being, which we have to try
to solve with the help of the evidence afforded by
the later periods. This evidence can only be
briefly summarised, its extent is so great. From
the fourth century we have two great manuscripts,
the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, the
latter perfect, so far as the New Testament is con
cerned, the former wanting the Pastoral Epistles
and the Apocalypse. It has been supposed by
some that these are actually two of the fifty volumes
prepared at the emperor's command by Eusebius of
Caesarea for the churches of Constantinople ; but
for this identification there is no substantial evidence.
They may have been written at Caesarea, but per
haps more probably in Egypt. To the fifth century
probably belong two more great manuscripts, the
Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex Ephraemi—
the latter a mutilated palimpsest — and about twelve
small fragments. To the sixth century are assigned
the Codex Bezae of the Gospels and Acts, a
manuscript in both Greek and Latin, of most
remarkable character and great importance ; the
Codex Claromontanus, a Graeco-Latin MS. of

UNCIALS AND MINUSCULES 47

St. Paul's Epistles, and about thirty small frag
ments. The seventh, eight, and ninth centuries
add considerably to the totals of our manuscript
authorities, though their individual importance
diminishes as we pass further from the date of
composition of the books contained in them.

So far, all our manuscripts are written in what
is known as uncial writing ; that is, in capital letters,
each formed separately. Of such manuscripts, 129
are now reckoned in our lists, of which 47 contain
some substantial portion of the New Testament,
the rest being mere fragments. In the ninth
century, however, a new kind of writing came
into use, known as minuscule. This was a modi
fication for literary purposes of the common
writing of the day, and being far less cumbrous
and inconvenient than the large and heavy uncial
writing then in use, it rapidly superseded it as
the main vehicle for literature. Beginning in the
ninth century, and gaining a decisive victory in
the tenth, from that point onwards it held its own,
with modifications only in detail, until handwriting
was superseded by print at the end of the fifteenth
century. The greater ease of book-production
brought about by the invention of the minuscule
style led to a great increase of books, and especially
of copies of the Scriptures ; so that of minuscule
copies of the New Testament, or of considerable

48 MANUSCRIPTS

portions of it, no less than three thousand are
already reckoned in our lists.

Such being the mass of material, in manuscripts
alone, with which the textual critic has to deal,
it remains to ask what use has been, or can be,
made of it. Let me begin by suggesting another
question. How many of these manuscripts, do
you suppose, were consulted in the preparation
of the printed text which we find in our common
Greek Testaments, and from which our Authorised
Version was made ? Perhaps between twenty and
thirty in all ; and these selected neither for age
nor excellence, but for the most part because they
were the manuscripts which happened to be at
the editor's disposal. The first printed edition of
the Greek New Testament, that of Erasmus in
1516, was based on five MSS., and mainly upon
three only — one for the Gospels, one for the Acts
and Epistles, and one for the Apocalypse, all com
paratively late minuscule copies. A comparison of
this text with that of the Complutensian edition
and with fifteen MSS., mostly minuscule copies
at Paris, produced the edition of Stephanus in 1550 ;
and Stephanus' text, with very slight modifications,
is our Received Text to the present day. Only
one uncial manuscript, the Codex Bezae, appears
to have been taken into consideration at all, and

COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE 49

that but slightly. All the other ancient authorities
were either unknown or unexamined.

Consider then in what a different position we
stand to-day. Since the date of the establishment
of the Received Text, and since the publication
of the Authorised Version in 1 6 1 1 , scholars have
been busy in the collection of evidence from all
quarters, from manuscripts, from ancient versions,
and from quotations in the early Fathers. The
process may be said to begin with the great poly-
glott Bible of Bishop Brian Walton, of which the
New Testament was published in 1657 ; and it is
not finished yet. Within the last few months two
valuable uncial manuscripts have come to light,
one a sixth century fragment of St. Matthew,
written in letters of gold upon purple vellum,
the other a nearly complete copy of the Gospels
of the ninth century ; while the harvest gleaned
from Versions and the Fathers increases day by
day. It is not necessary to describe the accumu
lation of evidence in detail, but a few salient points
may be indicated. It is a process which falls into
two parts, the first being the collection of evidence,
and the second its classification and use. In the
department of collection, the model for all future
workers was set by Dr. John Mill, whose edition,
the fruit of thirty years' labour, was published in
1707. Other scholars followed in his tracks, and

5O MANUSCRIPTS

for the next 150 years it was the collection of
evidence which was the principal care of textual
scholars. Not until the nineteenth century was
well advanced did any critic set his hand to using
the accumulated material for a revision of the
Received Text. In this department of criticism
the pioneer was the German scholar, Karl Lach-
mann, who applied to the text of the New Testa
ment the principles which he had learnt in the
study of classical literature. Selecting from the
mass of authorities then at his disposal those which
seemed to him the oldest and the best, he con
structed from them a revised Greek text of the
New Testament, which was printed first in 1831,
and again, with fuller annotation, in 1842-1850.

Lachmann was followed by a pair of scholars
who have left a deep mark in the history of
textual criticism, Tischendorf and Tregelles.
Tischendorf had the good fortune to discover the
great Codex Sinaiticus, as well as a large number
of uncial fragments ; but Tregelles was not behind
him in labour or skill. Both were indefatigable
collators of manuscripts ; both applied their col
lations to the preparation of revised Greek texts.
Both did much to demonstrate, and did indeed
demonstrate conclusively, that the Received Text
rested on a slender basis of inferior materials, and
that, although the substance of the Scriptures was,

CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS 5!

no doubt, faithfully preserved in it, yet in details
it was capable of much amendment. Their labours
went far to establish the necessity for a revision
of the Received Text, and therewith of the
Authorised Version.

One step yet remained to take ; a step of great
importance. In dealing with manuscripts of
classical literature, it is usual (now, indeed, uni
versal) to try to divide them into groups, accord
ing to their relationships to each other. Some
MSS. can be shown to be copied, directly or in
directly, from others ; some to be descendants
from a common original nearer to the author's
autograph ; some to represent a revision under
taken by a mediaeval editor ; while of such groups
or families some can be shown to be distinctly
preferable to others, and consequently to deserve
credence in cases which otherwise would be
doubtful. So far, no one had succeeded in apply
ing this system to the manuscripts of the New
Testament. Tentative classifications had indeed
been made by a few scholars, of whom the most
distinguished was Griesbach, about the end of the
1 8th century ; but their classifications had been
rejected by their contemporaries, and even they
themselves had not ventured to apply them to
the actual restoration of the Biblical text.

This step was taken by the two great Cambridge

52 MANUSCRIPTS

scholars, whose names are household words in.
the history of textual criticism, Bishop Westcott
and Dr. Hort. A knowledge of their principles,
and of the conclusions to which they came, is
essential for the understanding of the textual
criticism of to-day ; for at the present time every
scholar and critic of note takes off from the theory
which they laid down. This theory can be out
lined in a few words. An examination of the
evidence which has been collected from Manu
scripts, Versions, and Fathers shows that, in cases
where differences exist, certain authorities are found
habitually to agree with one another, and to be
in opposition to certain other groups similarly
formed. Thus groups can be distinguished, each
having presumably some common ancestor, short
of the original author's autograph ; and we are
then in a position to go further, to estimate the
comparative value of each of these groups, and
to try to locate their respective ancestors in space
and time, that is, to determine where and when
the types of text which they represent came into
existence. It will be evident very shortly how
this is done.

Westcott and Hort, following the lines laid down
by Griesbach, but following them more elaborately,
distinguished four classes or groups in the authorities
for the text of the New Testament. First, there

WESTCOTT AND HORT S CLASSIFICATION 53

is the group to which the Received Text belongs ;
a group to which, moreover, the vast majority of
manuscripts belongs ; a group which has had the
preponderance in the textual tradition at least since
the 6th century. This group Westcott and Hort,
for reasons which will appear shortly, call the
Syrian group. Those who prefer a more colour
less, and therefore less question-begging, name,
may indicate it by the first letter of the Greek
alphabet and call it the Alpha-group (a). Secondly,
there is a group to which the earliest extant manu
scripts belong, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex
Sinaiticus, supported by a few later uncials and
minuscules, and by one, and to some extent two,
of the ancient Egyptian versions. This group
Westcott and Hort call the Neutral group, indi
cating thereby their belief in its superiority to its
rivals ; our alternative name for it would be the
Beta-group (/3). The third group is only, so to
speak, a sub-species of the last named, found
when there is a difference among the authorities
of that group. Such differences Westcott and
Hort believed to be due to slight verbal altera
tions, made probably to suit the taste of that
great centre of literary criticism, Alexandria ; con
sequently they call it Alexandrian. The more
cautious name for it is the Gamma-group (7).
Finally there is a considerable quantity of authorities,

54 MANUSCRIPTS

generally of veiy early date, marked by strong
divergences, of addition, of subtraction, and of
verbal variation, from all the other groups. They
also differ considerably among themselves, and it
is difficult to suppose that they can trace their
origin to a common ancestor, but they resemble
one another sufficiently in the character of their
divergences to justify their being grouped to
gether. The most notable manuscript belonging
to this group is the Graeco-Latin Codex Bezae,
with which are allied some other bilingual manu
scripts ; but this type of text is better represented
by some of the oldest versions, notably the Old
Latin and the Old Syriac Versions. The marked
appearance of Latin authorities in this group led
Westcott and Hort to call it the Western group ;
but the name is misleading, and consequently here,
even more than elsewhere, a non-committal name
is preferable, and it may be called the Delta-
group ($).

Now, so far as the greater part of the words
of the New Testament are concerned, there are
no differences between the authorities which need
be taken into account ; and so far as the main
events and doctrines contained in them are con
cerned, it may be said at once that here too there
are no differences, though in some important passages
there are divergences in the exact wording. When,

THE EARLY FATHERS 55

however, differences of reading do occur, and we
find that the authorities are divided into the four
groups which have just been enumerated, on what
principles can we decide between them ? To some
extent a decision can be made upon the intrinsic
merits of the several readings. Thus in some cases
one reading has obviously been developed out of
the other ; in others it is possible to suppose that a
false reading has been imported into a passage from
another passage in which the context is similar — a
form of error peculiarly likely to happen in the
Synoptic Gospels, though the extent to which an
editor will admit it must depend upon his theory
as to the origin and composition of the synoptic
books. But such decisions rest largely on the pre
possessions and personal equation of the critic, and
we want a more objective criterion. Such a criterion
would be provided if we could trace the history
of the various groups of authorities, and so learn
which of them has the oldest and most trustworthy
ancestors. The essential part of the theory of West-
cott and Hort lies in their provision of this criterion.
It is in the evidence of the early Fathers that
the solution of the problem is to be found. By
an examination of the quotations from the Scrip
tures which occur in their writings it is possible to
see what sort of manuscripts they used, and to
which of our four groups (if to any) these manu-

56 MANUSCRIPTS

scripts belonged ; and then we can take a step
further and see to what date and to what country
our groups can severally be assigned. Now the
corner-stone of Westcott and Hort's theory lies
in the observation that no characteristic reading of
the a-group is found in any of the Fathers before
the period of Chrysostom — that is, before the latter
part of the 4th century. The presumption conse
quently is that this type of text is of relatively late
date, due either to a revision accomplished at some
particular time, or, perhaps more probably, to the
result of a revising process continued over a period
of time. This conclusion is supported by the fact
that readings of this type often appear, on examina
tion, to be the result of such modifications ot
readings occurring in the other groups as might
naturally be made in the interests of smoother
language or the removal of apparent difficulties.
It follows that when a reading is supported solely
by authorities belonging to this family (which
consists, as above stated, mainly of the later uncials
and the great mass of the minuscules), there is a
strong presumption that it is not the original text,
but the result of a relatively late revision. It is
the removal of such readings which causes the
greater part of the differences in the text adopted
by the Revisers of our Bible from that which
underlies the Authorised Version.

THE NEUTRAL TEXT (/3 GROUP) 57

Upon this point, namely, the secondary character,
as it may be called, of the a-text, critics are now
generally agreed ; the advocates of the old Received
Text are now few and far between. But when we
come to the remaining families, and have to make
a choice between them, it is less easy to arrive at a
decision. The third family (what we have called
the y-group) may indeed be left out of the question
for the present, because it consists mainly of merely
verbal modifications of the second ; but between
the second and the fourth (the fi and ^-groups) there
is much need for a decision, while the grounds for
the decision are far from clear. Neither can be
ruled out by the evidence of the Fathers as cer
tainly later than the other. Both have early and
good attestation. On the one hand we have the
/8-text supported by the oldest Greek manuscript,
the Codex Vaticanus, commonly recognised by
critics, even before and apart from this particular
stage of the controversy, as not only the oldest
but also the most trustworthy single witness to
the New Testament : by the Codex Sinaiticus, next
to the Vaticanus in age, and akin to it in character,
yet also differing so much that their common
ancestor must be removed by several generations
from them, and hence cannot be placed far below
the date of the original autographs ; by some frag
ments of early manuscripts (notably those known

58 MANUSCRIPTS

as T Z R 5?) ; by the late but remarkable codex L
of the Gospels, and a few of the minuscules, which
are evidently descended from ancestors of the same •
type ; and by one of the two main Coptic versions
of the New Testament (the Bohairic), with some
support from the other (the Sahidic) ; while it also
appears that the manuscripts used by Jerome in
preparing the Vulgate Latin version belonged to
this group. Besides Jerome, who thus showed his
preference (the preference of a professed textual
scholar) for this type of text, the great Greek
textual critic, Origen, also mainly used manuscripts
of this type, and occasionally Clement of Alexandria.
From all these authorities it is possible to form a
coherent text of the New Testament with great
claims on our acceptance, backed as it is by ancient
and trustworthy witnesses, some of them being
certainly, and others very possibly, associated with
Egypt, and especially with the great literary centre
of that country, Alexandria.

On the other hand we have in the ^-group a
large quantity of readings, markedly divergent from
all the other groups, not uniformly or consistently
found in any one set of authorities, but scattered
unevenly among many authorities in many parts of
the world. In other words, there are several manu
scripts and versions which frequently have readings
of this strongly marked class, but they will seldom

THE WESTERN TEXT (<5 GROUP) 59

be found all united in the support of any one
reading. Hence it is doubtful whether they can
be referred to a single ancestor, rather than to a
tendency to laxity in transcription manifested in
different places ; and it is misleading to speak of
the <5-group as a single family in the same sense as
the a and /3-groups may be so described. Intrinsi
cally, therefore, with their wide divergences and
wavering attestation, readings of this type would
not, as a rule, carry much weight. What gives
them authority is the very early date of the
witnesses which support them. So far as manu
scripts, indeed, are concerned, they cannot rival the
/3-group. The principal manuscripts of this group
are the Graeco-Latin Codex Bezae of the Gospels and
Acts of the sixth century ; the Graeco-Latin Codex
Claromontanus of the Pauline Epistles of the same
period ; the Graeco-Latin Codex Laudianus of the
Acts of the yth century ; four other late Graeco-Latin
codices of the Pauline Epistles ; with occasional
support from the Codex Sinaiticus and other uncials,
and several minuscules. These authorities in them
selves would not suffice to establish any great age
for this type of text, and the presence of a Latin
version in so many of them would point to an
origin in the West. But it is also supported by the
oldest versions, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac,
the origin of which probably goes back to the 2nd

60 MANUSCRIPTS

century, and predominantly by the Sahidic, which is
probably the earliest Egyptian version, and may have
been made in the third century. Of these remark
able versions more will be said in the next lecture
of this course. But more notable still is the
evidence of the Fathers. It is not too much to
say that all the earliest writers who quote the New
Testament sufficiently to enable us to discern what
type of text they used must have used manuscripts
of this character ; and they are not confined to any
single country. Justin Martyr, Tatian, Marcion,
Irenaeus, in the second century, Clement of Alex
andria and (to a less certain extent) Tertullian at
the end of the second century and beginning of the
third, Cyprian and sometimes even Origen in the
third, the Syriac writers Aphraates and Ephraem
and the African Tyconius in the fourth — all these
show by their quotations that they used manuscripts
akin in character to the Old Latin and Old Syriac
versions, and their witness is spread over all parts
of the Christian world — Syriac, Egypt, Africa, Italy,
and Gaul. Evidence so early and so wide-spread
cannot be ignored, difficult though it may be to
co-ordinate it.

This, then, is the textual problem which confronts
scholars at the present day. Putting aside the
claims of the a-text, our old Received Text, as
being now superseded by almost the common con-

THE TEXTUAL PROBLEM 6 1

sent of critics of all countries, we have on the one
hand the /3-text, comparatively homogeneous in
character, early in attestation, but somewhat limited
to the locality, or at least the sphere of influence,
of Alexandria ; on the other, the ^-text, supported
by very early and widely distributed attestation, but
far from homogeneous in character, so that it is
often difficult to choose between two or more
readings supported by authorities all of which be
long to this class. How can we decide between
them ? or how can we account for the existence of
this state of affairs ?

As will be seen from the next lecture, there is
much to be said in support of the <5-text, and some
of the best authorities on the subject are prepared
to go far in the advocacy of its claims, — further
than I myself should be prepared to go. The
problem is still unsolved, and various methods may
rightly be tried in order to solve it. It may be
suggested, however, that the key lies in the history
of the circulation of the Scriptures during the first two
centuries of their existence, of which some sketch was
given at the beginning of this lecture. The earliest
Christians neither felt the need, nor had they the
means, of securing precise accuracy in the transmission
of the documents of their faith. At first they were
not even sacred books at all. The Gospels were
simply narratives written by or under the influence

62 MANUSCRIPTS

of apostles, four of which stood out slightly or not at
all among a number of others ; the Epistles were
merely the letters of St. Paul or St. Peter, St. John
or St. James or St. Jude, written to various churches
for the purpose of instruction or exhortation. There
was no obvious reason why additions, believed to
be authentic, should not be made to the narrative
of our Lord's life, nor why precise verbal accuracy
should be insisted on in transcription. The second
coming of the Lord was looked for shortly ; it was
the substance of the message that mattered, not
its exact words.

Hence it is not surprising if variations crept
into the record to a considerable extent, even in the
earliest times ; and when once in, it was not easy
to expel them. Free circulation and comparison of
manuscripts was difficult in the early days, when
Christians were few and widely scattered, and also
later, when repression was apt to follow on too great
activity. Public copying and circulation of the
sacred books was always precarious, and in times of
persecution the books were a special object of
search and destruction. Hence there was no such
possibility of the establishment of a standard text,
and the removal of all variations therefrom, as ex
isted at a later period for the Jewish scriptures, or
to some extent for the classical writers ; and even
in these, as we know, errors crept in plentifully

THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT 63

during the manuscript period. For the first two
centuries of the existence of the Christian books,
the course of their textual tradition runs through
irregular channels, through private, uncorrected,
copies, transcribed often by unskilled hands in
villages of Egypt or Syria or Asia, not through an
ordered sequence of official copies, transcribed in
great libraries by trained scribes and under the eye
of an experienced corrector.

Only in one place can we see that a more favour
able state of things may have existed. Alexandria
was not only the headquarters of trained scholar
ship in the Greek world ; it was also the centre of
the Jewish colony in Egypt and of Jewish learning
in the world at large. There the Septuagint version
of the Old Testament had been prepared ; and
there, we may be fairly certain, was the first
Christian church in Egypt founded. By the end of
the second century we find a strong Christian com
munity established there, with a flourishing Cate
chetical School, of which Clement and Origen were
successive heads. There, if anywhere, we might
expect a pure text of the Christian books to be
sought for and preserved ; and while irregularity and
indifference to precise accuracy are easily explicable
in Syria and Asia Minor and Africa, we may fairly
hope for better things in Egypt, and especially in
such a centre of literary scholarship as Alexandria.

64 MANUSCRIPTS

These a priori considerations harmonise well with
the facts as we find them, and as they have been
described above. The /3-text, which Westcott and
Hort call the neutral text, has evident associations,
as we have seen, with Egypt, and even with the school
of Origen ; while the <5-text or texts may represent
the condition of the Scripture text in the rest of
the Christian world. Consequently it seems not
unreasonable to give one's confidence to the former,
with its internal appearance of accuracy and its
external associations with traditions of good scholar
ship, rather than to its irregular and eccentric com
petitor, in spite of the wide distribution of texts ot
the latter character. At the same time it is not
fair to represent the issue as finally closed. On the
contrary, there is an increasing tendency among
many scholars, whose labours and knowledge en
title them to all respect, to look with favour on
readings attested by authorities of the ^-text,
especially when they are supported by witnesses
from both the main groups of their family, the
Latin and the Syriac. To some extent one may be
prepared to go with them, and at least to give
their arguments in each case a respectful hearing ;
for as between these two ancient types of text it is
not likely that the Alexandrian tradition is always
right and its competitor always wrong. The very
ancient variants found in the various authorities of

VARIOUS READINGS 65

the (5-type must always be looked upon with interest.
Right or wrong, they circulated largely in the
Christian Church of the second century, and were
regarded as authentic by great Fathers of the
Church, such as Justin and Irenaeus and Cyprian ;
and sometimes they may embody authentic tradi
tions, even though they be no original part of the
books in which we now find them.

In the space of this lecture, it has not been
possible to give concrete examples of various read
ings characteristic of the several textual families
which have been described. But it may be possible,
in conclusion, to give some idea of them, and of
the issues which are involved in textual criticism,
by a reference to certain texts and translations
easily accessible and known to many. Our familiar
Authorised Version, and the Greek Texts printed in
the ordinary Greek Testaments, represent the a-text
or Received Text, and that not in its best form,
being derived, as we saw, from a comparatively
small number of late and casually chosen manu
scripts. The /3-text is embodied most thoroughly
in the Greek Testament of Westcott and Hort,
who are its special champions ; but in a modified
form it underlies our Revised Version. Bishop
Ellicott, the venerable President of the New Testa
ment Committee, has lately emphasised the fact that
the Revisers did not wholly surrender themselves

66 MANUSCRIPTS

to the guidance of Bishop Westcott and Dr. Hort ; l
but their text is in the main due to the adoption of
a similar view as to the comparative merits of the
principal manuscripts, and on the whole it is not
unfair to say that it represents the kind of text
which will be arrived at from an acceptance of the
principles advocated in this lecture. If we are to
go further, and recognise to any great extent the
authority of the ^-text, we must be prepared for
much more marked divergences from the traditional
text ; for the addition of one or two sayings of our
Lord which have not hitherto found a place in our
Bibles ; for the omission of several passages in the
later chapters of St. Luke (as noted in the margin
of the Revised Version) ; and for considerable alter
ations in detail, especially in the narrative portions
of the Acts of the Apostles.

One thing alone we need not fear ; and that is
that any modifications of text upon manuscript
authority will affect the fundamental doctrines of
our faith. In one form as in the other, the Scrip
tures testify with equal clearness of Christ, and the
foundations of Christianity stand firm. It is with
details, not with essentials, that we have to deal ; and
in the determination of them we can surely let
ourselves be guided by the use of the best faculties

lThe Revised Version of Holy Scripture, by C. J. Ellicott, D.D.,
Bishop of Gloucester, pp. 56-63 (S.P.C.K., 1901).

THE REVISED VERSION 6j

of intellect and judgment which God has given us.
If, as critical science assuredly leads us to believe,
the Revised Version contains a nearer approxima
tion to the words originally spoken by Christ and
written down by apostle or evangelist, then surely
its claim on our acceptance overpowers even that
of our venerable and beautiful Authorised Version.
At least one may plead that they should be used
side by side, the more accurate text being used to
check and verify and explain the more familiar,
until both alike are familiar and we have come to
see how great is the preponderance of clearness and
authenticity on the part of that text, which, though
seeming new to us, yet rests upon the oldest and
most trustworthy authorities. Fortis est veritas et
praevalebit.

The Ancient Versions of the New
Testament.

THE New Testament is a collection of books and
letters written originally in Greek, which it seemed
good to the Christian Church to place side by
side with the Sacred Books that the Church had
inherited from the Jews. A generation after the
crucifixion of our Lord the Church had already
become to a great extent a Greek-speaking com
munity, and the process was completed by the
great catastrophe of the Jewish War. The Church
of Jerusalem practically ceased to exist, and the
Aramaic-speaking Christianity of Palestine perished
with it. It is not too much to say that for more
than two generations after the destruction of Jeru
salem by Titus the Christian Churches were com
munities of people who spoke Greek and very
little else.

This is the dark age of Christianity. At the

THE CHURCH IN ROME 69

close of the period, that is to say about the
middle of the second century of our era, the
Catholic Church emerges, undeveloped indeed,
but still recognisably the same as the Church of
succeeding ages in its organisation, its theology,
and its sacred books. The New Testament of
the latter half of the second century is in its
main features — the Four Gospels, the Acts, the
Epistles of Saint Paul — identical with the New
Testament which we receive to-day.

It was about this time, during the latter half
of the second century, that Christian communities
sprang up in which Greek was a foreign tongue.
For a long time, we do not know how long, the
Church in Rome was a Greek-speaking body.
The early Bishops of Rome had Greek names.
The letter of S. Clement of Rome, written about
the end of the first century to the Christians of
Corinth, is in Greek. Justin Martyr, who lived
at Rome about the middle of the second century,
wrote in Greek ; so also did his contemporary
Hermas, brother of Pope Pius I. But the
Christians of Lyons in Gaul, and still more cer
tainly the Christians of Carthage, the capital of
the Roman Province of Africa, were folk to whom
Latin was the language of daily life. Such com
munities would not long be content to have their
sacred books left in a foreign tongue, and that

7O ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

the tongue of wandering traders and slaves. The
provincial Latin might be rude and mixed with
Greek and Barbarian idioms, but it was in theory
and in the minds of the provincials themselves
the Imperial tongue, in no way unsuitable for the
deepest thought and the most solemn occasions.
The course was clear, in Carthage certainly, in
southern Gaul probably, for a Latin Version of
the Bible.

The exact date of the first Latin Version of
the Bible, or indeed of any part of the Bible, is
uncertain. It is a remarkable fact that the
Latin Churches do not seem to have retained
any memory of this great event in their history.
We have no legend, no tradition to go upon,
and we are reduced to building up a theory from
scattered indications. Under these circumstances
it is better to begin at the end, at a point where
we have the light of contemporary history. If
we know but little about the earliest translations
of the New Testament into Latin, we do know
the history of the Revised Version which sup
planted them, the Version, I mean, which is familiar
to us under the name of the Vulgate.

In the last quarter of the 4th century the need
of some measure of uniformity began to make
itself felt, and Pope Damasus commissioned S.

S. JEROME S REVISION yi

Jerome, the most learned scholar in western
Christendom, to prepare a Revised Latin Version.
In accordance with this plan S. Jerome published
his text of the Gospels in 383 A.D., the rest of
the New Testament appearing some years after
wards. The version was at once accepted by
S. Augustine, and gradually made its way into
general favour. Substantially in its original form
the Vulgate has been used by the Western Church
for over 1200 years, and it was from the Vulgate
that all the early English translations of the Bible
were made from the days of the Heptarchy to
Wycliffe.

The texts which S. Jerome's Revision were
designed to supersede are known to modern
scholars under the general name of the Old Latin
Versions. The MSS. which preserve these pre-
Vulgate texts differ very greatly from one another,
so much so that S. Jerome declared that in his
day almost every copy had a distinct type of text.
But the general opinion of scholars now is that
there were not more than one, or at the most
two, independent translations from the Greek.
The differences seem to have arisen rather from
revisions of an already existing translation than
from an entirely fresh start.

The oldest form of the Latin version, of which
enough has survived for us to get a clear idea

72 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

of its style and character, is that used by S. Cyprian,
Bishop of Carthage from 248-258 A.D., i.e. about
130 years before S. Jerome's version. S. Cyprian
was a most diligent and accurate quoter, and his
works are well preserved in many ancient MSS.
By comparing his quotations with our MSS. or
the N.T. in Latin we find that his version survives
in a fragmentary copy of S. Mark and S. Matthew
now at Turin, called Codex Bobiensis (£), and in
the fragments of the Apocalypse and of the Acts
contained in a Palimpsest at Paris, called Codex
Floriacensis (h). Besides these two we may
mention a Codex Palatinus (<?) at Vienna, which
has on the whole a Cyprianic text, though it is
not free from mixture with later and more
commonplace elements. For the Apocalypse we
also have the Commentary of the late African
Primasius.

The identification of the African text is too
important a fact to be slurred over. As far as
our fragments carry us, that is to say, for the last
half of S. Mark, the first half of S. Matthew,
several pages of the Acts, and practically the
whole of the Apocalypse, we have the text of
the New Testament as read in the capital of
Roman Africa in the year 250 A.D. It is true
that our MSS. contain some faults, but they are
faults of transcription such as can for the most

THE CYPRIANIC TEXT 73

part be corrected ; they do not greatly hinder us
in the work of reconstructing the Greek text of
which these fragments are a translation.

That is, after all, our chief task — reconstructing
the Greek text from which the Latin is a translation.
The ultimate use of a version of the N.T. to the
textual critic is that it tells him what the text of
the original Greek was like at the time of the
translation. And the value of this reconstructed
Greek to us depends very greatly upon the age
to which we can actually trace it back. If we
are to feel any confidence that this or that phrase
or ' various reading ' is the actual word of the
original writer, I feel sure it must be because we
can really trace back the phrase in question to
the earliest times, not because it happens to have
commended itself to some critic of the ancient or
modern world.

To come back to S. Cyprian. The recension
used by him is the oldest that survives in our MSS.,
but we are able to carry the history of the Bible
in Latin somewhat further. The Cyprianic text
was itself not a primitive translation but a revision,
and traces of a somewhat different type of text
survive in the quotations of one of S. Cyprian's
fellow-bishops,1 Nemesianus of Thubunae on the
borders of Numidia. A generation before S. Cyprian

1 See C. H. Turner in Jour. ofTheol. Studies, ii. 602-607.

74 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

we have the numerous Biblical quotations and
allusions in Tertullian's works, but these must be
used with great caution. Tertullian knew Greek,
and there are indications that he often made his
quotations by direct translation from his Greek MS.
This much at least is clear, that at Carthage in the
first half of the 3rd century some books of the
Old Testament were revised from Greek sources.
Tertullian quotes Daniel from the LXX. version ; S.
Cyprian, and his contemporary, the author of the
Computes de Pascha (A.D. 243), use Theodotion's
version, though in S. Cyprian's case there is a large
admixture of LXX. readings. On the other hand,
Tertullian's quotations from Ezekiel contain many
readings derived from Theodotion, a curious cir
cumstance which has a parallel in some of the
quotations of Clement of Alexandria a little earlier.
But S. Cyprian's quotations from Ezekiel present
what we are accustomed to consider a pure LXX.
text.

Confusing as these details are in many respects,
they show at least one thing — that the Latin Bible
of 250 A.D. had a long and complicated history
behind it. We need not therefore be surprised that
the Scillitan martyrs, who suffered at Carthage in
the year 180 A.D., had in their book-chest 'epistles
of Paul, the just man,' and apparently a copy of
the Gospels also. In the trial of these martyrs

LATIN VERSIONS 75

there is no hint that they were acquainted with
Greek, so it naturally follows that their books
were in Latin.

The history of the Latin translation of the Bible
is even more obscure in the earlier stages of its
development in Europe than in Africa. We first
catch a glimpse of it in Gaul as early as A.D. 177,
the date of the persecution of the Churches of
Vienne and Lyons. An account of this persecution,
written by the persecuted Churches to their brethren
in Asia and Phrygia, is preserved in Eusebius.1 This
account is in Greek, but Canon Armitage Robinson
has shown that the author of the letter was more
familiar with a Latin Version of the N.T. than
with the original Greek text, and this Latin Version
was akin to the recensions used by Tertullian and
S. Cyprian.2

A few years later appeared the great work of
S. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons — the very place where
we have seen reason to believe that a Latin version
of the N.T. was current — but his confutation of
the Gnostics was written in Greek, and it is very
doubtful when the Latin translation of it was made.
So far as materials for comparison survive, the
renderings of Biblical quotations in the Latin trans-

lEus. H.E., v. i ff.

2 See The Passion of S. Perpetua, by J. Armitage Robinson
(1891), p. 97 ff.

76 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

lation of Irenaeus do not agree with those familiar
to the writer of the Letter of the Churches of
Vienne and Lyons.1

Thus S. Irenaeus contributes little to our know
ledge, and after him the history of Christianity in
Gaul is a blank for nearly a hundred and fifty
years.

For the text of the N.T. as read in Italy about
A.D. 250 we have the quotations of Novatian and
the Roman correspondents of S. Cyprian. Then
comes another blank period, which lasts till the
middle of the next century, but from that time
the evidence is continuous, and (it may be added)
complicated. The 4th century was the age of
mixture, the age when the Church unified its con
fession of faith and began to codify its ritual.
The final result was a great measure of uniformity,
but it was attained by much antecedent confusion —
the pouring together of what had previously been
separate. And so it comes to pass that when we
approach our MSS., the oldest of which may be
assigned to the 4th century or the beginning of
the 5th, we find that very few of them represent

1 The translator of Irenaeus (Mass. 279) renders evSv/na ya.fj.ov
in Matt. xxii. 1 2 by indumentum nuptiarum, but there is reason to
believe that the author of the Letter of the Churches of Vienne
and Lyons here read uestimentum nuptiale or ueste nuptiali, since he
uses the phrase ai<r6r]<Tiv evSu/xaros VV^LKOV (Robinson's Perpetua,

P- 99)-

OLD LATIN TEXTS 77

a single type of text. Out of more than a dozen
MSS. of the Gospels in Latin which may fairly
be classed as pre-Vulgate, one, Cod. Bobiensis (£),
as I have already said, gives the Cyprianic text with
considerable fidelity ; another, Cod. Palatinus (?),
is predominantly Cyprianic ; another, Cod. Ver-
cellensis (a), gives in S. John the text as read
by Lucifer of Cagliari. The rest represent mixed
texts, of which we can only say that such texts
were current in Italy and Gaul (and especially in
N. Italy) during the 4th and 5th centuries. In
many instances the MSS. differ in the underlying
Greek from that represented by k and S. Cyprian ;
it is quite evident that we have to do with textual
as well as literary revision. At the same time they
all seem to come from a common stock ; Novatian
and his friends stand about half way between the
Africans and the main body of the European MSS.,
and there are not wanting notable common readings
and even common blunders which bind all or most
of the Latins together.

To give a most familiar instance, none the less
significant for being so familiar. S. Luke tells us
that the shepherds heard the Angelic host singing
" Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace
ev avQpwTroi? evSoicia." At least this is what nearly
all our Greek MSS. give us, and the Eastern
versions agree. Thus the last words mean " Good

78 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

will among men." But the Latin translator (in
agreement with four of our Greek MSS. and these
the oldest) read [ev] avOpwTrois evSoiclas, and so the
Latin rendering of the half verse is et in terra pax
hominibus bonae uoluntatis, i.e. " and on earth peace
to men of good will." We need not now consider
which of these two readings is right — eu<W/a or
evfioKias — what is important for our present purpose
is that the reading which is not supported by the
Latin texts was by far the more common in Greek
MSS. The fact of the agreement of all the Latins
in the phrase hominibus bonae uoluntatis — " to men
of good will " — is a proof that the many Latin
texts are ultimately derived from a common primi
tive translation, and that fragments of this common
primitive translation survive in our MSS. notwith
standing corrections and revisions.

But the Latin texts do not always agree together,
and the primitive translation often survives only
in a single branch. By far the largest proportion
of ancient readings comes from the African side,
from the Cyprianic text. It is in Roman Africa
that the Greek element is least obtrusively present ;
it must have been in Roman Africa, of all the
great centres of population, that Greek MSS. were
least abundant. Consequently we often find that
African texts give us what is only found elsewhere
in some Oriental source, while the rest of our

OLD LATIN TEXT IN BRITAIN 79

Latin texts support the common reading. In such
cases we are justified in assuming the African reading
to have been that of the primitive Latin version,
and that in our other Latin texts a supposed mis
take has been corrected out by the aid of later
Greek MSS. The dissimilarity between the African
Bible and that of the Greeks was clearly perceived
by S. Augustine at the end of the 4th century.
But he went upon the theory that the Greek reading
as known to him was nearly always right, and so
he did less than justice to the faithfulness of his
vernacular Bible.

Before leaving the Latin versions I am sure you
will forgive me for saying a word or two upon the
texts which were once current in our own country.
S. Patrick, himself a native of Great Britain, started
on his missionary journey to Ireland about A.D. 405,
at a time when S. Jerome's revision, which we call
the Vulgate, had not yet supplanted the old Latin
in Britain, or even in France, where S. Patrick had
been trained. The N.T. therefore reached Ireland
in an old Latin, a pre-Vulgate, form. After the
conversion of Ireland the heathen English took
possession of the best part of what is now England
and the Lowlands of Scotland, and with the down
fall of British Christianity came the disappearance
of the Old Latin texts. When the English in their

8O ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

turn were converted through the labours of S.
Augustine of Canterbury and those who came after
him, the material things of the Christian Church —
paintings, glass, and also books — had in the first
instance to be fetched from Italy, and coming as
they did from the headquarters of Christendom,
the copies of the Bible thus brought contained a
very pure Vulgate text. By a singular and happy
accident a copy of one of these foreign Bibles, made
at Monkwearmouth or at Jarrow early in the 8th
century, was brought to Italy in the year 715, and
now rests in the Laurentian Library at Florence.
The Codex Amiatinus, as it is called, is for modern
scholars the leading MS. of the Vulgate ; and it is
interesting to remember that it was made in England
for export to the Continent.

The Irish Church, after long hesitation, laid aside
the usages which separated it from the rest of
Christendom, and among other changes adopted the
Vulgate in place of the Old Latin. The most dis
tinctive date in a long process, which only ended
with the conquest of Ireland by Henry II., was the
adoption of a Roman tonsure by Adamnan, Abbot
of lona, a little before 700 A.D. The Vulgate text
thenceforward current in Ireland was nevertheless
mixed with readings derived from Old Latin sources,
and a MS. of the 7th century is still preserved at
Trinity College, Dublin, the text of which is almost

SYRIAC VERSIONS 8 I

wholly independent of the Vulgate. Of all the
monuments of Christianity in these islands, a few
gravestones excepted, this Codex Usserianus is the
one least influenced by the coming of the English.

We turn now from the extreme West to the
East, from one end of the Roman Empire to the
other. The translation of the N.T. into Syriac
took place about the same time as the translation
of the N.T. into Latin, and it is almost as important
an event in the history of the text. Syriac is a
dialect of Aramaic, akin to the Aramaic of Palestine,
the language of our Lord and His apostles. There
is therefore a special interest in the renderings
adopted by the Syriac translator, as many of the
words used in his translation of the Gospels must
have been identical with those originally spoken.
The mere fact that the Syriac translation has
Messiah for ' the Christ ' and Cephas for ' Peter '
is enough to show the connection between the
Aramaic of the Euphrates Valley and the Aramaic
of Palestine. At the same time it must not be
supposed that the Syriac versions are anything but
translations from the Greek, or that Syriac Chris
tianity had any special historical link with the
primitive Christianity of Palestine. The head
quarters of Syriac Christianity was Edessa, which
until the year 216 A.D. was the capital of an

82 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

independent principality east of the Euphrates and
the Roman Empire. Christianity was planted there
from the Greek city of Antioch, and not from
Palestine : to use their own way of putting it, the
bishops of Edessa traced their succession from Rome
and not from Jerusalem.

Edessa, as I have just said, was an independent
principality. The language there spoken was the
language of a court ; it was also the language of
commerce all the way down the Euphrates Valley
and in the adjoining provinces, a language with
literary and social prestige. When therefore Chris
tianity began to spread in Edessa in the latter half
of the second century, the ground was ready for the
work of translation. The ease and fluency of the
earliest Christian literature in Syriac shows that
Syriac was a literary language before the Syriac-
speaking peoples came in contact with Christianity.

The point is really important, because other
conditions prevailed elsewhere. Until the fourth
century, or at the earliest the end of the third, the
Christian Egyptians used Greek as their ecclesiastical
language : in their country the language of literature
and of the official world was Greek. Until the end
of the fourth century the Christian Armenians used
Syriac as their ecclesiastical language : in their
country the language of literature was Syriac. But
Latin in the West and Syriac in the East were

THE PESHITTA 83

literary languages before the coming of Christianity,
and they were moreover the language of a ruling
class. Accordingly into these languages, and these
languages alone, the New Testament was translated
in the second century.

The history of the N.T. in Syriac is in most
respects similar to the history of the N.T. in Latin.
We have an Old Syriac Version of unknown age,
the MSS. of which differ considerably from one
another, partly owing to irregular revision from
later Greek MSS. The confusion and variety
which ensued was finally brought to an end by the
triumph of an authoritative revision which is now
known by the name of the Peshitta. The Peshitta
has been ever since the fifth century the Vulgate of
all branches of the Syriac-speaking Church ; I have
elsewhere given reasons for believing that it was
published under the auspices of Rabbula, the friend
and correspondent of Cyril of Alexandria and Bishop
of Edessa from 411 to 435 A.o.1 Rabbula's
biographer tells us that on his appointment to his
See " by the wisdom of God that was in him he
translated the New Testament from Greek into
Syriac, because of its variations, exactly as it was."
The new revision had from the first a victorious
career. Backed by the authority of the greatest

1 See S. Ephraim's Quotations from the Gospel (Texts and Studies,
vii. 2), p. 57.

84 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

ruler that Syriac-speaking Christianity has ever seen,
it rapidly supplanted all its rivals, and only two
fragmentary copies of the Old Syriac Gospels now
survive. One is in the British Museum, where it
was discovered and edited by Dr. Cureton, a former
Canon of Westminster and Rector of S. Margaret's ;
the other is a Palimpsest in the Library of the
Convent of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Both are
very ancient ; the Sinai Palimpsest probably dates
from the fourth century, while Cureton's MS. is more
probably of the fifth century, i.e. contemporary with
Bishop Rabbula.

No * Old Syriac ' MS. of the Acts or Epistles has
come down to us, and the Apocalypse forms no
part of the Bible in Syriac.

But the analogy between the Latin and the Syriac
Versions is not complete. There is nothing in the
history of the Gospels in Latin to correspond with
the influence of Tatian's Diatessaron. Tatian was
an < Assyrian,' i.e. a native of the Euphrates Valley,
who studied at Rome in the middle of the second
century under Justin Martyr. Towards the end of
his career, about 173 A.D., his views were considered
heretical at Rome, and he went back to his native
land, where he died. It is not certain where he
composed the Diatessaron, whether in Rome or in
the East, and it is even disputed whether it was
originally composed in Greek and translated into

TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 85

Syriac, or whether it was originally composed in
Syriac. But it was certainly the form in which the
Gospel was most widely read by Syriac-speaking
people up to the episcopate of Rabbula.

The Diatessaron is a Harmony, a sort of patch
work Gospel, in which an attempt was made to
combine the Four Canonical Gospels into a single
comprehensive narrative. It is curious how popular
it was in the East. Theodoret, a contemporary of
Rabbula of Edessa, and himself Bishop of a neigh
bouring See, tells us that he found " more than
two hundred such books held in respect in the
churches of our parts: and" (he adds) "I collected
and put them all away and introduced the Gospels
of the four Evangelists in their place."1 The
same process went on elsewhere, and so the
Diatessaron went out of use. No copy of it seems
ever to have reached the great Nitrian Library,
the source from whence most of the Syriac MSS.
in London and Rome have come, and even the
Commentary which S. Ephraim wrote on the
Diatessaron is extant only in an Armenian trans
lation.

When we were attempting to sketch the history
of the N.T. in Latin there were many blank
intervals, but for the history of the N.T. in Syriac

1 Haer. i. 20 : TO. TWV reTTapwv evayyeAicrrwi' dvreto-yyyayoi'
cuayyeAia.

86 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

from its beginning in the second century to the
publication of the Peshitta in the fifth the materials
simply do not exist. The 'Acts of Judas Thomas/
a religious romance written in Syriac some time in
the third century, appears to quote the Gospel in
a form akin to the Sinai Palimpsest and Cureton's
MS. The other remains of early Syriac literature
up to Rabbula's time all use the Diatessaron.'1

The really important question, which seriously
affects the date of the Old Syriac Version, is
whether it is earlier or later than the first introduc
tion of the Diatessaron. Tatian's work in the East
lies between 170 and 180 A.D. That therefore is
the date of the original Syriac Diatessaron. If the
earliest Syriac Version of the Four Gospels be older
than the Diatessaron, then that Syriac Version is
exceedingly ancient. But if the Gospel was first
brought to Syriac-speaking lands in the form of
Tatian's Harmony, then the earliest Syriac Version
may be no earlier than the beginning of the third
century.

This is a delicate critical question, and at present
no definite conclusions have been attained. Till

1 The list comprises the Doctrine of Addai (3rd cent.), the
Syriac Doctrine of the Apostles, published by Cureton (3rd cent.),
the Homilies of Aphraates (337-345 A.D.), the genuine works of
S. Ephraim (died 373 A.D.), the Homilies of Cyrillona (fl. 400
A.D.). The Dialogue De Fato contains no quotation from
the N.T.

THE SINAI PALIMPSEST 87

the discovery of the Sinai Palimpsest in 1893, the
defenders of the priority of the Diatessaron had
much the best of the argument. But the Sinai
Palimpsest has in many respects a much better
text than could have been anticipated from other
Syriac evidence. It is, for instance, the only Syriac
authority for the omission of the so-called * last
twelve verses ' of S. Mark's Gospel. In some
variations it supplies the reading from which the
readings of other Syriac texts seem to have been
ultimately derived, and it is free from the ascetic
' encratite ' tendency which was generally charac
teristic of Syriac Christianity, a tendency which
made itself felt in other early Syriac texts of the
Gospel. In a word, the Sinai Palimpsest appears to
represent an earlier stage of Syriac Christianity than
is represented by any other known document, except
perhaps the Bardesanian Dialogue De Fato.

The old Syriac often agrees with the Syriac
Diatessaron in its renderings of the Greek, but
there are many instances in which they differ, and
it is quite possible that in their earliest forms they
may have been more different still. The Diatessaron
presents many more traces of the readings current in
the West, and now found in Codex Bezae and the
Old Latin MSS., than does the Sinai Palimpsest.
This is exactly what we should expect in the work
of Tatian, after his long residence in Rome. It

88 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

must not be forgotten also that only fragments of
the Diatessaron survive, and these have to be gleaned
from the Armenian translation of the Commentary of
S. Ephraim and from S. Ephraim's own quotations
and those of his contemporary, Aphraates. A
striking instance of the difference between the
two texts is to be found in Matt, xxvii. 16, 17,
where the Old Syriac gives the name Jesus to
Barabbas, Pilate saying, " Whom will ye that I
release unto you — Jesus bar Abba, or Jesus called
the Messiah ? " But in the Diatessaron there is no
trace of this interesting addition.

There are versions of the N.T. in other languages
which may fairly be called ancient, but they are
altogether on a later and lower plane than the
Latin and Syriac. The history of the Egyptian or
Coptic versions appears to be bound up with the
development of Monastic life in the Christian
Church : the earliest rendering of the N.T. into
any Egyptian dialect may date from the end of
the 3rd century or the beginning of the 4th.1 The
earliest Armenian and Georgian versions were made
from the Syriac : what we now possess is a revision,
made early in the 5th century by altering this earlier

1 See especially the masterly tract by Ignazio Guidi called Le
Traduzioni dal Copto, in the " Nachrichten von der K. Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen " for 1889, pp. 49-56.

THE LATIN AND SYRIAC VERSIONS 89

version into conformity with Greek MSS. Some
thing similar appears to underlie the Ethiopia or
Abyssinian version, but its history has not been
properly made out. The Gothic version of Ulphilas,
the earliest rendering of the Bible into any Teutonic
dialect, is a product of the 4th century, and had
a curious influence upon some of the later Latin
texts current in N. Italy.

But the discussion of matters of this kind,
though interesting in itself, has only a distant
bearing upon the direct criticism of the New
Testament. With the Latin and the Syriac in
their earlier forms it is different. These versions
are primary authorities for determining the sacred
text. Where they agree we are listening to the
consensus of the extreme East and the extreme
West of the Roman world, speaking hardly more
than a generation after the Four Gospels had been
gathered together by the Church into one collection.
Such a consensus is never to be disregarded, even
though unsupported by a single surviving Greek
MS. Let me give in conclusion a few instances of
what I mean, a few instances where these early
versions alone or almost alone preserve the true
text of the Gospels.

In the opening words of the Parable of the Wise
and Foolish Virgins we read, Then shall the kingdom of
heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps

9O ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

and went forth to meet the bridegroom (Matt. xxv. i).
This is the reading of nearly all our Greek MSS.,
including the oldest. But a few Greek authorities,
supported by the Syriac and by the Latin versions,
add at the end of the verse the words and the bride.
The " Virgins " went forth " to meet the Bridegroom
and the Bride." Now this addition gives a very
graphic touch to the picture, while at the same
time it is brought into better accordance with
Oriental custom. The bridegroom goes with his
friends to bring away the bride from her father's
home ; l no one is left at the bridegroom's dwelling
but a few maidservants to keep the house. In the
parable these maidservants represent the Church,
while the arrival of the wedding procession with the
bridegroom and his bride represents the coming of
Christ. Christ is the bridegroom and the bride ;
the waiting servants are the Church.

But of all the stock of Christian imagery nothing
was more familiar than the comparison of Christ to
the Bridegroom and the Church to the Bride. Now
it is the " Virgins " in the parable who obviously
represent the Church ; how then could they go
forth to meet the Bride, the Spouse of Christ ?

1 See the account of that unlucky Wedding at Medaba, de
scribed in i Mace. ix. 37 ff., when through the attack of Jonathan
and Simon the marriage was turned into mourning and the
noise of their melody into lamentation.

THE LATIN AND SYRIAC VERSIONS 9!

When the Bride had become the stock metaphor
for the Church, the careless scribe or editor had a
strong temptation to leave it out in the parable
where it does not mean the Church ; and, as I said,
this omission has actually been made in all but a very
few of our Greek MSS. But the Latin and the
Syriac versions kept the bride in the wedding pro
cession, and we shall do well to replace her there.

In the preceding example we have been consider
ing a case where the text familiar to us has lost a
genuine and graphic detail, which has been pre
served by the united testimony of nearly all our
Latin and Syriac texts. I shall now give a couple
of instances where a characteristic difference be
tween parallel narratives has been obliterated in
almost all our authorities by the insertion of words
which properly belong to one Gospel into the text
of another. In the cases which we are going to
discuss, the true text, as I take it, has been pre
served only in the Sinai Palimpsest, representing
the Old Syriac Version in the East, and one Latin
or Graeco-Latin text in the West.

S. Luke tells us that when the messengers of
John the Baptist came to Jesus to ask whether He
were indeed he that should come, Jesus replied,
Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen
and heard ; the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are
cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the

92 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

poor have the Gospel preached to them (Lk. vii. 22).
There is no variation of any importance here in our
MSS., and doubtless we have the verse very much
as S. Luke penned it. The last clause is especially
characteristic of the Third Evangelist — " the poor
have the Gospel preached to them," or, as we may
say to get nearer the Greek, " the poor are evange
lised," TTTor^of evayyeXi^ovrai. It is S. Luke alone
who tells us of the scene in the synagogue at
Nazareth, where our Lord reads the passage of
Isaiah which speaks about " preaching the Gospel
to the poor" (Lk. iv. 18), and indeed this verb
evayyeXlQo-Oai occurs ten times in his Gospel. It
is therefore remarkable to find that the only
passage in the other Gospels where the verb occurs
is in the parallel passage in S. Matthew. Accord
ing to the ordinary text, the answer of Christ to
the disciples of John is the same in S. Matthew as
in S. Luke (Matt. xi. 4, 5 = Lk. vii. 22). But Cod.
Bobiensis (£), the best representation of the African
Latin, and the Sinai Palimpsest, the best representa
tive of the Old Syriac, in company with Clement
of Alexandria1 and (apparently) the Diatessaron2—
these four alone among our authorities for the
text — omit in S. Matthew the clause TTTW-^OI cvay-
i, " the poor have the Gospel preached to

lPae<t. I. x. 90 (151).

2 See Ephraim's Commentary (Moesinger, 100).

THE LATIN AND SYRIAC VERSIONS 93

them." I cannot doubt that they are right in so
doing. The clause belongs to S. Luke, and is char
acteristic of his Gospel : it does not belong to S.
Matthew, it is not characteristic of his Gospel, and
its presence there would lead to very unsafe conclu
sions as to what was contained at this point in
the common source of S. Matthew and S. Luke.
We may reject the words, not on a ready-made
theory of what ought or ought not to be in
the Gospel according to S. Matthew, but upon
the authority of the oldest Latin and the oldest
Syriac texts.

One more instance and I have done. Whatever
theories we may hold about the authorship and com
position of the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel accord
ing to S. John, one thing is clear : the Evangelist

O * O O

was the very reverse of anxious to make his diction
harmonise verbally with the other Gospels. Very few
of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel according to
S. John are given in the other Gospels also. So
much is this the case, that many students of the
Fourth Gospel, both in ancient and in modern
times, have supposed that the Evangelist actually
avoided what had been already told : his aim was
to supply the lines previously left out in the Portrait
of the Lord.

In this Gospel there is an account of a supper at
Bethany where Martha served and Mary anointed

94 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT

the feet of Jesus. The story appears also to be
told in S. Mark and S. Matthew, but with many
variations of time and circumstance. The account
in the Fourth Gospel must have been based on
quite a different tradition, and accordingly the words
of our Lord are given differently. One sentence,
however, is the same in S. Mark and S. John, as
given in almost all our authorities : this is For the
poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not
always (Joh. xii. 8 = Mk. xiv. 7, Matt. xxvi. n).
The sudden verbal agreement in the midst of so
much material divergence is extremely striking. It
is therefore a matter of no ordinary interest to those
who are studying the mutual relations of our
Gospels to find that the words I have just quoted
are omitted from the text of S. John in the Sinai
Palimpsest and in the Graeco-Latin Codex Bezae
(D), our great 5th century MS. at Cambridge.
According to this our Lord's only answer to the
complaint of Judas is, Suffer her to keep it against
the day of my burying. The removal of the words
about the poor takes away the sudden and inex
plicable literary resemblance at this point between
S. John and the Synoptic Gospels : here again,
therefore, we may believe that the Syriac Palimpsest
from the East and the Graeco-Latin MS. from the
West have preserved the true text. These two
have remained free from a harmonistic interpolation

THE LATIN AND SYRIAC VERSIONS 95

which has invaded the rest of the extant texts of
the Fourth Gospel.

These three instances will, I trust, sufficiently
illustrate the main point of what I have attempted
to say this afternoon. We have seen that owing to
the political conditions of the Roman Empire the
New Testament was very early translated from the
Greek into two languages, and into two only —
Latin in the West and Syriac in the East. These
versions may be dated with confidence before the
3rd century ; it is doubtful whether the Bible was
translated into any other language before the early
years of the 4th century. Our Latin and Syriac MSS.
are not older than the end of the 4th century, but
in spite of later revision from the Greek some of
them do contain a fairly faithful image of the
original translation. By the help of these early
translations, and especially where East and West
agree, we are often able to restore the true text in
places where our Greek MSS. give a perverted
reading. The Latin Church of Roman Africa and
the Syriac Church of Edessa have both of them
perished, but through their vernacular versions of
the New Testament they being dead yet speak
to us.

The History of the Canon of the
New Testament.

Characteristics of the History. — Four influences :
(i) Christian worship ; (2) Literary habit ; (3)
Translation ; (4) Controversy (Gnostic sects ; the
Muratorian Fragment).

The evidence of Eusebius as to the Canon (' the
acknowledged Books,' ' the disputed Books '). The
two periods of the History.

1. The period till about 200 A.D. Range of the
N.T. Canon at the close of this period ; Irenaeus
(reasons for the importance of his evidence) ; the
N.T. of Irenaeus. Recognition of Books and of
groups of Books.

(i) The collection of the Four Gospels. Irenaeus ;
the Shepherd of Hermas ; Heracleon ;
Tatian's Diatessaron ; Justin Martyr
(Papias).

SUMMARY 97

(2) The Acts of the Apostles.

(3) The Pauline Epistles. Irenaeus ; Theophilus

of Antioch ; Marcion ; Polycarp and Ignatius.

II. The period 200 — 400 A.D.

(1) The Epistle to the Hebrews, (a) Eastern

Churches : Pantaenus, Clement, Origen ;
Eusebius ; the Syriac Vulgate ; the Antiochene
School; Amphilochius. (£) Western Churches:
Clement of Rome ; Hippolytus ; Muratorian
Fragment ; Caius ; Irenaeus ; Tertullian,
Cyprian, the ' Cheltenham ' list ; Jerome ;
Augustine.

(2) The Apocalypse, (a) Irenaeus ; Theophilus ;

Melito of Sardis ; Justin Martyr. (b)
Influence of Montanism ; Caius ; the Alogi ;
Dionysius of Alexandria. (<:) Eastern (Greek)
Churches ; Western Churches.

Reasons for divergence of earlier and later
views.

(3) The Catholic Epistles. Early Syriac Church

(' Doctrine of Addai ').
(a) i Peter, i John.
(/3) James, i Peter, i John. Reception of

James into the Canon.
(7) James, i Peter, i John, 2, 3 John, Jude,

2 Peter.

G

98 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

Reception of Jude into the Canon ;

about 200 A.D. ; Origen ; Carthage ;

reasons for later doubts (Didymus,

Jerome).
Reception of 2 Peter into the Canon ; lack

of early references; Origen (Clement);

the Fourth Century ; causes of its

reception.

Recognition of the full Canon of N.T. in ( I )
Eastern (Greek) Churches ; (2) Western Churches.

Conclusion.

CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 99

The History of the growth of the Canon of the
New Testament is a complicated subject. Its full
discussion presupposes some knowledge of the
history of the early Church and of the character
istics and the environment of the chief writers in the
first centuries ; and it involves a somewhat minute
investigation of references, or supposed references, in
the Fathers to the words of the New Testament.
One brief lecture, therefore, must necessarily leave
unsaid very much even of what lies on the surface
of the subject. Not seldom statements may seem
obscure to those who are not familiar with the
outlines of Church History. And, what is perhaps
even more important, any discussion of different
interpretations of the evidence must be ruthlessly
excluded. We must keep to the main road, and
not allow ourselves to be allured into bye-paths
however attractive.

The Canon of the New Testament is the collec
tion of those Books which have been recognized
by the general opinion of Christian men as apostolic
and therefore as authoritative.

The word Canon in application to the Sacred
Books may be taken (i) in a passive sense, as signi
fying the list of Books which are marked out ; or (2)

IOO HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

in an active sense, as denoting those Books which
themselves mark out the rule of Christian faith
and life. We need not stop to discuss the question
which of these two conceptions is the more original.
Both of them were probably in early times connected
with the term.

The history of the formation of the Canon is
the history not of a series of events but of a long
continuous process. The Canon is not, as we
might have expected, the outcome of any definite
decision. It was never the subject of any ordinance
of a General Council. Like the Apostles' Creed,
it was the result, gradually and informally attained,
of the activity of the Christian consciousness, of
the thought and the practice of the whole body
of the Faithful.

This process of a selection of certain Books
from a larger number and their recognition as a
' divine library ' was not new. It was indeed a
repetition — we may almost say a continuation. The
Christian Church inherited from the Jewish Church
the Old Testament as its earliest Bible, and the
completion of the Canon of the Old Testament
did not belong to a distant past. " The measure
of the completeness of the Canon had scarcely been
reached, when ' the fulness of the time came.'
The close of the Hebrew Canon brings us to the
threshold of the Christian Church. The history

CHRISTIAN WORSHIP IOI

of the Canon, like the teaching of its inspired
contents, leads us into the very presence of Him
in Whom alone we have the fulfilment and the
interpretation of the Old Testament, and the one
perfect sanction for its use." l

Taking a broad view of the history of the Canon
of the New Testament, we may say that four influ
ences were at work.

(i) THE CUSTOM OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. —
The assemblies for Christian worship grew out of,
and were modelled upon, the worship of the Syna
gogues. In the Synagogue lessons from the Law and
the Prophets were read, and were followed by a ' dis
course of exhortation.' 2 In the earliest times in the
Christian assemblies an Epistle just received from
an Apostle would be read (i Thess. v. 27, Col. iv.
16; comp. Eus. H.E. iv. 23), and the place of the
exhortation, we may conjecture, taken by an account
of some part of our Lord's teaching, or of the
Passion or the Resurrection. In the first half of the
second century at Rome, as we learn from Justin
Martyr (Jp. i. 67), " the Memoirs of the Apostles,
[i.e. the Gospels] or the writings of the Prophets
[were] read." Thus Christian people grew accus-

1 Bp. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament, preface, p. ix. f.

2 Schtirer, History of the Jewish People, Eng, Trans., n. ii. p. 82.
Compare Luke iv. 1 7 ft", Acts xiii. i 5 ff.

IO2 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

tomed to regard the Apostolic writings as ' Scripture,'
in the same sense as the Old Testament ; and litur
gical custom, varying doubtless in different churches,
set its seal on certain Christian Books and groups of
Books as worthy of special reverence and obedience.

(2) LITERARY HABIT. — As time went on, a
Christian literature grew in volume and was circu
lated in the different churches. Christian writers
wove into their own written words the familiar phrases
of the Apostolic writers, and in a few cases expressly
quoted them. Thus they registered the decisions of
popular usage ; they tended to co-ordinate the
customs of different churches and to give them
permanence.

(3) TRANSLATION. — In the second century it
became necessary to translate the Apostolic Books,
written in Greek, into Syriac and into Latin, possibly
also into the native dialects of Egypt. The range of
Books so translated formed a Canon of the New
Testament in these districts.

(4) CONTROVERSY. — When heresies arose and
heretical sects became organized bodies, when the
controversy between these sects and the Catholic
Church found expression in tracts and treatises, the
question as to the limits of the authoritative Books
became a pressing one. The sects claimed that they
represented the true tradition of the Apostles. The
Catholic Church challenged and denied the claim.

THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT IC>3

The question thus arose, to what Books in this dis
pute could appeal be made ? Hence Councils in
particular Churches, as some evidence shews,1 dis
cussed the matter ; and individual writers with more
or less formality and definiteness expressed their
opinion. In this way the general voice of the
Catholic Church, i.e. the different local churches
throughout the world which were in communion with
each other, and from which the sects had broken
away, was both expressed and controlled.

To one such definite statement it will be con
venient to refer at this point — the Muratorian frag
ment. It derives its name from the Italian scholar,
Muratori, who published it in 1740. It is evidently
a rude Latin translation of a Greek original. That
original was probably drawn up at Rome late in the
second century. Bishop Lightfoot 2 has made it
probable that the original Greek was written in verse
as a kind of memoria technica^ and that the writer was
Hippolytus, a learned and voluminous author, who
seems as Bishop to have presided over the foreign
congregations at Rome. The Books of the New
Testament which are explicitly recognized in it are

1 Si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter
apocrypha et falsa judicaretur (Tert. de Pudic. x.). Tertullian is
speaking as a Montanist to Catholic Christians ; hence the word
f vestrarum.'

2 St. Clement of Rome, ii. pp. 405 ff.

IO4 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

the following : the four Gospels, the Acts, the
Pauline Epistles (not including the Epistle to the
Hebrews), the Apocalypse of St. John, and two, if
not the three, Epistles of St. John.1

The Muratorian Fragment illustrates several
important points. (#) It shews with what interest
and care the question of the Canon, to use the
later term, was treated at the end of the second
century in the Church at Rome — a Church naturally

1 In reference to the Gospel of St. John, the writer notes how
" firmly John sets forth each statement [about the Lord] in his
Epistle also," quoting i John i. i ff. Later in the Fragment,
after mentioning the Epistle of St. Jude, he refers to " the couple
[of Epistles] bearing the name of John" as "accepted in the
Catholic Church." The context seems to suggest that ' the
couple ' are the two short Epistles which bears St. John's name.
If this interpretation is correct, the three Epistles of St. John are
included in the Muratorian list.

Neither of the Epistles which bear the name of St. Peter have
a place in the Fragment as it stands. The Fragment, however, is
mutilated at the beginning ; it commences in the middle of a
sentence which clearly concluded what the writer had to say
about St. Mark. It is highly probable that, just as the writer
mentions I John in connexion with St. John's Gospel, so, in the
portion of his work now lost which dealt with St. Mark, he
quoted I Pet. v. 1 3 in reference to St. Mark's relation to St. Peter
at Rome, as Papias appears to have done. It should be added
that Prof. Zahn restores a passage of the Fragment thus (the words
which he adds being in square brackets) : " The Apocalypse also of
John, and of Peter [one Epistle, which] only we receive: [there is
also a second] which some of our friends will not have read in the
Church." But such a restoration cannot be regarded as more than
an ingenious conjecture.

THE FORMATION OF THE CANON IC>5

regarded by other churches as a centre and as a
standard (Iren. iii. 3). (#) It shews how it was
under the pressure of controversy that what was a
matter of devotional instinct and usage became a
matter of formal discussion. The Fragment is
evidently a controversial document. It mentions
by name certain heretics, together with the books
which they held sacred, and with these heretics it
contrasts the Catholic Church, from whose collection
of Apostolic Books the books of the sects must be
rigorously excluded. "For," it is said, "it is not
fitting that honey be mixed with gall." (<:) It
shews that the formation of the Canon was a pro
cess of selection. The need of excluding the
books of the sectaries called attention to the
question of certain orthodox books which were
challenging admission within the circle of authori
tative Scriptures — 'The Shepherd of Hermas, to
mention only one of these, the Pilgrim's Progress
of the early Church, a book actually quoted as
Scripture by Irenaeus (iv. 20). " The Shepherd,"
so the Fragment decides the claim, " ought indeed
to be read [i.e. studied in private], but it cannot
to the end of time be publicly read in the Church
to the people, either among the Prophets, whose
number is complete, or among the Apostles."

Such were in the main the influences which con
ditioned the gradual process whereby the Books of

IO6 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

the New Testament were placed in a unique position
of sacredness and of authority. The history of
the Canon is not a matter of dry and legal research.
It only needs an effort of the historical imagination,
and we see that it is closely related to the daily
life of our elder brethren in Christ. We picture
them in the assemblies for worship, reading, listening,
preaching ; at home studying, and in a few cases
writing ; and so gradually coming to recognize and
to use the same New Testament which we recognize
and use to-day. The formation of the Canon was
an element, one of the most important and fruitful
elements, in the devotional life of the early Church.

But it is time to go into detail. The best starting
point for an historical review of the collection of the
several groups of Books is the well-known passage,
or pair of passages, in the Ecclesiastical History of
Eusebius, in which he deals with the subject of the
Canon (H.E. iii. 3, 25). The life of Eusebius
extended approximately from 270 to 340 A.D. Early
in the fourth century he witnessed the horrors of the
last great persecution. It was a characteristic of this
final crusade of the empire against the Church that
its leaders followed the statesman-like policy of
endeavouring to destroy the sacred buildings and
the sacred Books of the Church. " With mine own
eyes," writes Eusebius (H.E. viii. 2), " I beheld the

EUSEBIUS IO7

Houses of Prayer being plucked down and razed
to the ground, and the divine and sacred Scriptures
in the public market places being consigned to the
flames." This policy of Thorough had an effect in
regard to the subject under discussion far indeed
from the persecutors' intention. It raised the
practical question what were the Books which no
Christian man, in simple loyalty to his faith, could
surrender to the enemy. Eusebius had doubtless
faced this question ; and his statements as to the
limits of the Canon cannot but embody the opinions
which he and his fellow-Christians formed at the
dreadful crisis of the Diocletian persecution. In
order to estimate aright the significance of Eusebius'
treatment of the Canon, we must further remember
that, as a leading Bishop in the years which lay on
either side of the Council of Nicaea, and as the
spiritual adviser of Constantine, he was brought into
contact with nearly all the prominent ecclesiastics of
the time, and was well acquainted with contemporary
thought ; and moreover, that, deficient as he was
in the power of arranging and interpreting facts,
his knowledge of the Christian literature of times
earlier than his own was practically exhaustive.

Eusebius, then, divides those Christian writings
which had any sort of claim to be reckoned among the
Scriptures of the New Covenant into three groups.
Below the lowest of these three groups, the spurious

IO8 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

books (e.g. the Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of
Peter), there is a yet inferior class, the heretical books
(e.g. the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of John}. With
these two lowest groups we need not further concern
ourselves.

The highest group consists of the Books which
are ' acknowledged,' i.e. ' the holy quaternion of
the Gospels,' the Acts, the Epistles of St. Paul
(including the Epistle to the Hebrews, though, as
Eusebius notes elsewhere (H.E. iii. 3), some had
rejected it inasmuch as its Pauline authorship had
been disputed by the Roman Church, and though
he himself elsewhere (H.E. vi. 13) includes it
among the ' disputed books '). " Next to these,"
Eusebius continues, " we must maintain the current
former Epistle of John, and likewise that of Peter."
The list ends with the Apocalypse of John, though a
note of hesitation is added ; and in fact he also
mentions the Apocalypse, here also with an expression
of uncertainty, among the ' spurious ' books.

The second group comprehends those Books
" which are disputed but which are nevertheless
familiar to most persons " — " the so-called Epistle of
James," that of Jude, the Second Epistle -of Peter,
and " the so-called Second and Third Epistles of
John, whether they be the work of the Evangelist
or it may be of some other John."

These two groups — the ' acknowledged ' and the

THE "ACKNOWLEDGED" BOOKS 109

' disputed Books ' — correspond to the two periods
into which the whole history of the Canon may be
divided. The earlier period reaches from the date
of the rise of an Apostolic literature to the end of
the second or the beginning of the third century.
The later period comprises the third and fourth
centuries. We will consider the two periods
separately.

I. During the earlier period the ' acknowledged
Books ' gained their pre-eminent position. In the
first place the separate Books were recognized as
Apostolic and authoritative. Secondly, the Gospels
and the Epistles of St. Paul were formed into collec
tions, and these collections were co-ordinated with
the Canon of the Old Testament. Before we trace
the growth of these collections of Books, it is
important that we should recognize how clear and
convincing the testimony is as to the supreme
position held towards the close of this period by
the Gospels, the Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the
First Epistles of St. Peter and of St. John respec
tively, and the Apocalypse.

In the first three quarters of the second century
the literature of the Christian Church was unsystem
atic and limited. It consists chiefly of letters and
apologies, the latter being treatises addressed to
those without, in which, from the very nature of the

IIO HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

case, there was but little opportunity for quotations
from, or direct references to, the Apostolic writings.
But during the last twenty years of the century a
strictly theological literature arose in the Church.
Thus at Alexandria we have the voluminous works
of Clement ; at Carthage the no less voluminous
and the even more varied works of Tertullian, the
earliest Latin writer of Christendom ; at Lyons
in South Gaul the controversial treatise of Irenaeus.
I take the last named, Irenaeus, as a type. What is
said of him in regard to his use of the Books of
the New Testament might, I believe, be said with
equal truth of Clement and of Tertullian.

The character of the treatise of Irenaeus which has
come down to us is sufficiently clear from the title
" Of the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge
falsely so-called Five Books." It is directed against
the Gnostics, those, that is, who claimed to be
an aristocracy in regard to knowledge (gnosis).
The treatise can be dated with considerable pre
cision. The third book was written while Eleutherus
was Bishop of Rome, i.e. before the year 190 A.D.
Irenaeus, whose life extended approximately from
130 to 200 A.D., is a writer of extreme importance,
for several reasons.

(#) His is the first book on a large scale in which
a Christian speaks to Christians and deals with
matters of Christian doctrine ; the first, that is, in

IRENAEUS III

which we should expect a detailed and explicit
appeal to the Apostolic literature.

(£) Irenaeus was a travelled man. Like Ulysses
" he had seen the cities of many men and known
their mind." A native of Asia Minor, he lived
and lectured in Rome, and afterwards became Bishop
of Lyons. Thus he delivers his judgments, knowing
the opinions and the customs of different churches;
and his views on such a matter as the Books of
the New Testament could not be divergent from
those generally held. His judgment is not the
mere judgment of an individual writer.

(f) Irenaeus was the pupil of Polycarp, Bishop of
Smyrna, who in 155 A. D. at the age of eighty-
six suffered martyrdom at Smyrna. Polycarp was
a disciple of St. John. A letter is preserved by
Eusebius (H.E. v. 20), in which Irenaeus reminds
a fellow-pupil of his of their common master,
Polycarp, " how he would describe his intercourse
with John and with the rest who had seen the
Lord, and how he would recount their words. And
whatsoever things he had heard from them about the
Lord, and about His miracles, and about His
teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from
eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate
altogether in accordance with the Scriptures." You
will note in the last sentence the meeting point of
the two streams, oral tradition and Scriptural testi-

112 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

mony. Thus Irenaeus is a link with those Apostles
who, apparently after the destruction of Jerusalem,
settled in Asia Minor, St. John, St. Philip, St.
Andrew. Through Polycarp, Irenaeus is the
spiritual grandson of St. John.

What then was the New Testament of Irenaeus ?
I answer in the words of Bishop Lightfoot : " The
authority which Irenaeus attributes to the four
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of
St. Paul, several of the Catholic Epistles, and the
Apocalypse, falls short in no respect of the estimate
of the Church Catholic in the fourth or the ninth or
the nineteenth century. He treats them as on a
level with the Canonical Books of the Old Testa
ment ; he cites them as Scripture in the same way ;
he attributes them to the respective authors whose
names they bear ; he regards them as writings
handed down in the several Churches from the
beginning ; he fills his page with quotations from
them ; he has not only a very thorough know
ledge of their contents Himself, but he assumes
an acquaintance with and a recognition of them
in his readers."1

We turn then now to the recognition during
this period of the Collection of the Four Gospels,
of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Collection
of the Pauline Epistles.

1 Essays on the work entitled Supernatural Religion, pp. 261 ff.

THE FOUR GOSPELS 113

(i) THE FOUR GOSPELS. — We start with a well-
known passage of Irenaeus (iii. n, ed. Massuet).
Irenaeus points out that different Gnostic sects
selected different Gospels as supplying an apos
tolic confirmation of their peculiar tenets. The
Ebionites, he says, used only St. Matthew ; the
Marcionites only St. Luke (in a mutilated form) ;
another sect who separated Jesus and the Christ
— the human, that is, and the Divine in the
Lord — only St. Mark ; the Valentinians only St.
John. When, then, their separate testimonies are
combined, the sects support the four Gospels of
the Catholic Church. But indeed, he continues,
the Gospels cannot in the nature of things be either
more or less than four in number. The number
four is stamped upon creation. There are four
quarters of the world ; four great winds. It is
-ffatural and reasonable, therefore, that, as the Church
is spread throughout the earth and the Gospel is
the support of the Church, the Church should
have four pillars. Moreover, there are four catholic
covenants, those given to Noah, Abraham, Moses,
and that given to man through Jesus Christ. And
yet again, the Word, the Creator of all things, is
represented in the Psalm (Ixxx. i) as seated on
the Cherubim, and the Cherubim are four-faced,
When the Word was manifested to men, He
bestowed on us "the Gospel in a fourfold form,

I 14 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

yet bound together by one Spirit." Irenaeus, we
may note in passing, presents here the earliest inter
pretation of the evangelical symbols. The lion
prefigures St. John's Gospel, the calf that of St.
Luke, the man that of St. Matthew, the eagle
that of St. Mark.

The analogies on which Irenaeus relies seem to
us fanciful ; the argument drawn from them is
altogether insecure. But the importance of the
passage does not lie in its logical cogency, but rather
in this — it is clear evidence that Irenaeus regarded
the four Gospels as we do to-day, as holding a
unique place. He cannot imagine the Church
without the four Gospels, or with Gospels less
or more than four in number.

But this parabolic language as to the Four Gospels
was probably no invention of Irenaeus. It was
not, it seems, original. Origen, writing some years
later, speaks of the four Gospels as the elements
of the Church's faith, " of which elements the whole
world is compacted" (In Joan. i. 6). The passage
in Origen is very similar, yet it is not precisely
parallel, to the passage in Irenaeus ; and it is exceed
ingly probable, though it perhaps cannot be said
to be certain, that both these writers derived their
conception of the fourfold Gospel from a yet
earlier writer, Hermas. In one of the visions of
the Shepherd of Hermas fiii. 13), Hermas sees a

HERMAS 115

lady, who had before appeared to him as an aged
woman, now young and fair. " And since thou
sawest her seated on a couch, her position is firm ;
for the couch hath four feet and standeth firmly ;
for the world too is upheld by means of four
elements." The lady in the vision is the Church
of God ; the four feet of the couch are almost
certainly the four Gospels. This interpretation
of the imagery is strongly confirmed by the context,
in which Hermas speaks of good tidings (ayye\ia
ayaOtj T<?) coming to one in sorrow, so that his
spirit is renewed by reason of his joy : " even so,"
he adds, " you also have received a renewal of
your spirits by seeing these good things." Now
the date of the Shepherd is about the middle of
the second century, so that, if this interpretation
of its imagery is correct, the evidence for the collec
tion of the four Gospels is carried back some forty
or fifty years earlier than the time when Irenaeus
wrote.

But this evidence does not stand alone. About the
year 170 Heracleon, a leader of one of the Gnostic
sects, wrote a commentary on St. John's Gospel
and, as it appears, on that of St. Luke also. Even
in the fragments of his work which still survive
we discover several references to St. Matthew. The
consideration that Heracleon deals with the words
rather than with the life of Christ, and that St.

Il6 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

Mark records little of Christ's teaching which is
not found in the other Synoptists, sufficiently
accounts for the fact that these fragments contain
no allusion to any words characteristic of the second
Gospel. We must not fail to remark that a com
mentary, and the use in that commentary of allegor
ical methods of interpretation, imply the attribution
to the Books expounded of an authority long
recognized.

About the same time Tatian, a writer who be
longed to another Gnostic sect, drew up a harmony
of the four Gospels called the Diatessaron, i.e. the
History of the Lord told by four writers. Evidence
which has come to light during the last twenty-five
years leaves us in no doubt as to the character of
Tatian's work.1 He used our four Gospels just as a
harmonist of to-day might use them. The fact of
the compilation of such a Harmony in itself speaks
volumes. But Tatian's Harmony was not in Greek,
the original language of the four Gospels, but in
Syriac. This implies that the four Gospels had been
already translated into Syriac ; and translation is a
tribute to the recognized authority of the work
translated, and moreover implies that it is no literary
upstart. Thus the Harmony of Tatian is a testi
mony to the supreme position which the Gospels

1 See e.g. Hamlyn Hill's The Earliest Life of Christ, being the
Diatessaron of Tatian.

JUSTIN MARTYR I 17

must long have held as the authoritative records of
the Life of Christ.

But we can go a step further back. Probably a
few years before the middle of the second century,
Justin Martyr at Rome addressed to the Emperor
Antoninus Pius his defence of Christianity, and about
the same time wrote his Dialogue with the Jew
Trypho, a controversial treatise against the Jews.
In these apologetic works, addressed to those
without, Justin avoids the use of terms which were
characteristic of the Christian Church. Referring to
the records of the Lord's Life, he employs a word
which, as the title of Xenophon's account of Socrates,
was familiar to educated men — ' the Memoirs,'
' the Memoirs of the Apostles.' But in one passage
{Ap. i. 66) he is more explicit and speaks of ' the
Memoirs ' written by the Apostles " which are
called Gospels." These ' Memoirs,' he tells us, no
doubt with special reference to the custom of the
Roman Church, were publicly read. " On the
so-called day of the Sun there is a meeting of all of
us who live in cities or in the country, and the
Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the
Prophets are read, so long as time allows "
(Ap. i. 67). The works of Justin contain allusions
to the Lord's words and works of such a kind as to
imply the use of each one of the four Gospels.
Moreover, in one passage (Dial. 103), speaking of

Il8 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

' the Memoirs,' Justin adds " which I assert to
have been drawn up by His Apostles and by those
who followed them." In both cases you will observe
that the plural is used. This statement as to the
authorship of ' the Memoirs ' precisely agrees with
the case of our four Gospels — two bearing the
name of Apostles (St. Matthew, St. John), two the
names of followers of the Apostles (St. Mark, St.
Luke). If we still hesitate as to the identification of
Justin's ' Memoirs of the Apostles ' with our four
Gospels, we recall the fact that Tatian, who drew up
a Harmony of the four Gospels, was the pupil of
Justin.

The last witness to whom we appeal speaks with a
less decisive voice. Papias of Hierapolis, whose life
(to give the probable limits of date) extended from
65 to 135 A.D., is a Subapostolic Father of extreme
importance. He had seen and known some of those
who had seen and known the Lord. He was the
author of a treatise of five books on ' the Oracles of
the Lord,' of which Eusebius (H.E. iii. 39) quotes
fragments of great interest, which however are sadly
scanty. Papias, then, in the fragments preserved by
Eusebius, explicitly refers to the Gospels according to
St. Matthew1 and St. Mark, giving important details

1 It is right to quote the actual words of Papias as preserved
by Eusebius — "So then Matthew composed the Oracles in the
Hebrew language, and each one translated them as he was able."

PAPIAS 119

as to their composition. But what of St. John and
St. Luke ? Eusebius informs us that Papias used
(i.e. in a portion of his work which has not come
down to us) testimonies from the First Epistle of St.
John. The Epistle and the Gospel of St. John are
so closely related that knowledge and acceptance of
the one implies knowledge and acceptance of the
other. Moreover, there are, as Bishop Lightfoot
has shewn,1 independent reasons for holding that
Papias knew and used the fourth Gospel. The case

On this Mr. W. C. Allen (Contentio Feritatis, p. 210) writes thus :
" It is clear that this statement cannot apply to our Gospel as it
now exists. It is not written in Hebrew, nor is it a translation
of a Hebrew work. And the term Logia, i.e. Oracles, or Sayings,
would be a very unsuitable word to describe so carefully
articulated a theological treatise in narrative form as our Gospel."
But it must be observed that it may well be that Eusebius does
not give the whole of what Papias said about St. Matthew, just
as it is certain from the words which he quotes that he does
not give the whole of what Papias said about St. Mark. In the
words "each one translated them " (notice the past tense) Papias
clearly refers to a state of things which had passed away when he
wrote. It would be natural and almost inevitable that he should
continue the history and explain how it was that the need for in
dividual translation had, when he wrote, ceased to exist. Further,
Bishop Lightfoot (Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 172 ff. ; comp.
Bishop Westcott, Canon, p. 73 n.) shews that the term Oracles
was, as a matter of fact, used to include narratives as well as dis
courses. It is remarkable, and not without significance, that Mr.
Allen passes over the work of Bishop Westcott and Bishop
Lightfoot (e.g. on the Fourth Gospel) as though it did not exist.
1 Essays on the work entitled Supernatural Religion, pp. 192 ff

I2O HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

of St. Luke is different. There is some evidence
which makes it probable that Papias was acquainted
with the Gospel of St. Luke, but it is slight and
inconclusive. Proof, therefore, just stops short of
allowing us to assert that Papias acknowledged the
fourfold Gospel. If we could with confidence have
appealed to Papias, we should have traced the
evidence for the Collection of the Four Gospels to
the first quarter of the second century. As the case
stands, we must stop short at the name of Justin
Martyr; and his testimony warrants us in saying
that in the second quarter of the second century the
four Gospels as a collection of Books had already
secured a unique position of authority in the Church.
(2) THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. — Of the Acts
it must suffice to say that at the end of the period
the Book is referred to by the title familiar to our
selves — The Acts of the Apostles — and as the work of
St. Luke. This is the case with Irenaeus, Bishop of
Lyons (iii. 13. 3) ; with the author of the Muratorian
Canon, speaking from Rome ; with Clement of
Alexandria (Strom, v. 12, p. 696 ed. Potter) ; with
Tertullian of Carthage (adv. Marc. v. i, de Jejun.
10). Two further observations must be added.
Earlier writers incorporate language drawn from the
Book. Again, since the Acts and the Gospel of
St. Luke are clearly the work of the same author,
and the two Books form a single whole, the evidence

THE PAULINE EPISTLES 121

which we have adduced of the acceptance of the
Gospel in the second quarter of the second century
implies the acceptance of the Acts.

(3) THE PAULINE EPISTLES. — We have seen how
towards the end of the century Irenaeus quotes all
the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, with the one
exception of the brief private letter to Philemon. Some
ten years earlier Theophilus of Antioch wrote three
books of ' Elementary Instruction,' in which he en
deavoured to win over to the faith a learned heathen
friend, Autolycus. In this treatise he quotes eight of
St. Paul's Epistles, adducing a text from i Tim.
as 'the divine word' {Ad Autol. iii. 14). A more
important witness is Marcion, the Gnostic. Marcion,
as a younger contemporary of Justin Martyr, takes
us back well within the second quarter of the
second century. He held St. Paul to be the
only true Apostle, and, as we know from Ter-
tullian and Epiphanius, accepted as authoritative ten
Epistles of that Apostle. We can hardly doubt that
he was influenced in his rejection of the Pastoral
Epistles by controversial reasons. Those Epistles
contain much which was clean opposed to Marcion's
characteristic tenets, e.g. his views on marriage.
From Clement of Alexandria (Strom, ii. 1 1, ed. Potter
p. 457) we learn that certain heretics — not improb
ably he means the followers of Marcion — finding
themselves convicted by the words, ' the objections

122 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

of knowledge falsely so-called/ rejected the Epistles
to Timothy. Thus, in regard to the three Pastoral
Epistles, Marcion's position is probably the exception
which proves the rule of their acceptance. But how
ever that may be, it remains true that Marcion
supplies us with a very early instance of a Canon of
Christian Scriptures, and that, though he freely
handled the knife, he yet accepted as a collection ten
of St. Paul's Epistles.

But we can trace the collection of St. Paul's
Epistles to an earlier date. Poly carp of Smyrna in
his letter to the Philippians, and Ignatius of Antioch
in his seven letters to the Churches of Asia Minor
and of Rome, incorporate the language of so many of
St. Paul's Epistles, including the Pastoral Epistles,
that it appears to be a legitimate inference that the
complete collection of St. Paul's Epistles was in their
hands. The witness of Polycarp and Ignatius brings
us back to the year 115 A.D.1 When they wrote the
Pauline collection was already recognized in the
Church.

II. We now turn to the second great period with
which we have to deal, the third and fourth centuries.
Our task is to trace the history of the acceptance of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the Apocalypse, and
of the collection of Epistles known as the Catholic
1 These passages are collected on p. 183 seq.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 123

Epistles ; and finally, to shew under what influences
the complete Canon of the New Testament was
accepted in the East and in the West.

(i) THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. — There
was in the early centuries a division of opinion as to
the authorship, and consequently as to the authority,
of this Epistle. The line of cleavage coincided with
the natural boundary which separated Eastern from
Western Christendom.

We turn then to the East, and in the East first to
the Church of Alexandria. We have the witness of
three generations of great Alexandrian teachers.
Clement, as his words are preserved by Eusebius
(H.E. vi. 14. 4), records how 'the blessed Elder' —
doubtless his own master Pantaenus — ' used to say '
that St. Paul abstained from calling himself the
' Apostle of the Hebrews,' partly out of reverence
for the Lord — for " He was the Apostle of the
Almighty, and was sent to the Hebrews" — and
partly because his writing to the Hebrews was
outside his own proper work, " inasmuch as he
was the herald and Apostle of the nations." The
master then held that the Epistle was properly the
work of St. Paul. The position of the pupil was
somewhat different. Clement (op. Eus. H.E. vi.
14. 2) maintained that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to
the Hebrews in Hebrew, and refrained from adding
his name because his countrymen were prejudiced

124 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

against him, and that St. Luke translated the Hebrew
original for the sake of Greek readers ; hence the
similarity in style between the Hebrews and the
Acts. Origen, to pass to the next generation, notices
the difference in style between this Epistle and those
of St. Paul, though the thoughts are the thoughts of
the Apostle. The conclusion to which he was led
was that the Epistle was the composition of some one
who recalled from memory St. Paul's teaching. " If
any church, therefore, receive this Epistle as the
Epistle of St. Paul, let it be applauded for this. For
not without reason have those of old time handed
the Epistle down as that of Paul. Howbeit who
wrote the Epistle, God only knows the truth ; but
the account which has reached us is that Clement, as
some say, or Luke, as others say, wrote it."1 Thus
Clement and Origen uphold the Pauline character
rather than the Pauline authorship. Eusebius is not
altogether consistent in his treatment of the question.
In one place (H.E. vi. 13) he reckons this Epistle as
one of the * disputed Books ' ; in another passage
(H.E. iii. 25) among the 'acknowledged Books';
elsewhere again (H.E. iii. 3) he mentions that some
rejected it on the ground that the Church of Rome
questioned it as not being the work of St. Paul. In
a fourth passage (H.E. iii. 38) he records the opinion
that St. Paul wrote to his own countrymen in their
xAp. Eus. H.E. vi. 25. 11-14.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 125

own language, adding that some who held this view
taught that St. Luke, others that Clement of Rome,
translated the Epistle into Greek, he himself inclining
to the name of Clement. The Syriac Vulgate, the
Peshitta, may be taken as not unfairly representing
the general conclusion of earlier times. In that
version the Epistle is simply called ' the Epistle to
the Hebrews,' and it has a place immediately after
St. Paul's Epistles ; thus it is a kind of appendix to
the Pauline group. Of the fourth century little
need be said. In the lists of Cyril of Jerusalem and
of Athanasius the Epistles of St. Paul are regarded as
fourteen in number, and therefore as including that
to the Hebrews. The great exegetes of the Antio-
chene School — Chrysostom and Theodore of
Mopsuestia — commented on it as undoubtedly the
work of St. Paul. Amphilochius of Iconium, in
his list of New Testament Books, records and
condemns the scepticism of some — "some say-
that that to the Hebrews is spurious, wrongly ;
for genuine is its grace." Thus in the East the
Epistle to the Hebrews was accounted Pauline,
but commonly, at least in earlier days, in a
secondary sense.

In the West, Clement, writing at Rome in the
year 95 A.D., shews his acquaintance with the Epistle;
his mind, it is clear, was saturated with its ideas and
words. A century later the case had altogether

126 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

changed. Hippolytus, we are told (Photius Cod.
232), asserted that the Epistle was not St. Paul's, nor
does he quote it in his extant works. It is omitted
in the Muratorian Fragment. In a disputation held
with Proclus, a Montanist leader, Caius, a Roman
presbyter, appealed to thirteen Epistles of St. Paul,
" not reckoning that to the Hebrews with the rest "
(Eus. H.E. vi. 20). The contrast between the
position of Clement and that of the Church at Rome
a century later may in part be due to the fact that,
after the Church had outgrown the traditions of the
early period when its relations with the synagogue
were more or less close, any relic of Jewish
Christianity became distasteful to its members. But
Rome in this matter was not isolated from other
Western Churches. Only two MSS. remain, and
those closely related to each other, which give an old
Latin text of this Epistle. As to Irenaeus in South
Gaul, though, according to Eusebius (H.E. v. 26),
in a volume of * divers discourses ' he adduced
passages from this Epistle, yet in his extant works,
though it would have served his controversial pur
poses, he appears never to quote it. At Carthage
Tertullian quotes its words as those of a companion
of the Apostles — Barnabas in his view — ' ex redun-
dantia,' as a work of supererogation ; and alleges
that it was more widely accepted in the Churches than
the Shepherd of Hermas — a form of praise which,

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS I2J

with Tertullian, is not far removed from censure.1
Further, though Marcion rejected this Epistle,
Tertullian does not count this among his many
offences. In the next generation Cyprian does not
quote the Hebrews, and, as he lays stress on St.
Paul's having written to seven churches, he by impli
cation rejects it. A century later the Epistle is
omitted in the African list of Books preserved in the
Cheltenham MS.2 Lastly, towards the end of the
fourth century Jerome (Ep. cxxix. 3) and Augustine
(De Peccatorum Mer. i. 27) both accepted the Epistle
as Canonical in reliance on the authority of the
Eastern Churches, the former expressly noting that
" the custom of the Latins does not receive it among
the Canonical Scriptures," and balancing this rejection
of the Hebrews by Western Churches against the
rejection of the Apocalypse by ' the Churches of the
Greeks.'

To sum up, the West, making apostolic author
ship the criterion of canonicity, refused to accept the
Epistle to the Hebrews. The East recognized the
apostolic character of the Epistle and accounted it as

1 Tert. de Pudicitia 20. Possibly the phrase ' receptior apud
ecclesias ' means ' more worthy to be accepted in the Churches '
rather than * more widely in the Churches.'

2 The MS. containing this list was discovered in 1885 by Professor
Mommsen in the Phillipps Collection at Cheltenham ; hence it is
commonly called the Cheltenham List. The time when the list
was made was shortly after 350 A.D.

128 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

Scripture, in earlier days maintaining that in some
secondary sense it was the work of St. Paul, and in
later times asserting without qualification the Pauline
authorship. The Eastern view was accepted by Jerome
and Augustine, and the inclusion of the Epistle in
the Latin Vulgate closed the question in the West.

(2) THE APOCALYPSE. — At the end of the second
century the Apocalypse was widely accepted — by
Hippolytus at Rome (with whom we may connect
the Muratorian Canon), by Tertullian at Carthage,
by Clement at Alexandria, by Irenaeus in South Gaul.
The evidence of Irenaeus is of special importance.
The passage (v. 30) in which Irenaeus deals with the
Apocalypse presents perhaps the earliest discussion
of a variation of reading in the New Testament.
In place of 666, the number of the Beast (Apoc.
xiii. 1 8), some in the time of Irenaeus read 616.
Irenaeus maintains the reading 666 on three grounds,
(a) He appeals, as we should say, to 'documentary
evidence.' " That number," he says, " is found in
all the good and ancient copies." (/3) He appeals to
oral tradition. " Those who had seen John face to
face used to give their testimony to it" (7) He
appeals, to use our modern phrase, to ' intrinsic proba
bility.' " Reason teaches us " that it is appropriate
that the same number should repeat itself in the
hundreds, the tens, and as the unit. You will
observe that the mention of " the good and ancient

THE APOCALYPSE 129

copies " implies both wide circulation and antiquity.
The occurrence also of variations of reading in
different copies of a Book is an evidence of age.
Some ten years earlier than Irenaeus we know
that the Apocalypse was used by Theophilus at
Antioch (Eus. H.E. iv. 24), and by Melito at
Sardis ; the latter indeed made it the subject of a
treatise (Eus. H.E. iv. 26). Even more important
is the evidence of Justin Martyr about the middle of
the century. The Apocalypse is the only Book of
the New Testament whose author Justin mentions by
name. "Among us," he says (Dial. 81 ; comp.
Eus. H.E. iv. 1 8. 8), "a certain man whose name
was John, one of the Apostles of the Christ, in an
apocalypse vouchsafed to him, prophesied that
those who believe our Christ will pass a thousand
years in Jerusalem, and that after this there will be
the general and (in a word) the eternal resurrection
of all men, and the judgment." Thus in the second
century the evidence for the acceptance of the
Apocalypse as an Apostolic writing, the work of St.
John, is remarkably varied, strong, and early. But
when from the second we turn to the third century,
we become aware of discordant notes.

A certain sect, called from its founder the
Montanists, though they were guilty of no formal
heresy, broke away from the Catholic Church mainly
on certain questions of discipline. They were the

I3O HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

Puritans of the early Church. They were
characterized by two opinions. On the one hand
they exaggerated and distorted the doctrine of the
Paraclete (the Holy Ghost, the Comforter), in that
they insisted that the Spirit made revelations to
members of their body, and that these revelations
were binding on the whole number of the Faithful.
On the other hand, they dwelt with unusual vigour
on the conception of the millennium kingdom —
Christ's reign on earth for a thousand years. The
former of these views was based on the teaching of
St. John's Gospel, the latter on the symbolism of the
Apocalypse. Hence some who opposed their
characteristic doctrines, strove to cut at the root of
the mischief by calling in question the Gospel
and the Apocalypse of St. John. Caius, a pres
byter, early in the third century, in a disputation
which he held at Rome with Proclus, a Montanist
leader, appears absurdly enough to have ascribed the
Apocalypse to Cerinthus, a contemporary of St.
John, who denied the true humanity of Christ (Eus.
H.E. iii. 28). Again, a certain nebulous sect, whom
Epiphanius (Haer. li.) nicknamed the Alogi (the
irrational ones1), went a step further and rejected

1 The name Alogi refers both to their supposed character —
those who were without reason (logos) ; and to the fact that in
rejecting St. John's Gospel they rejected the doctrine of the
Word (Logos). They are also probably alluded to in Irenaeus
iii. II. 9.

THE AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

both the Gospel and the Apocalypse, affirming that
they were the work not of the Apostle but of the
heresiarch, Cerinthus. Thus, though no historical
evidence was alleged against the Apocalypse, yet
because of the extravagances of those who misused its
imagery it fell into discredit. A more cautious
and reverent criticism meets us in some fragments,
preserved by Eusebius (H.E. vii. 25), of a letter of
Dionysius, a great bishop of Alexandria about the year
260. Dionysius, with the precision of a scholar,
notes the differences in general character, in literary
style, and in vocabulary which separate the Fourth
Gospel and the Apocalypse. The two Books cannot,
he argues, be the work of the same writer.
John the Apostle was the author of the Gospel.
That the writer of the Apocalypse was ' a holy and
inspired man ' Dionysius admits, and that his name
was John ; but he cannot have been the same John
who wrote the Gospel. The fragment illustrates in
a remarkable degree the reverent freedom with which
the question of the authorship of a Scriptural Book
was discussed in the third century, and the critical
and literary insight which was brought to bear on
such problems. In the fourth century we find a
remarkable division of opinion and practice. Turn
ing to the Eastern (Greek) Church, we note that the
Apocalypse was included in some lists of Books (e.g.
that of Athanasius), that it was omitted in others

132 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

(e.g. that of Cyril of Jerusalem), that it was included
in others with an expression of doubt (e.g. that of
Eusebius and that of Amphilochius, Bishop of
Iconium). It is a noteworthy fact that Chrysostom,
presbyter of Antioch and afterwards Archbishop
of Constantinople, though it is clear that he was
acquainted with it, yet, in all his voluminous works,
abstains from any appeal to the Apocalypse as a
doctrinal authority. " Sometimes," in writers of this
century, to quote some unpublished words of Dr.
Hort, " but rarely, one comes across a shy quotation.
It was probably accepted as a matter of form, but
passed over as a matter of practice."

In the West, on the other hand, the Apocalypse was
generally accepted. " We receive them both," wrote
Jerome (Ep. cxxix. 3, referring to the Apocalypse
and the Epistle to the Hebrews), " not following
the custom of our own time, but the authority of
ancient writers, who often adduce quotations from
them, as from Canonical and Ecclesiastical Books."

How then are we to account for this remark
able divergence between the earliest and later
times, between the estimate of the Book in the
second century and that of the fourth ? It was
probably due partly to the cause to which I have
already alluded — the condemnation of millenarian
views, which were based, or were supposed to be
based, on the teaching of the Book ; partly to the

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES 133

suspicion under which the Apocalyptic literature, of
which the so-called Apocalypse of Peter is a con
spicuous example, fell in the fourth century. But
whatever doubts were current in later times as to its
fitness for popular use or as to its Apostolic authority
it is important to remember that in the second century,
when the traditions of the Apostolic age were still
living, it was held in high estimation. It was
accepted by Melito and Irenaeus, the pupils of those
teachers in Asia Minor who had themselves been the
pupils of St. John.

(3) THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. — The collection of
Catholic Epistles may be compared with that in
the Hebrew Bible called the OWQ (the Writings).1
Both collections were 'formed latest in their respective
Canons. Both included Books about which there
had been doubt. Both were to some extent mis
cellaneous ; for in the New Testament Canon the
two shorter Epistles of St. John were not, properly
speaking, Catholic (General) Epistles.

In the early Syriac Church it appears that no
Catholic Epistle was accepted. " The Law and the
Prophets and the Gospel," to quote an important

1 The Hebrew Bible is arranged as follows: (i) The Law;
(2) The Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, i, 2 Samuel,
i, 2 Kings) ; (3) The Later Prophets; (4) The Writings
(Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, I, 2 Chronicles).

134 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

passage from an ancient Syriac work called The
Doctrine of Addai (p. 44, ed. Phillips), " which ye
read every day before the people, and the Epistles of
St. Paul, which Simon Peter sent us from the city ot
Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which
John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus,
these Books read ye in the Churches of Christ,
and with these read not any others, as there is not
any other in which the truth which ye hold is
written, except these Books."

In the growth of the collection of the Catholic
Epistles we may trace three stages.

(a) The nucleus of the collection consisted of the
First Epistle of St. Peter and the First Epistle of St.
John. Of the "authority" of these two Epistles, to
use the words of the sixth article, " was never any
doubt in the Church."

(£) THE COLLECTION OF THREE EPISTLES. — To
these two Epistles (i Peter, i John) that of St.
James was added. This collection represented the
teaching of the three Apostles of the Circumcision,
and it was obviously complementary to the collection
of Pauline Epistles. The fact that the Epistle of
St. James commonly held the first place among the
Catholic Epistles (cf. Eus. H.E. ii. 23. 25) points
to the conclusion that this collection of three
Epistles had its origin in Syria, perhaps in Jerusalem.
These three Epistles formed the Canon of the

HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT 135

Catholic Epistles in the great Syriac version of the
New Testament. They alone were accepted in the
neighbouring Church of Antioch — that Church of
which John Chrysostom is the most famous repre
sentative. Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium about
380 A.D., in his list of Books, speaks of some persons
who say that " three only [of the Catholic Epistles]
ought to be received — one of James, one of Peter,
and one of John."

Of the Epistle of St. James it may be briefly said
that in the East, if it was not very extensively used,
no doubts were expressed as to its authority. It
was in the West that its position was questioned.
At Carthage Tertullian's supposed allusions to its
language are very doubtful ; Cyprian, from whose
quotations a large part of the New Testament could
be re-written, never uses it ; a century later it is
omitted in the ' Cheltenham ' list of New Testament
Books. At Rome, as the silence of the Muratorian
Fragment shews, it was ignored. There is no
evidence that Irenaeus in South Gaul was acquainted
with it. On the other hand, traces of its language
are found in Clement of Rome, in the Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles, and in the Shepherd of Hermas.
The last-named writer indeed had clearly a special
reverence for it, and knew it by heart. It is probable
that, owing to the original circumstances of its
destination (it is addressed to the Jewish Dispersion),

136 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

and to its peculiar character (though it is full of
echoes of Christ's teaching, it hardly mentions His
name, and never alludes to His death or resurrection),
it had a limited circulation, epecially in the West ;
and, as it touched Christian doctrine at but few points
and had no bearing on the theological controversies
of the early centuries, it attracted little attention. It
was probably the influence of the Churches of Syria
and of the further East which gained for it a place in
the Canon.

(f) THE COLLECTION OF SEVEN EPISTLES. — The first
mention of seven Catholic Epistles is found in a
passage of Eusebius (H.E. ii. 23. 25). There were
obvious reasons why, as there were four Epistles
bearing Apostolic names and therefore challenging
a place in the Canon, the collection of Catholic
Epistles should be extended from three to seven.
Seven is the sacred number of perfection. More
over, the increase to seven created an analogy
between the Catholic Epistles and on the one hand
the Apocalypse, addressed to the seven Churches of
Asia Minor, and on the other hand the collection
of Pauline Epistles. For St. Paul, as it used often
to be said, wrote to seven Churches ; or, if the Epistle
to the Hebrews be included among his writings,
then his Epistles are twice seven in number.
There is some evidence to shew that this full
collection of seven Catholic Epistles either origin-

THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE 137

ated at, or was first established in, the Church of
Jerusalem.

The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle
of St. Peter1 were both included, you will remember,
among the books which Eusebius calls ' disputed ' ;
and both, but especially the latter, present to the
student of the New Testament problems of peculiar
difficulty.

As to the Epistle of St. Jude, little or no stress can
be laid on supposed coincidences with this Epistle in
the writings of the second century. But there is clear
evidence that at the meeting point of the second and
third centuries it was accepted as authoritative in the
Churches of the countries round the Mediterranean,
at Alexandria, at Carthage, at Rome. In the third
century, however, doubts were expressed about its
apostolic authority, based on the contents of the
Epistle itself. At Alexandria Origen, if in one passage
(in Matt. torn. x. 17) he commends it as "full of
strong words ot heavenly grace, though it be but a
few lines in length," yet in another hints at mis
givings as to its reception : "If any one should
adduce the Epistle of Jude" (ib. xvii. 30). At
Carthage, though it was used by Tertullian, yet it is
ignored in the writings of Cyprian and in the African
list of New Testament Books of a century later. It

1 For a fuller discussion of these two Epistles I may be allowed
to refer to my articles on them in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

138 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

apparently was not accepted in the great Biblical
School of Antioch. The reason of these suspicions
is not far to seek. Didymus, the blind head of the
Catechetical School of Alexandria about 390, informs
us that the Epistle was questioned by some on
account of the strange reference in it to the dispute
of the Archangel with the devil about the body of
Moses, a reference which was doubtless derived from
an apocryphal Book called the Assumption of Moses.
Further, we learn from Jerome that it was rejected
' by many ' because it quoted from the Book of
Enoch. Here then, as in the case of the Apoca
lypse, we have a contrast between earlier and later
opinion. From the beginning of the third century,
when there was a growing tendency in view of the
Gnostic controversies to regard all apocryphal writings
with suspicion, the use of such writings in this Epistle
became a bar to its recognition as an authoritative
apostolic document. On the other hand, considering
the brevity of the Epistle and its special character, it
had received by the beginning of the third century a
remarkably wide acceptance in the Church. This
early acceptance, it will be observed, may well em
body a tradition handed down from the Apostolic
age.

The Second Epistle of Peter must be said to stand
apart from the other Books of the New Testament in
regard to the insufficiency of its external support.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER 139

With the internal characteristics of the Book we do
not concern ourselves to-day.

In the extant literature of the second century there
seems to be no trace of the influence of this Epistle,
no reminiscence of its thought or language. This
lack or evidence is all the more striking, because the
style of the Epistle is so remarkable that its phrases,
if known, could hardly fail to be remembered ; and,
if regarded as apostolic, to be appealed to. The
Epistle would have been a controversial armoury for
the assailants of the Gnostics. Had he known it and
regarded it as authoritative, it could not but have
been used, as the First and Second Epistles of St.
John are used, by Irenaeus. The earliest certain
reference to the Epistle is contained in the words of
Origen (ap. Eus. H.E. vi. 25. 8), "Peter has left one
Epistle, which is acknowledged, and perhaps also a
second ; for it is doubted." It is, however, probable
that the Epistle was known at Alexandria shortly
before the time of Origen. There are reasons for
thinking that Clement of Alexandria commented on
2 Peter; but he also, as we learn from Eusebius (H.E.
vi. 14. i), commented on the so-called Apocalypse of
Peter ; and the evidence points to the conclusion
that he regarded the Epistle in question as the com
panion of the Apocalypse of Peter rather than of the
First Epistle of that Apostle.

During the third century the Epistle, it is clear,

I4O HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

gained acceptance in certain churches. We find
traces of it in the works of Hippolytus of Rome, in
two writers of Asia Minor (Firmilian of Caesarea
in Cappadocia and Methodius of Patara). Frag
ments of an old Latin translation of the Epistle are
extant, but the translation belongs to the later Italian
type of text. It is contained in the two great
Egyptian versions, the date of which however is
uncertain.

By the time when Eusebius wrote in the fourth
century the recognition of seven Catholic Epistles
(at least in the Churches which he knew best) had
become usual. The Second Epistle of Peter was
accepted at Jerusalem, as Cyril's list shews. But
it had no place in the Canon of the Syriac-speaking
Churches nor in that of the Greek school of Antioch.
In Asia Minor, if 2 Peter is included in the list
of Gregory Nazianzen, yet neither he nor Gregory
of Nyssa nor Basil the Great appears to quote it or
to refer to it. Those teachers, whose knowledge
of Christian literature prior to their days was
widest, were conscious how little support the
Epistle had in early writers. Its reception was
probably due to the popular voice. This is what
we infer from the words of Eusebius (H.E. Hi. 3),
which also tell us of his own inability to accept it :
" As to the current Second Epistle [of Peter], we
have learned xaeiXva/uev that it is not canonical :

THE CLOSE OF THE CANON

yet since it seemed useful to many, it was studied
along with the other Scriptures. . . . Of the
writings which bear the name of Peter I
recognize one single Epistle as genuine and
acknowledged by the elders of old time." When
once it " was studied with the other Scriptures,"
it could not fail to attach itself to the undisputed
Epistle of Peter ; for it proclaimed itself
(iii. i) a 'Second Epistle' of that Apostle. Thus
the Epistle was ready, when the collection of
Catholic Epistles was extended to seven, to take
its place beside that Epistle of St. Peter which
had been accepted from the first.

We have now traced in outline the history of
the selection of single Books and of the formation
of the various groups of Books. How was the
final result attained ? A different issue, humanly
speaking, would not have been an unnatural one.
The Apocalypse might well have been excluded
from the Canon of the New Testament in deference
to the scruples of those who questioned the aposto-
licity of its teaching. It would not have been
surprising if the smaller group of Catholic Epistles
had been accepted, and not the larger one. The
acknowledgment of the full Canon of the New
Testament is probably due to two influences, the
workings of which synchronized.

142 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

We turn first to the Greek Churches of the East.
Among these Churches Constantinople was in the
fourth century a metropolis of rapidly increasing im
portance. It was the ' New Rome.' The Church of
Constantinople, in many ways the daughter of the
Church of Antioch, did not inherit the doubts of
Antioch as to the full Canon of the New Testament.
Constantinople was the centre of those imperial
influences, which played so great a part in matters
ecclesiastical and religious. The preparation which
Constantine entrusted to Eusebius of ' fifty copies
of the Divine Scriptures ' for use in the new capital
(Eus. V. C. iv. 36) had important results. It was
not unnatural that these copies should contain all
the Books of the New Testament which had gained
general recognition. A quasi-official standard was
thus set up ; and the distinction, so clearly drawn,
as we have seen, in the writings of Eusebius himself,
between ' acknowledged ' and ' disputed ' Books,
soon became little more than a matter of antiquarian
interest.

In Western Christendom the decisive influences
were those of Jerome and of Augustine. The latter,
though not insensible of the effect on the authority
or the prestige of a Book caused by its rejection in
some quarters (de Doct. Christ, ii. 12, 13), yet in
practice appealed, without distinction, to all the
Books of our New Testament. Jerome, as a student

HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT 143

of earlier Church writers, Greek and Latin, was
acquainted with the doubts of scholars as to certain
Books, but for the purposes of instruction and edifi
cation he puts these all on one side, and uses all the
Books which make up our New Testament without
any sign of differentiating between them. This view,
which doubtless represents that of the Church of
Rome, found expression in the Canon of the Vulgate.
The publication of the Vulgate closed the question
in the West. The New Testament Canon of the
Syriac-speaking people still remained more restricted
in its range. But the verdict of the Greek and
the verdict of the Latin Churches, which made
themselves felt about the same time, fixed the limits
of the New Testament, which has been the ' divine
library' of Christendom from the end of the fourth
century to the present day.

I bring this lecture to a close with three brief
observations.

( i ) The Canon of the New Testament, as we have
seen, was a gradual growth, not the creation of any
formal enactment. As we look back over the
history as a whole, we can discern how the Provi
dence of God in the earliest times guarded the
Apostolic writings, and preserved them from count
less possibilities of destruction ; and in later times
moulded the apparently fortuitous and casual course

144 HISTORY OF CANON OF NEW TESTAMENT

of events, so that, as the final result, the Canon
included the full sum of Apostolic teaching — the
ethical teaching of St. James, for example, as well as
the spiritual witness of St. John.

(2) We recognize that the Books of the New
Testament do not all stand on the same level of
certainty and authority. No doubt the popular view
is that the New Testament is a single Book, and that
there is no difference between its constituent parts.
The study of the history of the growth of the Canon
does not support this opinion. It is a serious con
fusion if we regard the Gospel of St. John as
possessing no greater attestation than the Second
Epistle of St. Peter. In the Canon of the New
Testament there is the clear noon of certitude and
the twilight of ambiguity. Christ gave to His
Church not a charter of infallibility, but the sure
promise of a guiding Spirit.

(3) We thankfully acknowledge the unique and
sure position of those Apostolic writings which are
the title-deeds of our Christian faith and life— the
Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles of St. Paul, the two
great Epistles of St. Peter and St. John. The
Christian society from the first days recognized and
treasured these Books as the work and the abiding
witness of the Apostles, and as such handed them on
as the Sacred Scriptures of the New Covenant to all
future generations of Christian men.

The Dates of the New Testament
Books.

DURING the present course of lectures you have had
put before you an account of the transmission of the
New Testament to our own time, and of the process
by which a New Testament Canon was created.
Both lines of investigation trace the history of the
books, to which we owe our knowledge of the origin
and contents of the Christian Revelation back to a
very early period. Following on these it is my duty
to try and examine the evidence which enables
us to determine within certain limits the date at
which these books were written. To any one who
is in the least acquainted with the subject this will
seem a bold thing to attempt within the limits of a
single lecture. He will know that volumes have
been written about each separate book. But there is
sometimes an advantage in attempting a compre
hensive view, in emphasising the essential points,

146 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

and in trying to dissociate from the cloud of con
jectures and theories which surround the subject such
facts as may lay some claim to certainty. The
fundamental question is this : There is a traditional
view, according to which the books of the New
Testament are the work of Apostolic or sub-
apostolic authors, and were written at different
dates during the second half of the first century.
There is, on the other hand, an immense amount of
critical work, which has set itself to prove that all, or
the greater number, or at any rate some of these
books were the product of the Christian imagination
of the second century. We have not to attempt
to-day to discuss the exact date of each writing, but
to decide which of these views is correct or most
nearly correct.

I.

I will begin with certain general considerations,
and, in order to get a substantial basis of external
evidence, I will ask you to look at the Christian
remains of the beginning of the second century.
We possess five short writings, the claim of which to
be written not later than the first quarter of that
century may be considered to have been made good.
Of course I do not mean that no one disputes it,
but whether one looks at the weight of the argument

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS THEIR DATE 147

by which it is supported, or at the wide acceptance
which they have received, one may reasonably hold
that this conclusion has been generally accepted by
scholars. At any rate the dates which I am going to
give you are those which have been adopted by Dr.
Abbott in his article on the Gospels in the Encyclopaedia
Biblica, and as he is one of the ablest representatives
in England of the views which I believe to be in
correct, it is convenient to have a starting point on
which we are agreed.

The documents in question are :

(1) A letter written by the Roman Church to

the Church of Corinth, generally held to
be the work of a certain Clement, and
called the First Epistle of Clement. Its date
is probably about 96 A.D.

(2) Seven Letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch,

to certain churches in the province of Asia,
and to the Church of Rome about the year
TIO A.D.

(3) A short Letter of Poly carp, Bishop of

Smyrna, written about the same time.

(4) A curious document, called the Epistle of

Barnabas, written not later than 125 A.D.

(5) The recently discovered treatise called the

Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
written, according to Abbott, between 80

148 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

A.D. and no A.D. This is the only
document for which such an early date,
although probable, has not, in my opinion,
been completely proved. For it is com
posite in character ; and although some
portions are not only early, but very early,
the latest date at which additions or inter
polations may have been made cannot be
conclusively settled.

Before proceeding to ask what evidence these
writings give, I will ask you to notice two or three
further points. They are, in the first place, exceed
ingly short. The whole bulk only occupies in
English about 100 octavo pages, and might be read
in two or three hours. Then they represent very
widely different areas — Rome, Asia, Syria, probably
Palestine and Egypt. And then, thirdly, they were
written at a time when the Christian Scriptures
were normally at any rate the Old Testament
writings. This is of course itself a proof of their
early age. They were written by men who owed
their Christianity to the oral teaching of the Apostles
themselves and their immediate followers, and hence
the use of the New Testament books is mainly inci
dental. When these facts are remembered it will
be seen how very important and how strong the
evidence, which we shall proceed to examine,
really is.

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS THEIR TEACHING 149

It is of three kinds. There is first of all their
witness to the subject matter of the New Testament,
to the Christian Faith and the Gospel History.
There is, secondly, their witness to the different types
of teaching given in the New Testament. And then,
thirdly, there is their testimony to the actual words
and language of the books which we possess.

(i) The Apostolic Fathers taught and preached
just the same gospel that we now read in the New
Testament, i.e. the same teaching about the life of
Christ, about the doctrinal significance of that life,
and the moral obligations of Christianity.

Let me take an instance from Ignatius : " I give
glory to Jesus Christ, the God who bestowed such
wisdom upon you ; for I have perceived that ye are
established in faith immoveable, being as it were
nailed to the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, in flesh
and in spirit, and firmly grounded in love in the
blood of Christ, fully persuaded as touching our Lord
that He is truly of the race of David according to the
flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power,
truly born of a virgin and baptized by John that all
righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed
up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate
and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we — that
is of His most blessed passion) ; that He might set up
an ensign unto all the ages through His resurrection,
for His saints and faithful people, whether among

I5O THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

Jews or among Gentiles, in the body of His Church.
For He suffered all these things for our sakes ; and
He suffered truly as also He raised Himself truly." l

Now here we have substantially the Gospel as we
know it, and it must, I think, be perfectly evident
that the writer of this passage, if he had not the same
gospels as we have, had documents which told exactly
the same message. Moreover, every characteristic
of style and reflection shows that this passage is later
than the Gospel story.

Bishop Westcott in his History of the Canon
has summed up for us the knowledge of the Gospel
shown in the Apostolic Fathers.

" The ' Gospel ' which the Fathers announce
includes all the articles of the ancient Creeds.
Christ, we read, our God, the Word, the Lord and
Creator of the World, who was with the Father before
time began, humbled Himself and came down from
heaven, and was manifested in the flesh, and was born
of the Virgin Mary, of the race of David according
to the flesh ; and a star of exceeding brightness
appeared at His birth. Afterwards He was baptized
by John, to fulfil all righteousness ; and then, speak
ing His Father's message, He invited not the right
eous, but sinners, to come to Him. Perfume was
poured over His head, an emblem of the immortality
which He breathed on the Church. At length, under
1 Ignatius, Smyrn. I. (Lightfoot's translation).

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS THEIR TEACHING

Herod and Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, and
vinegar and gall were offered Him to drink. But on
the first day of the week He rose from the dead, the
first fruits of the grave ; and many prophets were
raised by Him for whom they had waited. After His
resurrection He ate with His disciples and showed
them that He was not an incorporeal spirit. And He
ascended into heaven and sat down on the right hand
of the Father, and thence he shall come to judge the
quick and the dead. " l

(2) But this indebtedness to Apostolic teaching is
still more marked. There are, apart from the Gospel
narratives, five main types of teaching in the New
Testament. That of St. Paul, of St. James, of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, of St. Peter, and St. John.
Of these five types four are presupposed and harmon
ized in the Epistle of Clement, and the fifth, that of
St. John has influenced the Epistles of St. Ignatius.
Clement co-ordinates St. Peter and St. Paul. He
combines their favourite expressions. He is largely
indebted to the Epistle to the Hebrews. He states
the doctrine of justification in all its antithetical
fulness, combining the views and the instances of St.
James and St. Paul.

" The theory of justification," writes Bishop
Westcott, " is stated in its antithetical fulness. The

1 A History of the Canon of the New Testament, by Brooke Foss
Westcott, p. 53, Edn. 5, 1881.

152 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

same examples are used as in the Canonical Epistles,
and the teaching of St. Paul and St. James is
coincidentally affirmed. ' Through faith and hospi
tality a son was given to Abraham in old age, and by
obedience he offered him a sacrifice to God.'
' Through faith and hospitality Rahab was saved.'
' We are not justified by ourselves . . . nor by works
which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by
our faith, by which Almighty God justified all from
the beginning of the world.' Shortly afterwards
Clement adds in the spirit of St. James, ' Let us then
work from our whole heart the work of righteous
ness.' And the same tenor of thought reappears in
the continual reference to the fear of God as instru
mental in the accomplishment of these good works." 1

If we pass to Ignatius, while it is on the teaching
of St. Paul that his thoughts are built up — " The
image of St. Paul is stamped alike upon his language
and doctrine " — he is also acquainted with and
influenced by the mode of thought peculiar to St. John.

" Love is * the stamp of the Christian.' ' Faith is
the beginning, and love the end of life.' ' Faith is
our guide upward, but love is the road that leads to
God.' ' The Word is the manifestation of God,'
' the door by which we come to the Father,' ' and
without Him we have not the principle of true life.'
' The Spirit is not led astray, as being from God.
1 Westcott, of. fit. p. 25.

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS THEIR SOURCES 153

For it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it
goeth and telleth that which is hidden.' The true
meat of the Christian is the ' bread of God, the bread
of heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus
Christ,' and his drink is ' Christ's blood, which is love
incorruptible.' He has no love of this life; ' his love
has been crucified, and he has in him no burning
passion for the world, but living water, speaking
within him, and bidding him come to his Father.'
Meanwhile his enemy is the enemy of his Master,
even the ' ruler of this age.' " x

Now we may state the problem in this way.
Here are a series of writers of the sub-apostolic
age, all of them professing to give the teaching of
the Apostles. They write, allowing for differences
of style and method of thought, just as an orthodox
Christian might at the present day with the New
Testament before him. They have their individual
peculiarities. Some are more, some less original.
But their doctrine and theological teaching are the
same. Where did they get it from ? The natural
answer is, from the books of the New Testament
which we now possess, and from which we can get
the same teaching. They had, it is true, the advan
tage of remembering some oral tradition, but oral
tradition would have confined them to one or two
lines of thought. With these writers Christianity
1 Westcott, op, cit. p. 35.

154 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

has already become Catholic. Different strains of
teaching are combined. If we had no New Testa
ment, we should have to assume one to explain the
phenomena of their writings, and if they did not
use the books which we still possess they must
have had others with the same contents and the same
teaching.

(3) But, thirdly, our case is stronger still. There
are in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers a large
number of resemblances in language to .almost all
the books of the New Testament. In some cases
the quotations are full, in others slight ; in some
they are more exact than in others, but they extend
over the whole range of the New Testament, with the
exception of three or four of the smaller books.1
In some cases the evidence is far less full than in
others. I am only now asking you to look at it as a
whole, and I would put it before you as a result of
the examination of the Apostolic Fathers, that
they imply something very like our New Testament,
that the natural, I will not say certain, deduction
from this line of investigation is that the books of
the New Testament were mainly written in the

1 The strength and value of this evidence may to some extent
be recognized by the list of quotations given in the Appendix, in
which passages from the Apostolic Fathers are placed side by side
with verses of the New Testament, to which the writers appear
to be indebted.

TEXTUAL CORRUPTION I$$

first century, and recognized in the Christian
Churches as authoritative, I will not say canonical,
at the beginning of the second century. May I
add that if you wish to understand the early history
of Christianity, a careful study of the Apostolic
Fathers, which are all perfectly accessible in the
excellent translations and editions of Bishop Light-
foot, will be far more profitable than pages of
magazine articles and popular pamphlets, which
are often singularly ignorant.

While we are still considering the New Testa
ment generally, I should like to mention two further
arguments which are making careful enquirers feel
more and more clearly that the evidence requires
them to trace back the writings of the New Testa
ment into the first century. The one is the history
of the Canon, the other the result of New
Testament criticism. By the middle of the second
century (if not earlier) our Gospels were in all proba
bility collected together as one book, and that in
a text which had already begun to be corrupted. I
will quote in support of this some remarks of von
Dobschu'tz in a review of Mr. Burkitt's Two Lectures
on the Gospels in the Theologische Literaturzeitung,
a leading German review : " Burkitt's results lie
exactly in the line of the observations, which in every
direction — and not merely in textual criticism — have
forced themselves upon me as the result of the most

156 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

recent research. We are continually being forced
onward right to the very beginnings and origins.
We have learnt to place the beginnings of text
corruption, and also of the misinterpretation of the
Gospels, not in the fourth century, not even in the
second century, but already in the first."1 This line
of argument is somewhat subtle, and demands a
certain amount of special knowledge to appreciate it,
but it is probably more certain than many more
obvious forms of evidence.

II.

We will pass now from the general question to
the different groups of books, and will begin with
the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. On both external
and internal grounds these can be dated with more
certainty than perhaps any other books of the New
Testament, and they need not detain us long.
Their use by the Apostolic Fathers is clear and
undoubted. There are quotations from all of them,
with the exception of the Epistle to Philemon. Of
certain books they are slight and not such as stress
could be laid on if they were alone. Of the more im
portant, of Romans, of I. Corinthians, and Ephesians,
the use is large. It is difficult to avoid believing that
Polycarp had a collection of the Epistles including
the Pastorals. Of the question of style and doctrine
1 Theologische Literatufzeitung, 1902, i. p. 21.

THE PAULINE EPISTLES 157

I need only speak shortly, as Dr. Sanday has already
treated that subject. They may be divided on internal
evidence into four groups corresponding to four periods
in St. Paul's life. While all the Epistles have a remark
able and distinct resemblance to one another both in
teaching and style, there are also certain differences
which correspond exactly to these different chrono
logical divisions. The Epistles reveal in all cases a
marked and striking personality, and imply rather than
narrate a series of circumstances which fit into the
narrative as we possess it in the Acts of the Apostles.
I am not going now to discuss the exact date to which
each can be assigned, that would necessarily lead us to
a number of minute and often doubtful points, which
would be irrelevant to our present purpose. I will
give you the approximate date for each group :

I. Epistles of the Second Missionary Journey, I.
and II. Thessalonians, 48-51 A.D.

II. Epistles of the Third Missionary Journey,
Galatians, I. and II. Corinthians, Romans, 50-58 A.D.

III. Epistles of the Captivity, 57-61 A.D.

IV. The Pastoral Epistles, 58-64 A.D.1

I hardly think it necessary to apologize for treating
any of these as genuine, with the exception of the
Pastoral Epistles, on which I would say :

(i.) The great difficulty to me has always been the

1 These dates represent the outside limits according to different
systems of chronology.

158 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

question of the release and second imprisonment ; it
was difficult to find room for them before the
Neronian persecutions in 64. But a series of chrono
logical investigations, made by Mr. Turner in England
and Professor Harnack in Germany, have tended to
throw the dates of St. Paul's life further back. They
depend upon the date at which Festus succeeded
Felix, which is now put in 55/56 instead of as late as
60 or 61. This leaves ample room in St. Paul's life
for the later activity implied by the Pastoral Epistles,
(ii.) The differences of style and subject matter are
certainly considerable, but may be accounted for by
the later date and the different purpose and character
of the writings. In discussing the question of style
in St. Paul's Epistles, it must be always remembered
that they were written by an amanuensis, and the
scribe would be not without influence on the
phraseology.

(iii.) The external evidence for the letters is very
good.

(iv.) The argument against their genuineness, based
on the supposed developed ecclesiastical conditions, is a
very precarious one, as we have really no knowledge
exact enough to enable us to condemn a document on
such grounds. It is an argument of an a priori character
and often means arguing in a circle. Personally I should
be inclined to say that the Pastoral Epistles represent
an early and primitive type of organization, very much

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 159

earlier than that of the Ignatius letters, and that they
must be put certainly one generation earlier than the
latter. They represent much the same stage as that
reached at the close of the Acts of the Apostles.

(v.) Even those who deny their genuineness, for
the most part consider that there is a primitive
nucleus, which they assign to these closing years of St.
Paul's life. If that is once admitted to be possible,
every solid argument against their genuineness
vanishes.1

III.

It will be convenient to take next the Epistle to
the Hebrews, both because the problem that it
presents is for us a fairly simple one, and because it
naturally, if incorrectly, groups itself with the Epistles
of St. Paul. Amongst much that is obscure there
are two things fairly certain — one, that it was not
and could not have been written by St. Paul ; the
other, that it must have been written before the close
of the first century. There is no book the early date
of which is better attested. When we come to ask

1 It is difficult to know whether it is necessary to treat seriously
the opinions put forward by von Manen, and accessible for English
readers in an article by himself in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, III.
3620-3638 : "With respect to the Canonical Epistles the later
criticism . . . has learned to recognize that they are none of
them by Paul." These views have attained no assent outside his
own circle, and are not supported by any arguments which
need refutation.

l6o THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

further questions we soon reach the uncertain —
" Who wrote it ? " as Origen says, " God only
knows." Where it was written, to whom it was
written are equally doubtful. Harnack has recently
startled us by suggesting that it was a woman that
wrote it. There is one question, however, which
it may be worth attempting to answer — Was it
written before or after the destruction of Jerusa
lem ? On this point opinion may reasonably
be divided. My own opinion has varied some
what, but I feel that the preponderating evidence is
in favour of the earlier date. We cannot, I think,
lay stress on the fact that the Jewish rites are
spoken of in the present tense. That might be
an ordinary historic present. But we can, I think,
say perfectly reasonably that it would be astonishing
that such an Epistle could be written after these
rites had ceased to be practised without any reference
to that fact. But still more striking, I think, is the
aim of the Epistle. The difficulty of those who
are addressed is the feeling of being cut off from the
Jewish ordinances. Surely if the writer was able to
point to the judgment of God in their discontinuance
his argument would hardly have been necessary. But
this remains a matter of opinion. To some the
Epistle seems to be directed to the situation caused
by the destruction of Jerusalem. While I am inclined
personally to date the Epistle between the years

THE ACTS AND ST. LUKE l6l

65 and 70, reasonable criticism must allow the
margin 65-90.

IV.

We now pass to a section of the New Testament
where there is wider room for controversy, viz., the
Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.
I will begin with the writings ascribed to St. Luke,
because here, as has been generally recognized, is a
fixed point. There can be no doubt that the third
Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written
by the same person ; they clearly claim to be so, and
there is a marked and striking unity of style. They
are the most literary, the most carefully composed,
the most Hellenic of all the writings of the New
Testament. But, further, the writer must have been
a companion of St. Paul. There are, as you know
well, certain sections in the Acts of the Apostles in
which the narrative passes into the first person plural,
and no explanation of the existence of these sections
is satisfactory, except that which makes them the
work of the author of the book writing naturally in
the first person plural, because he was at that point
a companion of St. Paul. It might be argued (as
it has been) that here we have extracts from a diary
— but the style is identical in these sections with that
of the rest of the book ; or that the first person
was introduced for the sake of vrahemblance , but in

1 62 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

that case how do we account for the fact that just in
these sections the narrative in its fulness of detail, in
its accuracy, its vividness, and knowledge bears all the
marks of being the work of an eye-witness ? I feel
personally quite confident of the correctness of
the conclusion, which is that of Ramsay, of Blass,
of Renan, beside more orthodox and conventional
writers, in fact of the greater number of critics
outside the extreme school, that these two books
were written by a companion of St. Paul. The
earliest date for the Acts must be after the close
of the two years mentioned in the concluding chapter,
i.e. about the year 60; the latest date will be 85-90.
The Gospel of St. Luke must be earlier, but not
necessarily very much earlier than the Acts. The
only strong argument for a long interval between the
composition of the two books would be certain differ
ences of vocabulary between them, but that may, I
think, be discounted by the very different subject-
matter of the two writings, and by the fact that
certainly the Gospels, and in part perhaps the Acts,
have their style very largely influenced by the sources
used by the writer.

Can we date them more exactly ? There are
two more or less conflicting arguments :

(i) Many writers have assumed that the somewhat
abrupt ending of the Acts, leaving St. Paul preaching
at Rome, arose from the fact that the book was written

ST. LUKE AND THE ACTS 163

and finished during these two years. But this is not
an argument on which any real stress can be laid,
since, as a matter of fact, the Acts ends where it does
because the writer has brought St. Paul to Rome, and
thus fulfilled his purpose of describing the spread of
Christianity to the uttermost parts of the world.

(2) An argument for a later date of the Gospel
is found in a comparison of Luke xxi. 20, with Matt.
xxiv. 15, Mark xiii. 14, where the words, "When
ye see the abomination of desolation standing where
it ought not," seem to be interpreted by St. Luke as
" When you see Jerusalem compassed with armies."
It has been held to imply that St. Luke was inter
preting the prophecy by the event, and that therefore
the Gospel was written after the Fall of Jerusalem.
But here again no decisive conclusion can be drawn.
The phrase in St. Matthew and St. Mark would be
obscure and unmeaning to a Gentile reader, and St.
Luke may well have interpreted it in a natural way,
even before the event had happened, or when it
seemed only imminent.

Neither of these arguments is conclusive, and so
far we must be content with the limits given above.
Only with regard to the Acts, I should be inclined to
suggest that, judging by the early and undeveloped
character of the religious phraseology, the complete
absence of any developed form of organization, the
absence of any allusion to the Pauline Epistles, and

164 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

the favourable view held of the character of the civil
government, we are not justified in placing it very
late.

The date of St. Luke's Gospel, so far as it is settled,
will help us to the date of St. Mark's. There are not
many results of the modern study of the formation
of the Gospel which are firmly established, but there
are one or two on which we can rely. The old idea
that St. Mark's Gospel was a shortened version of St.
Matthew and St. Luke may be dismissed. We may
accept it as certain that the common matter of the
three Gospels was derived from an original which
differed little if at all from St. Mark. I have no
doubt myself that it was St. Mark. If this be so, it
must date from a period earlier than the fall of
Jerusalem. Irenaeus1 tells us that after the death of
St. Peter and St. Paul, Mark the disciple and inter
preter of Peter, handed down to us in writing the
things which had been announced by Peter. This, if
true, would give the date shortly after the year 64,
and the statement corresponds with all such internal
evidence as we have. St. Luke's Gospel and St.
Matthew's must both then be somewhat later.

Let us turn now to St. Matthew, and, to begin
with, look at the external evidence that you have
before you.2 I have not referred to it with regard to
St. Luke, St. Mark, or the Acts of the Apostles,

1 Irenaeus, In Omn. Haer. III. 1,2. 2 See Appendix.

ST. MATTHEW 165

because, although what are probably quotations from
or references to these books are to be found in the
Apostolic Fathers, they are not sufficient to rely on.
But when we turn to St. Matthew the case is, it seems
to me, different. There are many quotations from the
Gospel narrative, and almost all resemble the words
of our present St. Matthew. It is quite true, of
course, that the quotations are not always accurate,
and that passages from different places have been
grouped together, but the same writers quote the Old
Testament inaccurately, and group together passages
from the different Pauline Epistles. It is possible
that the influence of oral tradition may be present
in some cases, but substantially almost all the quota
tions resemble St. Matthew's Gospel more or less
accurately. Either they come from St. Matthew or
from another Gospel wonderfully like it, and it is
quite contrary to the truest principles of criticism,
when there is a quite adequate and satisfactory source
in existence, to go out of our way to invent another
document and discard that which we have before us.
One point more. There are in Ignatius two
references to the Gospel narrative which have been
held to be apocryphal. One is a passage in which
our Lord is represented as saying after his resurrec
tion : u Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am
not a demon without body."1 The other is as
1 Ignatius, Smyr, 3.

1 66 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

follows : "A star shone forth in the heaven above
all the stars ; and its light was unutterable, and its
strangeness caused amazement ; and all the rest of
the constellations with the sun and moon formed
themselves into a chorus about the star ; but the star
itself far outshone them all ; and there was perplexity
to know whence came this strange appearance which
was so unlike them. From that time forward every
wrong and every spell was dissolved, the ignorance of
wickedness vanished away, the ancient kingdom was
pulled down, when God appeared in the likeness of
man with newness of everlasting life ; and that
which had been perfected in the counsels of God
began to take effect. Thence all things were per
turbed because the abolishing of death was taken in
hand." i

My own belief is that these passages arise from a
somewhat vigorous imagination working on the
narratives we possess. But suppose for a moment
that they come from a Gospel which we do not
possess. Then it must clearly be not a source or
simpler form of the narrative, but a later working up.
If Ignatius had another Gospel, those we possess must
be very much earlier.

I believe then that our St. Matthew was used by
Ignatius, Polycarp, the Didache> Barnabas, and
probably Clement, and that its date therefore must be

1 Ignatius, Eph. 19.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 167

thrown well back into the first century. For more
exact dating the evidence is precarious. The exact
relation of the eschatological passages to the events
of 70 has been used to prove that the Gospel was
written shortly before or after that year. The date
is a probable one, but not certain, and I prefer for
the present to be satisfied with the conclusion that it
was written before the year 80, and with the general
conclusion that the three Synoptic Gospels probably
date from the years 60 to 80.

If we turn for just a moment to the internal
evidence, there is one broad circumstance which I
should like to bring before you as corroborating the
early date of the composition of the Gospels and the
general trustworthiness of their subject-matter, and
that is their distinctly primitive character. There is
an almost complete absence of any later theological
terminology. Our Lord is ordinarily designated
by the personal name Jesus. The term 'Kpia-Tos
is never used as a personal name as it is already
by St. Paul. You have only to compare these
Gospels with the document called the Gospel of
Peter to see the complete difference of character, and
to be convinced of their comparatively early date.

There is just one more point to which I should like
to refer. You will sometimes see it stated of the
Gospels that they belong to this or that date with the
exception of certain later additions. You will

1 68 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

generally find that the passages suggested as later
additions, are just those which happen to conflict
with the writer's particular prejudices, but you
naturally feel uneasy at the suggestion, and want to
know whether there is any room for such suspicions.
My own opinion is that there is not. The reason
that I would give is as follows : We know pretty
well the history of the text of the four Gospels back
to the year 1 50, and we know that there were at that
time at least two different types of text in existence.
But the common parent of these texts takes us back to
somewhere very near the archetype. And it is very
unlikely that there should be many interpolations
which are preserved in all the different documents
supporting both these types of text. Textual
criticism has probably already eliminated every verse
and passage which were not part of the original
text as they issued from the writer's hand. The
attempts made to mix up the lower and higher
criticism have almost invariably failed.

To settle the dates of the Synoptic Gospels is only
the first stage in a very difficult investigation ; yet I
believe, if we can agree to regard as limits the
dates I have named, 60 — 80, and will work back
wards from them our study will be much more likely
to be productive of results than if we entangle
ourselves in the vagaries of a criticism that
habitually puts everything impossibly late.

THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS 169

V.

We pass now to the problems connected with the
Johannine literature. There are five books
associated with the name of John in the New
Testament. The Apocalypse, the Fourth Gospel,
and three Epistles. The intricacy of the problems
they present turns on two questions. While a
unity of style makes it clear that the Fourth Gospel
and the three Epistles emanated from the same
source, there are certainly very marked differences
between these and the Apocalypse. But yet there
is no need for thinking that these differences
are fundamental, or impossible to reconcile with
unity of authorship, for Professor Harnack, for
example, although assigning none of these writings
to the Apostle John, assigns them all to the same
author, John the Presbyter. The second series of
difficulties arise from the relations of the narrative in
the Fourth Gospel to that in the three other Gospels.

Into these two questions I wish to enter as little as
possible. Each of them could demand a lecture, or
rather many lectures for themselves. I want rather
to try and discover what external or internal
evidences of date there may be which may perhaps
give us a stable position from which to attack the
more intricate problems.

Of the Apocalypse we have evidence both clear and

I7O THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

early. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho,
the Jew, written shortly after the year 1 50, mentions
it as follows : " And afterwards also amongst us a
certain man whose name was John, one of the apostles
of the Christ, in a Revelation which came to him,
prophesied that those who believed in our Christ
should pass a thousand years in Jerusalem, and after
that there should be the universal and, to speak
shortly, eternal resurrection of all men together and the
judgment." * The words ' amongst us ' naturally mean
' at Ephesus,' the scene of the dialogue, where Justin
himself had lived some years before between the years
130 and 140. To this evidence of Justin we can add
the more explicit testimony of Irenaeus. He tells
us that " it is not long ago when it was written, but
almost in our own generation, at the end of
Domitian's reign." Elsewhere he quotes Rev. i.
12, 17, ascribing it to John the disciple of the Lord,
and describes him as he who lay on the Lord's breast
at supper.

The evidence, then, is that the Apocalypse was
written in Asia by a person named John, who could
be described as the apostle or disciple of the Lord, and
that it was written at the close of Domitian's reign,
that is during the years 90-96. It is interesting to
note that this date is the conclusion to which
criticism is strongly tending. While Baur and
1 Justin, Dialogue -with Trypho, 8 1 .

THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS

those who followed him were inclined to assign the
Apocalypse to the time of Nero, almost all modern
writers have returned to the date which tradition had
given. Of the exact identity of the author we
shall speak later.

We now turn to the Gospel and Epistles.

i. The Gospel was known to Ignatius and
read by him. This is, I believe, proved by the
knowledge of the special teaching of St. John
combined with a passage, the literary form of which
implies a knowledge of the written Gospel. It has
been said that these passages arise from a general
acquaintance with the oral teaching which built up the
Gospel. But let us remember, that Ignatius, although
he wrote in Asia, came from Antioch, and had not
been brought up in the Christian school of Ephesus.
His acquaintance with St. John's words must have
been in writing. Nor is the form of the quotation
at all consistent with mere oral knowledge. That the
use is less frequent than that of the other Gospels is
quite consistent with the late date to which from any
point of view we must assign the Fourth Gospel.

While Ignatius quotes the Gospel, Polycarp has a
passage corresponding to the language of the
Epistles, which he seems to quote or make use of in
just the same way as he does the Pauline epistles.

You have these quotations before you. They
may be explained away as every historical fact and

172 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

statement from ancient times can be explained away.
But we have to ask ourselves not, How can I get over
this evidence ? but What is the most rational explana
tion of these facts ?

2. A very definite ecclesiastical tradition ascribes
the authorship of these documents to St. John, who,
it is asserted, lived to the age of about 100, and died
at Ephesus at the beginning of the reign of Trajan.
" John, the disciple of the Lord, who lay upon His
breast, himself gave forth the Gospel, when he was
residing at Ephesus, in the province of Asia." So
writes Irenaeus about the year 1 80. The value of
the tradition is well known. Irenaeus was the pupil
of Polycarp,* and Polycarp the disciple of John.
Irenaeus claims to give the information he had received
directly on adequate authority. The evidence for
this tradition may be summed up as follows :

(i.) The constant, clear testimony of Irenaeus.

(ii.) The corroborative evidence of Justin.

(iii.) The testimony of Polycrates, bishop of
Ephesus in the year 196, who could point to the
reputed tomb of John.

(iv.) The testimony of the Leucian Acts of John.
These are apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, of which
various fragments have been preserved. Their date
is about 170. They are the work of a Gnostic
heretic of Docetic, probably of Valentinian, opinions.
They are probably some of the most foolish books

ST. JOHN IN ASIA 173

ever written. But that does not concern us. The
important point is that they emanate from heretical
sources, but that the writer clearly knows and makes
use of St. John's Gospel, and that they assume the
activity of St. John in Ephesus as a well-known fact.

(v.) To these we can add the evidence of the
Muratorian fragment on the Canon, of Clement of
Alexandria, and later fathers, perhaps coming from the
sources we have enumerated, perhaps independent.

Now here we have a strong and decided body of
evidence. What is to be said against it ? An
obscure passage in the writings of a certain Papias of
Hierapolis, who lived about the year 140, has
suggested to some persons that there were two
people of the name of John in Asia at the close of the
first century, namely John the Apostle and John the
Presbyter, also called a disciple of the Lord. Some
of the early Christian fathers who were by no means
bad critics seized upon this suggestion, and by the
help of a certain number of other hints, evolved a
plausible theory for the authorship of the Apocalypse.
They felt the difficulty of ascribing that work to the same
author as the Gospel, that is to the Apostle John, and
assigned it to John the Presbyter ; but none of them
had any doubt about the Gospel. This same John the
Presbyter has been seized upon with alacrity by
modern critics and widely exploited. Either he is con
sidered to have been the author of the Fourth Gospel,

174 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

while the Apocalypse is doubtfully ascribed to the
Apostle, or the whole legend is maintained to have
arisen from this confusion, and it is maintained that
just as Philip the Apostle and Philip the Evangelist
were confused together, so were John the Presbyter
and John the Apostle. The Gospel then was
written by John the Presbyter, and it is very
doubtful indeed whether John the Apostle had
anything to do with Asia and Ephesus.

We cannot, I am afraid, discuss this question fully.
Let me point out this much, however, to begin with.
This theory will not in any way simplify the problem
of the Gospel. It is quite clear that that Gospel pur
ports to have been written by John the Apostle either
directly or indirectly. If it was not, it was forged
by someone who wished it to be thought that it was.
If John the Presbyter was (as Professor Harnack
maintains) the author, you still have to assume that
he had an acquaintance with the tradition delivered
by John the Apostle, and in that case it is not neces
sary to have a John the Presbyter at all. It is quite
consistent with ecclesiastical tradition and the internal
evidence of the Gospel that it should have been
written down by the Christian circle which sur
rounded the Apostle. Nothing is gained as far as
regards the Gospel by assuming another person of
the name of John.

Moreover all the evidence concerning John the

JOHN THE PRESBYTER 175

Presbyter is very doubtful. The fact of his existence
depends upon an obscure and possibly corrupt passage
of Papias, as interpreted by Eusebius, who had an
object in view. Many other early Christian writers had
read Papias and none of them discovered the existence
of the second John. All those who had read him believed
that he testified to the existence of John the Apostle
in Asia Minor. The writers who believed in John
the Presbyter had no doubt that Papias testified also
to John the Apostle ; and although we cannot rely
altogether on the accuracy of later quotations and
references, we have definite statements quoted from
Papias to the effect that the Fourth Gospel came
from John the Apostle, but was written down at his
dictation by Papias himself.1

What I would put before you is that a wide and
early tradition ascribes the Gospel directly or in
directly to the Apostle John and gives us a clear
idea of all the circumstances under which it was

1 These are found in a preface to St. John's Gospel contained
in the Codex Toletanus (Wordsworth and White, p. 490), see
Burkitt, Two Lectures on the Gospels, pp. 68-70, 90-94. I quote
the translation given by Mr. Burkitt : " this Gospel therefore it
is manifest was written after the Apocalypse, and was given to
the churches in Asia by John while he was yet in the body, as
one Papias by name, Bishop of Hierapolis, a disciple of John and
dear to him, in his Exoterica, i.e. in the end of the Five Books,
related, he who wrote this Gospel at John's dictation (lohanne
subdictante)."

Ij6 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

written, and that the internal evidence harmonizes
with this. These facts have to be explained away,
and the explanations given are neither convincing nor
consistent.

3. I can only mention a third corroborative
argument of early date. Exactly the same marks
of early phraseology are characteristic of St. John's
Gospel and the Synoptics. If you wish to realize the
force of this you can compare the narrative in this
Gospel with a recently discovered fragment of the
Leucian Acts of John discovered by Dr. James of
King's College, Cambridge. This is clearly an
apocryphal document, and as far as it goes affords
an admirable contrast to the simplicity, the early
character, the religious sanity, and — if I may venture
to say so — the inspired language of the Fourth Gospel.

Let me sum up. There are quite clear indications
• of the use of the Johannine writings about the year
no. The evidences for the Ephesian tradition con
cerning the Apostle are strong and good. External
and internal evidence both alike testify to the Apostle
John being the author. I believe then that the
Gospel and Epistles were written in Asia between the
years 80 and 100, and come directly or indirectly
from John the Apostle, the Apocalypse about 95 or
96 ; but if you like to believe that John the Presbyter
wrote the Apocalypse, there is no serious objection.

May I add one word in conclusion ? There is an

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 177

impression in many quarters that the writers who
are called apologists are continually building up
elaborate and far-fetched theories to explain away
what is obvious and natural, and that the simple and
natural explanation of the facts is that of the newer
critics. Throughout the Johannine question the
reverse is the case. The simple and natural ex
planation is the orthodox one, it takes the facts
just as they are. It has far the most evidence in
its favour. If you turn to the articles by Schmiedel
and Abbott in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, you will find
long and elaborate theories constructed to explain
away simple facts. You will find what seem obvious
quotations from St. John ascribed to Philo or some
other writer to whose words they have only a
distant resemblance. You will find every explana
tion but the natural one given of various passages.
You will find a great deal that is clever and ingenious.
But it is all of the nature of apologetics. The whole
trend of investigation and discovery has been against
the position adopted by those writers, and in much
of what they say they are really in the position of an
old-fashioned scholar defending the Pauline author
ship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

VI.

The last group consists of four very difficult
books. The Epistle of James has often been con-

iy8 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

sidered the oldest book in the New Testament. A
reaction has now set in and it figures very often as
one of the latest, being placed about the year 150.
If it could be proved (as has been asserted) that it
was quoted in the Epistle to the Romans the early
date would be correct, but it cannot be so proved.
There are no certain early quotations. There are
similarities of expression to Clement's Epistle, but
nothing that proves literary obligation. But I do not
believe in the late date, and that for three reasons.

(i) The Epistle undoubtedly refers to a contro
versy about Faith and Works. We know that that
controversy existed at a certain period in the first
century ; in the second we should have to invent it. St.
Paul's Epistles make it abundantly clear that there
were within the Christian community many who
did not accept his theory of Justification by Faith,
and held that, like Abraham, Christians were justified
by Works. This situation just suits the Epistle of
James. But if we place it in the second century,
there is no natural place for it. " Perhaps," it is
said, " in his polemic against faith the writer had
in mind an ultra-Pauline gnosis, which he may or may
not have disconnected from genuine Paulinism."
But this is a situation of the existence of which we
have no evidence, and which was certainly not natural
at that time, for the Gnostic despised faith and
exalted knowledge.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER 179

(2) Although Clement of Rome cannot be proved
to have quoted the Epistle, it is quite clear that he
was acquainted with and was indebted to the type
of Christianity that it represents. Without really
understanding the controversy, he attempted to har
monize, or at any rate unite, those who held justifica
tion by Faith and those who held justification by
Works. We must suppose he had some other
document of similar content if he had not the
Epistle of James before him.

(3) The ecclesiastical situation and language do
not exhibit anything which must be late, and have
some features which must be early.

The natural date for it is the time of the Pauline
controversy, the natural place Jerusalem, the natural
author the writer by whom it claims to have been
written. By whom and at what time it was trans
lated if not originally written in Greek, to whom it
owes its gnomic and impressive language, what has
been its history we do not know. A forger generally
has a purpose, but this Epistle became an anachronism
long before any date when it could have been forged.

The First Epistle of Peter is one of the best
attested books of the New Testament. Although
the Apostolic Fathers never quote it under any
name, it was as well known to them as were the
Pauline Epistles. It contains no evidence of later
date. Its theological language is simple and early.

ISO THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

On the one hand, it must have been written after the
Romans and Ephesians, to which it is indebted ; on
the other hand, it must have been earlier than the
time of Clement. It was written from Rome, it claims
to have been written by Peter, and there is nothing
in the contents to compel us to put it later than the
year 64 A.D., although we cannot perhaps prove
that it was earlier than 80-90.

The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of
Jude are the most doubtful writings in the New
Testament. There is no external testimony to com
pel us to put them before 150 A.D., but that does not
of course necessarily compel us to put them so late.
It may well be that such short and unimportant books
might miss being quoted in the few writings we
possess. Their relationship to one another is unde
termined. There are many passages in both which
make their genuineness seem doubtful. There is
such a marked difference of style between the two
Epistles of St. Peter that we can only suppose both
to be genuine by assuming a different translator.
On the other hand, there is nothing in them which
need be later than the first century. I cannot claim
to have studied them sufficiently to give a more
definite opinion of my own.

The object which we set before ourselves at the
beginning of this lecture was not to attempt a

FUTURE CONTROVERSY l8l

detailed dating of the separate books, but to keep
steadily in view the main question, whether the
traditional view according to which the books of the
New Testament were written in the first century was
correct. Our aim will have been satisfied, if I have
succeeded in making it clear that those who hold
this traditional view have a very strong case indeed,
a case which on all points, except one or two, has
steadily grown stronger with the advance of know
ledge. It is significant that Professor Harnack, whose
views of Christianity are certainly not orthodox, has
recognized this ; it is significant again that Professor
Gardner considers that there is no reason why all
the books of the New Testament should not have
been written before the close of the first century.
These opinions are not indeed universal, but the late
dates still accepted by some critics are, I believe,
inconsistent with modern scientific research. The
careful investigation and accurate dating of the docu
ments of the second century, and especially of the
Apostolic Fathers, have made writings, like those of
Professor Schmiedel and Dr. Abbott, as much behind
the times as the Greek Testament of Bishop Christo
pher Wordsworth.

Do not imagine for a moment that I should claim
that the controversy is over. The credibility and
historical character of the New Testament writings
still demand much investigation. But for the future

I 82 THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS

the living defence of traditional Christianity and the
living attack — the defence such as that of Dr. Sanday
and Dr. Strong, the attack such as that of Professor
Harnack and Professor Gardner — will accept sub
stantially the same dates. At the threshold of the
further questions : How far are the New Testament
books credible ? What ultimate answer can we give
when asked, What think ye of Christ; whose son is
He ? my task ends ; only to any who would ask for
some provisional answer I would say : The dates of the
Epistle to the Romans and the first Epistle to the
Corinthians are within a year or two absolutely certain.
Their genuineness may be considered undisputed.
Read them, and grasp their meaning and all that
they imply. Then compare them with the Old
Testament, and with the contemporary Jewish litera
ture, and with classical literature ; if you do so you will
realize what a tremendous interval separates them from
anything which had appeared in the world before.
Try and conceive what cause could have been suffici
ent within a very few years to create such a wonderful
new world of thought and ideas and institutions, of
moral motive and religious aspirations. Then you
will begin to understand the problem of early
Christianity, and perhaps, when the problem is
apprehended, the solution will necessarily follow.

APPENDIX.1

QUOTATIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE
WRITINGS OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

THE following quotations are all taken from writings
which represent the first quarter of the second cen
tury or an earlier period. These are :

(1) 'The Epistle of- CLEMENT to the Corinthian
Church (Clem.). About 95 A.D.

(2) The DIDACHE (Did.) or Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, a composite document. 8o-no A.D.

(3) The Epistle of BARNABAS (Barn.). Before
125 A.D.

(4) The Epistles of IGNATIUS (Ign.). About
1 10 A.D.

(5) TheEpist/eofPoLYCARp(PoL). About IIOA.D.

The extracts are grouped as follows :
I. General Statements.
II. The Pauline Epistles.

III. The Epistle to the Hebrews.

IV. The Acts and the Synoptic Gospels.
V. The Johannine Writings.

VI. The remaining books.

1 The courtesy of the Lightfoot Trustees in permitting the use
of Bishop Lightfoot's Translation of the Apostolic Fathers is
gratefully acknowledged.

H. H. H.

184 APPENDIX

I. GENERAL STATEMENTS.

To the writers of this period, as to the writers of
the New Testament, the Scriptures are naturally the
Old Testament. The words of our Lord are quoted
with such formulas as ' remembering the words of the
Lord Jesus' (Clem. 13, 46), 'remembering the words
which the Lord spake, as he taught' (Pol. 2) ;
'according as the Lord said' (Pol. 7). Occasionally
there are references directly to an Epistle of St. Paul,
but generally the quotations from the Epistles, which
are by far the most numerous, are made without
acknowledgment. In certain passages, however, there
are approximations to later uses.

(1) Pol. 12. 'For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in
the sacred writings, and nothing is hidden from you. But to
myself this is not granted. Only, as it is said in these Scriptures,
Be ye angry and sin not, and Let not the sun set on your wrath. '

The first quotation comes from Ps. iv. 4, and is quoted in Eph.
iv. 26; the second comes from Eph. iv. 26. The Old Testament
quotation may have made it easier to speak of St. Paul's writings
as scripture, but this early instance of later phraseology is quite
consistent with Polycarp's whole attitude to the New Testament.
He uses the writings as if they were his Bible.

(2) Ign. Phil. 5. 'Taking refuge in the Gospel as the flesh of
Jesus, and in the Apostles as the presbytery of the Church. Yea,
and we love the Prophets also, because they too pointed to the
Gospel.'

There is clearly a reference to writings, and to authoritative
writings of Apostles as corresponding to the Prophets ; but it is
very doubtful if the word Gospel can be proved here to mean
a * book,' it probably still means ' the message.' So Smyrn. j.
'It is therefore meet that ye should abstain from such, and not

PAULINE EPISTLES 185

speak of them either privately or in public ; but should give heed
to the Prophets, and especially to the Gospel, wherein the passion
is shown unto us and the resurrection is accomplished.' C£ also
Phil. 9.

(3) Barn. 4. ' Let us give heed, lest haply we be found, as the
Scripture saith, Many called but few chosen.'

Here we have Matth. xxii. 14 quoted with the ordinary formula
for the citation of Scripture. It is possible to press it too far,
but that the point is significant is shown by the bold effort made
to explain it away. See, for example, Dr. Abbott in Encyclopaedia
Biblica II., 1828, who thinks that perhaps it is a quotation from
Enoch ; but as the passage does not occur in Enoch as we know
it, he has to suppose another recension. This represents a most
elaborate and far-fetched method of apology.

(4) Did. 8. 'Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord
commanded in His Gospel, thus pray ye : Our Father, etc.'

Ib. 15. 'And reprove one another, not in anger but in peace,
as ye find in the Gospel, . . . But your prayers and your alms
giving and all your deeds, so do ye as you find it in the Gospel of
our Lord.'

In both these passages the word Gospel has come very near to
meaning a written Gospel.

II. THE PAULINE EPISTLES.

(i) Romans. There is no reference to this Epistle
by name, yet the following passage in Ignatius' letter
to the Roman Church may have been suggested by it :
'I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul did. They
were Apostles, I am a convict ; they were free, but I
am a slave to this very hour' (Ign. Rom. 4). But
the quotations in Clement of Rome are numerous, as
also in Polycarp. The resemblances of language in
Ignatius, which, as is so often the case, do not rise to
the dignity of a quotation, are perhaps even more

i86

APPENDIX

significant. There are also quotations or reminis
cences in the Didache and in Barnabas. The fol
lowing two instances will suffice for our purpose.

i Clem. 35. Casting off from
ourselves all unrighteousness and
iniquity, covetousness, strifes,
malignities and deceits, whisper
ings and backbiting*, hatred of
God, pride and arrogance, vain
glory and inhospitality. For
they that do these things are hate
ful to God ; and not only they
that do them, but they also that
consent unto them.

Rom. I 29-32. Being filled
with all unrighteousness, fornica
tion, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness ; full of envy,
murder, debate, deceit, malig
nity ; whisperers, backbiters, haters
of God, despiteful, proud, boasters,
inventors of evil things, dis
obedient to parents, without
understanding, covenant-break
ers, without natural affection,
implacable ; unmerciful ; who
knowing the judgment of God,
that they which commit such
things are worthy of death, not
only do the same, but have pleasure
in them that do them.

Rom. xiv. 10. For we shall
all stand before the Judgment-
Seat of 'God . . (cf. 2 Cor. v. 10.)

12. So then each one of us
shall give account of himself to
God.

Pol. 6. For we are before
the eyes of our Lord and God,
and we must all stand at the
Judgment-Seat of Christ, and
each man must give an account of
himself.

The second passage is quoted without the words T$ 0ew which
are omitted by the Vatican MS. and some other authorities.
For further instances see Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. Ixxx.

(2) I Corinthians. This Epistle is definitely re
ferred to by name in the Letter of Clement to the
Corinthians, written 40 years later.

i Clem. 47. ' Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel ?

I CORINTHIANS

i87

Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and
Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.'

Reminiscences of the Epistle are numerous. Such are found in
Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and in the Didache. The following
instances will probably suffice.

Ign. Eph. i. My spirit is
made an offscouring for the
Cross, which is a stumbling-block
to them that are unbelievers, but
to us salvation and life eternal.
Where is the wise ? Where is the
disputer ? Where is the boasting
of them that are called prudent?

i Cor. i. 18-20. For the
preaching of the cross is to
them that perish foolishness ;
but unto us which are saved it
is the power of God.

19. For it is written, I will
destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and will bring to nothing the
understanding of the prudent.

20. Where is the wise ? Where
is the scribe ? Where is the dis
puter of this world ? Hath not

God made foolish the wisdom
of this world ?

i Cor. ii. 9. But as it is
written, Eye hath not seen, nor
ear heard, neither have entered
into the heart of man, the things
which God hath prepared for
them that love him.

i Clem. 34. For he saith,
Eye hath not seen and ear hath
not heard, and it hath not entered
into the heart of man what great
things He hath prepared for them
that patiently await Him.

St. Paul quotes freely Is. xliv. 4. ' Clement mixes up St. Paul's
free translation or paraphrase from the Hebrew with the passage
as it stands in the LXX." Lightfoot.

Pol. ii. If a man refrain i Cor. vi. 2. Do ye not know

not from covetousness, he shall that the saints shall judge the
be denied by idolatry, and shall world?
be judged as one of the Gen
tiles who know not the judg
ment of the Lord. Nay, know
we not, that the saints shall judge
the world, as Paul teacheth ?

1 88 APPENDIX

Here again we have i Cor. definitely cited as being by St.
Paul.

Pol. 5. And neither whore- I Cor. vi. 9, 10. Be not de-
mongers nor effeminate persons, ceived : neither fomicators, nor
nor deflers of themselves with idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
men, shall inherit the kingdom of effeminate, nor abusers of them-
God, neither they that do un- selves with men, nor thieves, nor
toward things. covetous, nor drunkards, nor

revilers, nor extortioners, shall
inherit the kingdom of God.

In Pol. 5 there is a reminiscence of I Cor. xiv. 25, and in Pol.
10 of I Cor. xv. 58.

(3) 2 Corinthians. Quotations from the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians are much less numerous.

Pol. ii. But I have not 2 Cor. iii. 2. Ye are our
found any such thing in you, epistle, written in our hearts,
neither have heard thereof, known and read of all men.
among whom the blessed Paul
laboured, who were his epistles in
the beginning.

Although the quotation is slight, it is too significant to be
doubtful.

Pol. 2. Now He that raised ^ Cor. iv. 14. Knowing
Him from the dead will raise that he which raised up the
us also. Lord Jesus shall raise up us also

with Jesus.

In Pol. 6 there is a reminiscence of 2 Cor. viii. 26.

(4) Galatians.

Pol. 5. Knowing then that Gal. vi. 7. Be not deceived;

God is not mocked, we ought to God is not mocked : for whatso-
walk worthily of His command- ever a man soweth, that shall
ment and His glory. he also reap.

In Pol. 12, Gal. i. I is quoted ; in Pol. 3, Gal. iv. 26.

EPHESIANS

189

(5) Ephesians.

Ign. Eph, 12. 'Ye are associates in the mysteries
with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good
report, who is worthy of all felicitation ; in whose
footsteps I would fain be found treading, when I
shall attain unto God ; who in every letter maketh
mention of you in Christ Jesus.'

This ought perhaps rather to be quoted .as a reference to a
general collection of Pauline letters. St. Paul refers to the
Ephesians in six of his Epistles. Quotations from this Epistle are
numerous.

Pol. I. Forasmuch as ye know
that it is by grace ye are saved,
not by works, but by the will
of God through Christ Jesus.

I Clem. 46. Have we not
one God and one Christ and one
Spirit of grace that was shed
upon us ? And is there not
one calling in Christ ?

Pol. 10. Be ye all subject
one to another.

Eph. ii. 8, 9. For by grace are
ye saved through faith ; and
that not of yourselves : it is the
gift of God : not of works, lest
any man should boast.

Eph. iv. 4. There is one
body, and one Spirit, even as ye
are called in one hope of your
calling; one (Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of
all, who is above all, and
through all, and in you all.
But unto every one of us is
given grace according to the
measure of the gift of Christ.

Eph. v. 21. Subjecting your
selves o?ie to another in the fear
of Christ.

There is also a reminiscence of Eph. vi. 18 in Pol. 12. For
the quotation of Eph. iv. 26, see above, p. 184.

Ign. Pol. 5. In like manner
also charge my brothers in the

Eph. v. 25. Husbands, love
your wives, even as Christ also

I9O APPENDIX

name of Jesus Christ to love loved the church and gave himself

their wives, as the Lord the for it. ...

Church. 29. . . . but nourisheth

and cherisheth it, even as the

Lord the church.

(6) Philippians. A letter, or letters, of St. Paul to
the Philippians is referred lo in the following passage
from Polycarp. Pol. 3 : ' For neither am I, nor is any
other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the
blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among
you taught face to face with the men of that day the
word which concerneth truth carefully and surely ;
who also when he was absent wrote letters unto you,
into the which if you look diligently, ye shall be able
to be builded up unto the faith given to you.'

The plural may

either (i) be the epistolary plural, meaning only one letter.
or (2) include letters to the Thessalonians.
or (3) include other letters to the Philippians not now preserved.

Quotations from the Epistle are neither numerous nor important.

Pol. 9. Being persuaded that Phil. ii. 1 6. That I did not
all these ran not in vain but in run in vain, neither labour in
faith and righteousness. vain.

The words are exactly the same in both passages. There is a
reminiscence of Phil. iii. 18 in Pol. 12.

(7) Co loss tans.

Quotations or reminiscences of the Colossians are
also very uncommon ; the following is definite as far
as it goes.

Ign. Eph. 10. Against their Col. i. 23, If so be that ye

errors be ye stedfastin the faith. continued the faith grounded

and stedfast.

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

(8) i and 2 Thessalonians.

Here again the quotations are slight.

Ign. Eph. 10. And pray I Thess. v. 17. Pray without

also without ceasing for the rest ceasing.
of mankind.

Pol. ii. For he boasteth of 2 Thess. i. 4. So that we
you in all those churches which ourselves boast of you in the
alone at that time knew God. churches of God.

The allusion is to Phil. i. 3, 4, iv. 10, 1 8, but the language is
taken from ^ Thess. Immediately before he has written of the
Philippians as 'the letters' of St. Paul from the beginning, taking
his language from 2 Cor. iii. 2 (see page 188).

Pol. ii. Be ye therefore 2 Thess. iii. 15. And yet

yourselves also sober herein, count him not as an enemy, but
and hold not such as enemies, but admonish him as a brother,
restore them as frail and erring
members.

(9) The Pastoral Epistles.

i Clem. 7. And let us see I Tim. ii. 3. For this is

what is,giW,and what is pleasant good and acceptable in the sight of

and what is acceptable in the God our Saviour.
sight o/"Him that made us.

Pol. 4. But the love of money i Tim. vi. 10. For the love

is the beginning of all troubles, of money is the root of all evil.
Knowing therefore that we I Tim. vi. 7. For we brought

brought nothing into the world nothing into the world, for neither

neither can we carry anything out. can we carry anything out.

In Pol. 12 there is a reference to i Tim. ii. I and to I Tim.
iv. 15.

Pol. 5. If we conduct our- 2 Tim. ii. 12. If we endure,

selves worthily of Him, we we shall also reign with him : if

shall also reign with Him, if we shall deny him, he also will

indeed we have faith. deny us.

192

APPENDIX

Pol. 9. For they loved not
the present world, but Him that
died for our sakes and was
raised by God for us.

I Clem. 2. Ye repented not
of any well-doing, but were
ready unto every good work.

2 Tim. iv. 10. For Demas
forsook me, having loved this
present world.

Tit. iii. i. Put them in
mind ... to be ready to every
good work.

The above instances show that reminiscences of or coincidences
with the Pastoral Epistles are numerous ; in Ignatius particularly
there are constant parallels in thought as in expression, but they
are not of a sufficiently definite character to be called quotations.

There are no resemblances to Philemon worth mentioning.

III. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

The Epistle to the Hebrews must have been well
known to the writer of the Epistle of Clement.
There are over twenty places in which there are
resemblances of language, and several where the
resemblances become quotations. The work is never
mentioned by name. Elsewhere there is a clear
resemblance to its language in the Didache, and both
Ignatius and Polycarp use the title High Priest
of our Lord, a title only found in the Hebrews.
The following instances from Clement will, however,
be seen to be conclusive.

I Clem. 36. 2, 3, 4, 5 Who

being the effulgence of His
Majesty is so much greater than
angels, as He hath inherited a more
excellent name. For so it is
written : who maketh His angels
spirits and His ministers a fame of
fre : but of His Son the Master

Heb. i. 3-5. Who being the
effulgence of his glory, and the
very image of his substance, and
upholding all things by the
word of his power, when he had
made purification of sins, sat
down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high, having become

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

193

said thus: Thou art My Son,
this Jay have I begotten Thee. Ask
of Me, and I will give Thee
the Gentiles for Thine inherit
ance, and the ends of the earth
for Thy possession. And again
He saith unto Him : Sit Thou,
on My right hand, until I make
Thine enemies a footstool for Thy
feet.

I Clem. 17. Let us be imi
tators of them which went
about in goatskins and sheepskins,
preaching the coming of Christ.
We mean Elijah and Elisha and
likewise Ezekiel, the prophets,
and besides them those men that
obtained a good report. Abraham
obtained an exceeding good re
port and was called the friend
of God ; and looking stead
fastly on the glory of God, he
saith in lowliness of mind, But
I am dust and ashes.

i Clem. 9. Let us set before
us Enoch, who being found
righteous in obedience was
translated, and his death was not
found. Noah, being foundfaitA-

so much better than the angels, as
he hath inherited a more excellent
name than they. For unto which
of the angels said he at any
time, Thou art my Son, this
day have I begotten thee. . . .

7. And of the angels he
saith, Who maketh his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire :
but of the Son he saith, Thy
throne O God is for ever and
ever, etc. . . .

13. But of which of the
angels hath he said at any time :
Sit thou on my right hand till I
make thine enemies the footstool of
thy feet.

Heb. xi. 37. They wandered
about in sheepskins, in goatskins.

39. And these all having ob
tained a good report through faith.

Cf. 2, 4, 5.

The thought also of vv. 10,
1 6 has suggested the idea of
Abraham looking steadfastly on
the glory of God.

Heb. xi. 5. By faith Enoch
was translated that he should
not see death ; and was not
found because God had trans
lated him ; for before his trans-

194 APPENDIX

ful, by his ministration preached lation he had this testimony,
regeneration unto the world, that he pleased God. . . .
and through him the Master 7. }$j faith, Noah being warned
saved the living creatures that of God of things not seen as
entered into the ark in concord. yet, moved with fear, prepared

an ark to the saving of his
house ; by the which he con
demned the world, and became
heir of the righteousness, which
is by faith.

See also the instances of Abraham, I Clem. 10, and of Rahab,
I Clem. 12.

Did. 4. My child, thou Heb. xiii. 7. Remember them

shalt remember him that speaketh which have the rule over you,

unto thee the word of God night which spake unto you the word of

and day, and shalt honour him God.
as the Lord.

IV. THE ACTS AND SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.

(i) The Acts. Quotations from the Acts are
slight, but not altogether unimportant.

Ign. Magn. 5. Each man Acts i. 25. From which

shall go to his own place. Judas fell away that he might

go to his own place.

The phrase is exactly the same in both, but it might of course
be a proverbial expression, used independently by both writers.

Pol. i. Our Lord Jesus Acts ii. 24. Whom God raised

Christ, who endured to face up, having loosed the pangs of fa'ask..
even death for our sins, whom 27. Because thou wilt not

God raised, having loosed the pangs leave my soul in Hades,
of Hades.

The quotation is almost exact, the word rpyetpev (raised) being
substituted by Polycarp for avtorTyo-ev (raised up\ and Hades for
death, a reminisqence of v. 27.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 195

Did. 4. Thou shalt not Acts iv. 32. And not one of

turn away from him that is in them said that ought of the
want, but shalt make thy things which he possessed was
brother partaker in all things, his own.
and shalt not say that anything
Is thine own.

Barn. 19, 8. Thou shalt
make thy neighbour partaker
in all things, and shalt not say
that anything is thine own.

This quotation (if such it be) presumably comes from the
common document that underlies the Didache and Barnabas.

Ign. Smyrn. 3. And after Acts x. 41. To us who did
His resurrection He ate with them eat and drink with him after he
and drank with them as one in rose from the dead,
the flesh, though spiritually He
was united with the Father.

The Greek words are the same in both passages, only the person
is changed.

Pol. 2. Who cometh as Acts x. 42. This is he

judge of quick and dead. which was ordained of God

to be the judge of quick and
dead.

It is obvious that not much stress can be laid on this ; the
phrase judge of quick and dead must have been a common Christian
formula very early, (cf. 2 Tim. iv. I.)

i Clem. 2. More glad to give Acts xx. 35. And to remem-

than to receive. her the words of the Lord Jesus,

i Clem. 13. Most of all how he said, It is more blessed

remembering the words of the to give than to receive.
Lord Jesus which He spake.

Here again we may have an independent knowledge of the
words of our Lord, yet the separate quotations of the two different
parts of the passage in the Acts suggests a literary obligation.

196 APPENDIX

(2) The Synoptic Gospels. It will be convenient
first of all to group together a number of passages
which have been held to show a knowledge of
the contents of the Gospel and not any special
Gospel.

Pol. 12. Pray for all the Matt. v. 44. Pray for them
saints. Pray also for kings and that persecute you, that ye may
powers and princes, and for be the sons of your Father
them that persecute and hate you, which is in heaven . . .
and for the enemies of the 48. Ye therefore shall be
cross, that your fruit might be perfect, as your heavenly Father
manifest among all men, that is perfect.

ye may be perfect in Him. Cf. Luke vi. 27. Do good to

them which hate you, bless them
that curse you, pray for them
that despitefully use you.

This is a very composite passage ; phrases are taken from Eph.
vi. 1 8 (supplication for all the saints), I Tim. ii. I (prayers . . .for
kings and all that are in high places), Phil. iii. 1 8 (enemies of the
cross of Christ), I Tim. iv. 1 5 (that thy progress may be manifest unto
all). The WordPerfect makes the reference to Matt. v. 44, 48 or
some very similar document almost certain, and there is no need
to assume any reference to St. Luke. This passage has been put
first because it shows very clearly the way in which the language
of Polycarp is built up out of New Testament phrases without
either exact or full quotations. We may assume that he used the
Gospels as he certainly used the Epistles, and verbal differences or
the combination of separate passages will not necessarily imply the
use of a Gospel different from those we possess.

Pol. 2. And again blessed are Matt. v. 3. Blessed are the

the poor and they that are per- poor in spirit -.for theirs is the king-
secuted for righteousness' sake ; for dom of heaven,
theirs is the kingdom of God. Luke vi. 20. Blessed are ye

poor : for yours is the kingdom of
God.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 197

Matt. v. i o. Blessed are they
that have been persecuted for right
eousness1 sake : for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven.

This might come from St. Matthew or St. Luke, or from some
similar source. The phrase ' kingdom of God ' might imply a
knowledge of some other document besides St. Matthew.

Pol. 7. Entreating the all- Matt. vi. 13. And bring us

seeing God with supplications not into temptation.
that He bring us not into tempta- Cf. Luke xi. 4.
fion, according as the Lord said, Matt. xxvi. 4.1. The spirit

The spirit indeed is willing, but indeed is willing, but the flesh

the flesh is weak. is weak.

Cf. Mark xiv. 38.

In the first citation, the resemblance both in St. Matt, and St.
Luke is exact, but it is obvious that no stress can be laid on the
quotation, as it may be presumed that the Lord's Prayer was
already in use among Christians. In the second quotation, St.
Matthew and St. Mark agree exactly, so that it is impossible to
say from which the quotation comes. It is also again conceivable
that it came from a common source, if there was one. But St.
Matthew's Gospel is a quite sufficient source for both passages.

I Clem. 13. Most of all
remembering the words of the
Lord Jesus which He spake,
teaching forbearance and long
suffering : for thus He spake :

Have mercy that ye may re
ceive mercy ; forgive, that it
may be forgiven to you. As
ye do, so shall it be done to
you. As ye give, so shall it be
given unto you. As ye judge,
so shall ye be judged. As ye
show kindness, so shall kindness
be showed unto you. With

198

APPENDIX

what measure ye mete, It shall be
measured withal to you.

Pol. 2. But remembering
the words which the Lord
spake, and He taught : Judge
not, that ye be not judged. For
give and it will be forgiven to
you. Have mercy that ye may
receive mercy. With what measure
ye mete, it shall be measured to you
again.

Matt. vii. I, 2. Judge not,
that ye be not judged. For with
what judgement ye judge, ye
shall be judged : and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
unto you.

Luke vi. 36-38. Be ye merci
ful, even as your Father is merci
ful. And judge not, and ye
shall not be judged : and con
demn not, and ye shall not be
condemned : release, and ye
shall be released : give, and it
shall be given unto you : good
measure, pressed down, shaken
together, running over, shall
they give into your bosom.
For with what measure ye mete, it
shall be measured to you again.
See also Math. vi. 14, 15.

The variations from the language of our Gospels and the re
semblance between the quotation in Clement and that in Polycarp
may be taken to show :

(l) That the quotations were then unwritten tradition,
or (2) That the writers had another and earlier form of the Gospel
narrative.

But (l) this is one of the passages in which Polycarp shows a
knowledge of Clement.

(2) The deviations from the Gospel narrative are not in the
direction of a simpler form, but of greater elaboration. They could
be quite adequately explained as a free working up of documents
which we possess, in the same manner as in other quotations and
adaptations in Polycarp and Clement.

I Clem. 46. Remember the words of Jesus our Lord : for He
said, Woe unto that man; it were good for him if he had not been

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 199

born, rather than that he should offend one of Mine elect. It were
better for him that a mill stone were hanged about him, and he drowned
in the sea, than that he should pervert one of Mine elect.

This comes from two places :

(1) Matt. xxvi. \\-Mark xiv. 21. Woe unto that man by
whom the Son of man is betrayed ! it had been good for that man
if he had not been bom.

Luke xxii. 22. But woe unto that man by whom he is be
trayed.

Here the resemblance is closest with the first passage.

(2) Matt, xviii. 6, 7. But whoso shall offend one of these little
ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a mitt
stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the
depths of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences ! for it
must needs be that offences come : but woe to that man by whom
the offence cometh.

Mark ix. 42. And whosoever shall offend one of these little
ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a mill stone were
hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Luke xvii. I, 2. It is impossible but that offences will come:
but woe unto him by whom they come ! It were better for
him that a mill stone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into
the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Here the resemblance is most clearly to St. Matthew, and there
is one remarkable word KaTairovrtcr^Tjvat which one might
naturally suppose was drawn thence. There is a slight resemblance
in the form of the sentence which might suggest that St. Luke
had been used, but no stress can be laid upon it.

The only marked contrast with the Gospel narrative is the use
of the word * elect' for 'little ones.' (cf. Mk. xiii. 22.)

I Clem. 24. The sower goeth forth and casteth into the earth
each of the seeds ; and these falling into the earth dry and bear
decay : then out of their decay the mightiness of the Master's provi
dence raiseth them up, and from being one they increase manifold
and bear fruit.

The first words are clearly a reminiscence of the Gospel narra
tive, but the words e£rjA0ev 6 (nreip<av occur in exactly the same
form in all the Gospels.

2OO

APPENDIX

Did. i. The way of life is
this. First of all, thou shalt love
the God that made thee ;
secondly, thy neighbour as thyself.
And all things whatsoever thou
wouldest not have befal thyself,
neither do thou unto another. Now
of these words the doctrine is
this. Bless them that curse you,
and pray for your enemies, and
fast for them that persecute you:
for what thank is if, if ye love them
that love you ? Do not even the
Gentiles the same? But do ye
love them that hate you, and ye
shall not have an enemy. Ab
stain thou from fleshy and
bodily lusts. If any man give
thee a blow on thy right cheek, turn
to him the other also, and thou
shalt be perfect ; if a man compel
thee to go with him one mile, go
with him twain; if a man take
away thy cloak, give him thy coat
also; if a man take away from
thee that which is thine own,
ask it not back, for neither art
thou able; to every man that
asketh of thee give, and ask not
back.

Matt. xxii. 37, 39. Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart.

39. Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.

Matt. v. 44. Love your
enemies, pray for them that
persecute you.

46. For if ye love them that
love you, what reward have you ?
do not even the publicans the same?

Luke vi. 27. Love your ene
mies ; do good to them that
hate you.

3 2. Andifye love them that love
you, what thank have ye, for even
sinners love those that love them.

35. But love your enemies.

Matt. v. 39. Whosoever
smiteth thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also.

40. And if any man would go
to law with thee, and take away
thy coat, let him have thy cloak
also.

41. And whosoever shall com
pel thee to go one mile, go with him
twain.

42. Give to him that asketh
of thee, and from him that would
borrow of thee turn not thou
away.

Luke vi. 30. Give to every
one that asketh thee: and of him
that taketh away thy goods, ask
them not again.

ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL

2OI

(3) St. Matthew s Gospel.

Did. i. Woe to him that Matt. v. 25. Verily, I say

receiveth ; for if a man receiveth unto thee, thou shalt by no means
having need, he is guiltless ; come out thence, till thou have paid
but he that hath no need shall the last farthing.
give satisfaction why and where
fore he received; and being put
in confinement, he shall be ex
amined concerning the deeds
that he hath done, and he shall
not come out thence until he hath
paid the last farthing. Yea,
as touching this also it is said :
Let thine alms sweat into
thine hands until thou shalt
have learnt to whom to give.

It can hardly be doubted that the passage in St. Matthew is in
its original context and not that in the Didache.

Did. 9. But let no one eat Matt. vii. 6. Give not that

or drink of this eucharistic which is holy unto the dogs.
thanksgiving, but they that have
been baptized into the name of
the Lord ; for concerning this
also the Lord hath said: Give
not that which is holy unto the dogs.

Here St. Matthew's Gospel and not the Didache gives the
original setting.

Ign. Smyrn. I. Baptized by Matt. in. 15. Suffer it now,

John that all righteousness might for thus it becometh us to
be fulfilled by Him. fulfil all righteousness.

This quite clearly comes from St. Matthew.

Ign. Smyrn. 6. He that Matt. xix. 12. He that is
receiveth, let him receive. able to receive it, let him receive it.

2O2 APPENDIX

Ign. Pol. 2. Be thou pru- Matt. x. 16. Be ye therefore

dent as the serpent in all things wise as serpents and harmless as

and guileless always as the dove. doves.

Ign. Eph. 14. The tree is Matt. xii. 33. For the tree

manifest from its fruit ; so they is known by its fruit.
that profess to be Christ's shall
be seen through their actions.

Did. 7. But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having
first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water.

See Matt, xxviii. 17. But the formula might of course be
known independently of the Gospel, and probably existed earlier.

Did. 8. Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord
commanded in His Gospel, thus pray ye : Our Father which art in
heaven, hallow ed be Thy name; Thy kingdom come ; Thy will be done,
as in heaven, so also on earth; give us this day our daily bread; and
forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors; and lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from the evil one, for Thine is the power and
the glory, for ever and ever. Three times in the day pray ye so.

See Matt. vi. 16, vi. 9-13. The slight allusion to the hypo
crites seems conclusive as to the source.

(4) St. Mark.

Pol. 5. Walking according Mark ix. 35. And he saith

to the truth of the Lord, who unto them, If any man would
became a minister of all. be first, he shall be last of all,

and minister of all.

The particular phrase iravruv Sia/covos occurs only in St. Mark.
In Pol. it is StaKovos iravrvv. This is perhaps the only quotation
in the Apostolic Fathers which seems to imply the knowledge of
St. Mark's Gospel, and this may perhaps be accidental.

(5) <5V. Luke.

Did. 1 6. Be watchful for your Matt. xxv. 13. Watch there-
life : let your lamps not be fore, for ye know not the day
quenched, and your loins not un- nor the hour.

THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS

203

girded, but be ye ready ; for ye Luke xii. 35. Let your loins
know not the hour in which our be girded about, and your lamps
Lord cometh, burning.

40. Be ye also ready, for in
an hour that ye think not the
Son of Man cometh.

Matt. xxiv. 42. Watch
therefore : for ye know not on
what day your Lord cometh.

The passage seems to imply a reminiscence of St. Luke's Gospel,
as well as St. Matthew's.

V. THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS.

(i) The Gospel.

Ign. Phil. 7. For even though
certain persons desired to de
ceive me after the flesh, yet the
spirit is not deceived, being from
God : for it knoweth whence it
cometh and where it goeth, and it
searcheth out the hidden things.

It is more than probable
knowledge of the Gospel. So

John iii. 8. The wind
bloweth where it listeth, and
thou hearest the voice thereof,
but knowest not whence it cometh,
and whither it goeth : so is every
one that is born of the Spirit.

John viii. 14. Jesus answered
and said unto them, Even if I
bear witness of myself, my
witness is true : for I know
whence I came, and whither I
go ; but ye know not whence I
came and whither I go.

Cf. I Cor. ii. 10. But unto
us God revealed them through
the Spirit : for the Spirit
searcheth all things, yea the deep
thingsofGod (cf. also £/>-£. v. 13).

that this quotation implies a
clear is it that it used to be

2O4 APPENDIX

quoted as a proof of the late date of Ignatius. In Encyclopaedia
Biblica II., 1830, Abbott suggests that it comes from Philo. But
the passage he quotes has only a most distant resemblance
to the one before us. And as Zahn says, the passage in Ignatius
gains greatly in point when it is considered in contrast to
that in St. John. Ignatius says that the Spirit itself knoweth
whence it cometh and whither it goeth, clearly suggesting that
there was a passage where something had been said about
mankind not knowing of the Spirit whence it comes and whither
it goes.

Ign. Rom. 7. My lust hath been crucified, and there is no fire
of material longing in me, but only water living and speaking in
me, saying within me, Come to the Father. I have no delight
in the food of corruption or in the delights of this life. I desire
the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ, who was of the
seed of David : and for a draught I desire His blood, which is
love incorruptible.

Lightfoot ad loc . "Doubtless a reference to John iv. 10, II, as
indeed the whole passage is inspired by the Fourth Gospel."

(1) John iv. 10. If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it
is that saith to thee, Give me to drink : thou wouldest have asked
of him, and he would have given thee living water.

II. ... From whence then hast thou that living water ?
The phrase is $>ay> £wv both in the Gospel and in Ignatius.

(2) Bread of God. Here again is an expression taken from
St. John's Gospel, vi. 33. Indeed the whole context is suggested
by the question of the Evangelist's narrative. The contrast of the
perishable and imperishable food, the bread and the cup as
representing the flesh and blood of Christ, the mystical power
emanating therefrom are all ideas contained in the context (vi.

43-59)-

(3) Flesh of Christ. John vi. 53. Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of Man, etc. Incorruptible, cf. eternal. John vi. 40.

Ign. Magn. 8. There is one God who manifested Himself through
Jesus Christ His Son, who is His word that proceeded from

THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN 205

silence, who in all things was well-pleasing unto Him that sent
Him.

Here we have a combination of Johannine thoughts :

(1) God manifested by Jesus Christ. John xvii. 13. And this
is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and
him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ. 6. I manifested
thy name unto the men, etc.

(2) The application of the term word to Christ.

(3) Jesus Christ was well pleasing to Him that sent Him.
John viii. 29. I do always the things that are pleasing to Him.

(4) The phrase him that sent is a distinctively Johannine one.
It occurs constantly in St. John's Gospel and nowhere else in the
N.T. John v. 23. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth
not the Father which sent Him. Cf. v. 30, vi. 44.

(2) The Epistles of St. John.

Pol. 7. For every one who shall I John iv. 2, 3. Every spirit
not confess that Jesus Christ is which confesseth that Jesus
come in the flesh is antichrist : Christ is come in the flesh is of
and whosoever shall not confess God : and every spirit which
the testimony of the Cross, is of confesseth not Jesus is not of God :
the devil ; and whosoever shall and this is the spirit of the
pervert the oracles of the Lord antichrist, whereof ye have heard
to his own lusts, and say that that it cometh, and now it is
there is neither resurrection nor in the world already,
judgment, that man is the first- 2 John 7. For many deceiv-

born of Satan. ers are gone forth into the

world, even they that confess not
that Jesus Christ cometh in the
flesh. This is the deceiver and
the antichrist.

Most people will probably be of opinion that the resemblance
is so close as to imply quotation. Abbott (Enc. Brit. II., 1831)
thinks that Eusebius " regarded the words not as a quotation but
as a mere use of Johannine traditions in vogue during the conflict
against Donatism." To attribute to Eusebius such modern

2O6 APPENDIX

notions is a ludicrous anachronism, and will shew the length to
which these neo-apologists can go.

Did. 10. Remember, Lord, I John iv. 1 8. He that

Thy Church, to deliver it from feareth is not made perfect in

all evil and to perfect it in Thy love,
love.

The expression to perfect in love is sufficiently remarkable to
suggest literary obligation. In the Eucharistic prayer of the
Didache there are other reminiscences of Johannine thought.

There is no passage resembling the Apocalypse worth quoting.

VI. 'The remaining books. Of the remaining books
i Peter is very well attested, but of 2 Peter,
James, and Jude there are no quotations worth
examining.

Pol. i. Our Lord Jesus \ Pet. i. 8. Whom not having

Christ, who endured to face seen ye love ; on whom, though

even death for our sins . . . on now ye see him not, yet be-

whom, though ye saw Him not, ye lieving, ye rejoice greatly with

believe with joy unspeakable and joy unspeakable and full of glory,
full of glory.

It is really difficult to believe that the somewhat striking
phrase, xa/°? avexXaX^TO) KOL SeSo^aayxevy, could be arrived at
independently by two separate writers.

Pol. 2. Wherefore girding up i Pet. i. 13. Wherefore gird-

your loins, serve God in fear and ing up the loins of your mind, be
truth. sober.

This is not of course a quotation on which much stress
can be laid. It may be noted that the second part of the
passage in Polycarp is a reminiscence of Ps. ii. 1 1 (LXX.).

Pol. 2. For that ye have i Pet. i. 21. Who through

believed on Him that raised our him are believers in God, which

Lord Jesus Christ from the dead raised him from the dead and gave

and gave unto Him glory, and a him glory.
throne on His right hand.

I PETER 2O7

Pol. 5. For it is a good i Pet. ii. n. Beloved, I

thing to refrain from lust in beseech you as sojourners and

the world, for every lust warreth pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly

against the Spirit. lusts, which war against the soul.

The substitution of spirit for soul comes perhaps from Gal.
v. 17.

Pol. 10. Having your con- I Pet. ii. 12. Having your

venation unblameable among the conversation honest among the
Gentiles, that from your good Gentiles.
works both ye may receive
praise and the Lord may not
be blasphemed in you.

There is also in the same chapter a reminiscence of I Pet. ii. 17.

Pol. 8. Jesus Christ who bare \ Pet. ii. 21. Who did no sin,

our sins in His own body on the neither was guile found in his

tree, who did no sin, neither was mouth. . . .
guile found in His mouth, but for 24. Who his own self bare our

our sakes He endured all things, sins in his own body on the tree.
that we might live in Him.

The origin of the language of both passages is Is. liii. 9, 1 2, but
Polycarp has expressions which come from i Peter.

Pol. 2. Not rendering evil for I Pet. iii. 9. Not rendering

evil, or railing for railing, or evil for evil, or railing for railing :

blow for blow, or cursing for but contrariwise blessing,
cursing.

The striking expression also 'sober unto prayer* (i Pet. iv. 7)
occurs Pol. 7.

i Clem. 49. Love joineth i Pet. iv. 8. Above all

us unto God ; love covereth a things being fervent in your

multitude of sins ; love endureth love among yourselves ; for love

all things, is long suffering in covereth a multitude of sins.
all things.

Clement combines with a quotation from St. Peter a reminiscence
of I Cor. xiii. 4, 7.

The Historical Value of the Acts
of the Apostles.

THE subject upon which it is my duty to speak to
you to-day is one which has been much debated by
scholars during the last half century, and round which
an enormous literature has grown. It will only be
possible to place before you the main features of the
problem which presents itself, and to indicate some
of the solutions which have been proposed. It may
help towards a clearer understanding of the issues, if
we begin by a few general considerations before we
proceed to details.

(a) We are to discuss the historical value of the
Acts of the Apostles, not the inspiration of its author.
We are to regard this book as a contribution to the
history of Christian origins, and we are to approach
its study with an open mind, and, so far as is possible,
without presuppositions. That the book was included
by the early Church among canonical writings, and that

CANONICITY 2O9

it received a place in the Canon of the New Testa
ment, so soon as the idea of a Canon was recognised,
prove, indeed, that it has always been held up by
the Church to the respect and veneration of her faith
ful members, and that it is not, in her view, merely
one out of many treatises on ecclesiastical history.
Like the other canonical writings, it has special title
to the epithet ' inspired ' ; but we are beginning to
recognise that the nature and limits of that inspiration
are extremely hard to define, and that we are on
insecure ground if we attempt to argue a priori from
inspiration to inerrancy. We shall not, then, pre
judge the question before us by making assumptions
as to the degree in which inspiration guarantees
historical accuracy, and we shall try to test the
historical value of the Acts of the Apostles by the
ordinary methods of critical enquiry. No book of
the Bible is likely to suffer in our esteem, if such
methods are used with honesty, sobriety, and
reverence.

(F) Further, the question ' Is the Acts a valuable
contribution to history ' must not be confused with
the question ' Can any errors in detail be detected in
it ? ' No doubt, if a book were proved to contain a
large number of inaccurate statements, our estimate

o

of its historical value would be seriously impaired.
But one slip in memory or one blunder in the
arrangement of materials drawn from diverse sources

2IO HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

does not destroy the authority of a modern historian ;
if it were so, the reputation of many great writers
would be tarnished. We do not expect infallibility
even from a Freeman or a Stubbs or a Lecky, while
no one doubts the historical value of their work.
And thus, we must not permit ourselves to think
that the general authority of the Acts would disappear,
if here and there it were difficult to reconcile the
author's language with independent evidence for the
same period. Fahus in uno^ falsus in omnibus may
be a prudent legal maxim when the veracity of a
witness is in question ; it is an extremely uncritical
maxim if it is applied to the credibility of a historian,
whose good faith there is no reason to doubt.

(r) One other preliminary observation must be
made. The author of the Acts believed in the possi
bility of what we call ' miracles ' ; and he records the
occurrence of a considerable number, some of them
of a truly remarkable character. In this he was not
singular. All Christians of the early centuries, and
most Christians of later centuries, have taken the
same view of the -possibility ', at least, of miraculous
intervention, and of the atmosphere of miracle, so to
speak, by which the beginnings of Christianity were
surrounded. I say nothing now as to whether this
view is tenable or not — we are not met together to
consider the problem of miracle ; but I say that belief
in God's will and power to work in ways which seem

MIRACLES 211

to us miraculous does not necessarily make a man an
inaccurate observer or an untrustworthy historian.
It may be that the author of the Acts classified as
' miraculous ' some occurrences in which we, with our
wider knowledge, would perceive only the operation
of the ordinary laws of nature and of God ; but that,
if true, would only prove that he was a man of his
own time and not of ours. In brief, we have no sort
of title to assume that the miracle stories of the Acts
are necessarily untrue ; and, in the second place, the
fact that the author records them without any hesita
tion does not put him out of court as a historian.
Pascal accepted the evidence for an alleged miracle of
his own day, which most of us are indisposed, I
imagine, to believe — the so-called Miracle of the
Holy Thorn — but he would be a bold man who
would allege, therefore, that Pascal was a bad judge
of evidence or an untrustworthy writer.

With these prefatory cautions, we pass to the book
of the Acts. And it may be said at once that the
author of this book in the form in which we have it
is indisputably the author of the Third Gospel. The
claim is made in the preface or dedication where the
author speaks of the ' former treatise ' which he had
addressed to his friend, Theophilus. And the claim
is amply justified by the style and language of the
book which are indistinguishable from the style
and language of the Gospel. " We need not stop,"

212 HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

said Renan, " to prove this proposition which has
never been seriously contested." The name of the
common author has been handed down by an
unbroken tradition from early times, which designates
him as St. Luke, " the beloved physician," the com
panion and friend of St. Paul. We shall return to
this point presently, but meantime we shall call him
St. Luke, for convenience sake. And inasmuch as he
is the author both of the Third Gospel and the Acts,
a good deal thatiwill be said of his characteristics as a
historian applies alike to both books.

I. The first -thing that strikes us, perhaps, when
we compare St. Luke's writings with the other
historical books of the New Testament, is the
author's tendency to connect his narrative with the
events of the contemporary history of the Roman
Empire. As Zahn has pointed out, no other
writer of the New Testament even names an
Emperor, but St. Luke names Augustus, Tiberius,
Claudius, and is at pains to date the events which
he describes by the year of the Emperor's reign.
We might almost say that he goes out of his way
to depict the political and social environment of the
Apostolic age. And he moves quite freely in describ
ing the complicated system of government which
prevailed all over the provinces. It is possible in
many cases to check the accuracy of his allusions to
it from the evidence which the inscriptions and

ACCURACY IN TITLES 213

the literature afford of the methods of Roman
provincial administration. It has many times been
pointed out, and not least successfully by our own
scholars, that his accuracy is quite remarkable in
details. This was fully worked out in an essay
by Bishop Lightfoot, which appeared in the
Contemporary Review for 1878, and which has since
been reprinted ;x and reference may also be made
to the pages of Dr. Salmon's Introduction to the
New Testament, which deal with the Acts. But
although the topic is a well-worn one, it must not
be omitted altogether, and so I mention a few
examples of St. Luke's accuracy in the use of titles.

(a") He distinguishes, with the utmost precision,
between the senatorial and imperial provinces of
the Empire, that is, between the provinces which
were governed by a Proconsul as the representative
of the Senate, and those which were ruled by a
Propraetor as the Emperor's viceroy. This is a
matter about which mistakes could hardly be
avoided by a writer who had not access to exact
means of information. In times of peace a province
would naturally be placed under a Proconsul, but
if martial law became necessary it would be trans
ferred to the charge of a Propraetor ; and thus a
province which was senatorial to-day might be
imperial to-morrow. It is remarkable that St. Luke
1 Essays on Sufeniatural Re/igion, p. 291 ff.

214 HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

never once misapplies these titles. In Ac. xviii. 12,
Gallio is rightly called Proconsul of Achaia, and in
xiii. 7, Sergius Paulus is named as the Proconsul of
Cyprus ; and in both cases the administration of the
province had changed its character from time to time.

(£) Again the governor of Malta is given his
correct designation, 6 TT^WTO? (Ac. xxviii. 7), the Primus.
This is not a title that is found in literature else
where, and we should not be able to explain it were
it not that inscriptions have been discovered at Malta
which entirely confirm St. Luke's phraseology.

(r) Again, he knows that the magistrates at
Philippi are called a-Tpaniyoi (xvi. 20) or praetors ;
while the magistrates at Thessalonica are given the un
usual title of TroXirdpxai (xvii. 6) or burgomasters. This
latter designation is found in no extant author, but
that it was in local use in Macedonia, and notably in
Thessalonica itself, has been confirmed by the
indubitable testimony of inscriptions.1

These considerations are of such weight that they
have been recognised as noteworthy even by critics
who do not count the book of the Acts to be of
any special historical value. One of the most recent
writers on the subject, Professor Schmiedel, who
disparages the book as a whole, is constrained to
admit : " After every deduction has been made,

1 The references will be found in Dr. Knowling's full and
careful commentary on the Acts in the Expositor's Greek Testament.

ST. LUKE AND JOSEPHUS 215

Acts certainly contains many data that are correct,
as for example, especially in the matter of proper
names, such as Jason, Titius Justus, Crispus,
Sosthenes ; or in titles, touches such as the title
7ro\iTdpxai, which is verified by inscriptions for
Thessalonica, as is the title of TrpSn-os for Malta, and
probably the name of Sergius Paulus as Proconsul
for Cyprus." *

Another point which has received a good deal
of attention of recent years is the topographical
knowledge displayed by the author, especially in
connection with St. Paul's journeys through the
less known parts of Asia Minor. This has been
worked out by Prof. Ramsay in his interesting
books, The Church and the Roman Empire and St.
Paul the Traveller, to which the reader may be re
ferred for details.

Something should now be said about the author's
allusions to events of contemporary local history,
which are mentioned in the pages of the Jewish
historian Josephus. In three cases a particular com
parison has been instituted between the notices of
events in the Acts and in the Antiquities of Josephus ;
namely, the Death of Herod Agrippa (Ac. xii. 21 ;
cp. Antt. xix. 8, 2), the Rebellion of the Egyptian
Impostor (Ac. xxi. 38 ; cp. Antt.-xx.. 8,6,B. J.n. 13,5),
and the Rising of Theudas, and subsequently of
1 Encycl. Biblica, vol. i. s.v. ' Acts,' p. 47.

2l6 HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Judas of Galilee (Ac. v. 36 ff. ; cp. Ann. xx. 5, 4,
xviii. i, 6, BJ. ii. 8, I and 17, 8). Speaking in general
terms, it may be said that in two of these instances,
at least, the Acts and Josephus are at variance in
regard to details, the number of the rebels, &c.,
while Josephus is not always consistent with him
self. The discrepancies are not easy to reconcile, in
the fragmentary condition of our knowledge of the
period ; but there is no ground for supposing
Josephus to have been better informed than our
author, if we must believe that one or other has
made a mistake. One inference, however, has been
drawn from these parallel narratives, which ought
not to be passed by without pointing out its pre
carious character. It has been argued by some in
genious writers that in the pages of Josephus, who
wrote about 93 A.D., we have before us the authority
to which the author of Acts was indebted when he
recorded the incidents in question. Were that the
case, the Acts would be much later in date than has
been generally believed, and it could not have been
written by a contemporary of St. Paul. But, indeed,
the inference will not bear investigation, and it has
been rightly rejected by the best critics of all schools,
by Dr. Harnack as well as by Dr. Sanday. Whatever
may be thought of the relative accuracy of the Acts
and Josephus in the matter of the rebellions of
Theudas and of Judas, the discrepancies between

THE PAULINE LETTERS

the two notices are too great to permit us to believe
that one copied from the other. They are quite
independent.1

II. So much for titles, and geographical and his
torical allusions. For the latter part of the Acts
there is, however, at hand another means of con
trolling St. Luke's accuracy. We are in possession
of thirteen Epistles by St. Paul, of which the earlier
letters were composed during circumstances described
in the Acts, and in several of which there are allusions
to St. Paul's movements from place to place. The
argument resting on the ' undesigned coincidences '
between the Acts and the Epistles put forth by
Paley in the eighteenth century is not yet superseded
in the main, although some details require modifica
tion ; and Paley's Horae Paulinae may still be recom
mended as an introduction to the " Higher Criticism "
of the New Testament. There is little doubt as to
the independence of the Acts and the Pauline letters ;
it is indeed remarkable that the author of the Acts
seems to have had no acquaintance whatever with
these wonderful writings. Yet it is found that in
many instances allusions in the Epistles, especially in
the great controversial group of letters to the
Corinthians, Romans, and Galatians, harmonise with
what the Acts has to tell of the journeys and plans

1Comp. Mr. Headlam's article on the Acts in Hastings'
Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. p. 30.

21 8 HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

of the writer. And these 'undesigned coincidences'
go far to convince us of the general trustworthiness
of the history. It is true that there are some
difficulties in the way of reconciling Gal. i. and ii.
with the Acts ; but too much has been made of them.
For instance, in the Acts there is no hint of St. Paul's
journey to Arabia after his conversion, of which he
tells in Gal. i. 1 7 ; and, again, no hint of his controversy
with St. Peter at Antioch, of which he speaks with
some satisfaction in Gal. ii. n. And it is, perhaps,
not quite certain whether we ought to identify St.
Paul's visit to Jerusalem which he mentions in Gal.
ii. i with the visit described in Ac. xi. 30, or with
that described in Ac. xv. 4 fF., although the balance
of opinion (Hort, Lightfoot, etc.) favours the latter
view. But it is quite clear that St. Luke does not
attempt to narrate all the experiences in St. Paul's
eventful ministry, so that omissions need not
surprise us ; and, again, it is natural that he should
not know as much of the earlier episodes as of the
later, when he had become his friend and companion.1

1 Dr. Chase, in his admirable Hulsean Lectures on the " Credibility
of the Acts of the Apostles," which appeared since this lecture was
delivered, suggests another apposite consideration. "To drag out
again into the daylight all the mistakes and heartburnings of the
time, if indeed St. Luke knew them, would have been a useless
outrage, and he was not guilty of it. ... The reticence of the
Acts is not an argument against its veracity. . . . The tomb of
dead controversies ought to be an inviolable resting-place" (p. 92).

THE 'WE' SECTIONS 219

We have now come to the point at which it is
necessary for us to ask for the evidence supporting
the Church's tradition that the author of the Acts
was this ' Luke, the beloved physician.' I need
hardly remind you that there are three sections in the
later part of the Acts in which the writer uses the
first person plural when telling his story. They
begin according to the common text at Ac. xvi. IO.1
After St. Paul had seen the vision of the man of
Macedonia calling for help, " immediately " says the
writer, " we endeavoured to go into Macedonia."
The writer " appears to have joined Paul at Troas
and to have accompanied him to Philippi. There he
seems to have been left behind ; for when Paul leaves
Philippi the use of the pronoun ' we ' ceases and is
not resumed until Paul returns to Philippi some six
or seven years later. Then (xx. 5) the ' we ' begins
again and continues till the arrival in Jerusalem
(xxi. 1 8). It begins again in ch. xxvii. with St. Paul's
voyage and continues until his arrival in Rome"2
(xxviii. 1 6). These sections, at least, proceed from
an eyewitness ; their vividness of detail and exact
knowledge of localities leave no room for doubt on
this point. Mr. James Smith's book on the Voyage

1 But in the Western text, the first person plural is used also at
Ac. xi. 26; "when we had been gathered together," which con
nects the writer with the Church of Antioch.

2 Salmon, Introduction to N.T., p. 300.

22O HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

and Shipwreck of St. Paut1 supplies a most interesting
and convincing commentary upon the narrative of
Ac. xxvii. by one who was himself conversant with
seafaring matters and who therefore spoke with
authority when he pointed out the accuracy of the
writer's account of the storm and the handling of the
ship. This no one disputes ; and the historical
character of the ' We ' passages of the Acts is
recognised even by so destructive a critic as Schmiedel.
When we ask, Who wrote this journey record ? the
names of Silas, Timothy, Titus have been suggested,
but they are supported by no ancient authority, nor
are they in themselves more likely than that of St.
Luke. Indeed, St. Luke's claim has received some
what special corroboration from the investigations of
Dr. Hobart2 and others who have found traces of
medical phraseology in these, as well as in the other
parts of the Acts, which would be natural if the writer
were a physician, as we know St. Luke to have been.
We take St. Luke, then, as the author of the
' We ' passages of the Acts, and in so doing the use
of the first person plural is simply explained. But
can we argue from these passages to the other parts
of the book ? May it not be that the author of the
Acts in its present form has incorporated an authentic

1 Dr. Breusing's Die Nautik der Alien goes over the same ground,
and may be commended to those who can read German.

2 The Medical Language of St. Luke, passim.

UNITY OF THE ACTS 221

journey record into his narrative, which, as a whole,
was composed at a later date ? That is an hypothesis
which cannot be dismissed off hand, and it is accepted
by a good many scholars in Germany and a few in
this country. But the more carefully the language
of the Acts is examined, the more difficult does it
seem to resist the prima facie case for the unity of the
whole work as proceeding from one author. In the
first lecture of this series,1 Dr. Sanday referred to
the careful examination of the vocabulary made by
Sir John Hawkins, and to the argument based upon
this, which has convinced him and others that the
author of the book is identical with the writer of the
' We ' passages. It is a tenable view that St. Luke
incorporated in his work with alterations and additions
a diary or journal in which he himself had recorded
the events of which he was an eyewitness.

I have spoken of the similarity of style throughout
the book, but we must be careful not to overstate
our case. For it is not doubtful that there are
differences, not so much in vocabulary as in tone and
manner, between the earlier part of the Acts and
the latter, and these differences call for more minute
examination than they have hitherto received.
Roughly speaking, there is a difference between the
first twelve chapters and the last sixteen, which may
be accounted for partly by the difference of subject
1 P. 19 above.

222 HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

matter, but which probably points also to a difference
in the sources to which the writer had access. As
we pass from the account of the early preaching in
Jerusalem, and the period of transition while the
Gospel was spreading in Judaea and Samaria, to the
account of St. Paul's missionary journeys and the
extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles, we feel that
we have passed from Hebraism to Hellenism,
from the Acts of Peter to the Acts of Paul. There
is a change of atmosphere, and there is a correspond
ing change in the proportions of the narrative, which
becomes fuller and more vivid as we proceed. That
at least is the impression which is left on my own
mind, and whether it be well founded or not it
suggests questions as to the sources of St. Luke's
narrative, which must be briefly mentioned.

We know from the Preface to the Third Gospel,
and from the internal evidence of composite character
which it displays, that St. Luke made use of the
ordinary sources of information which a historian
employs. It has been pointed out in a former
lecture,1 that he probably used two documents at least
as a basis for the Gospel, and we need not be surprised,
therefore, if we find that he used documents when
compiling the Acts. For the latter part of the Acts,
cc. xiii.-xxviii., there is not, indeed, much evidence of
this, save in the case of the journal to which I have

1 P. 1 2 above.

THE PAULINE SPEECHES 223

already referred. No doubt, the letter conveying
the decision of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem
was many times copied, and it has probably been
incorporated in its integrity in chap. xv. So, too, it
is probable that the letter of Claudius Lysias to
Felix (Ac. xxiii. 26 ff.) about the case of St. Paul
has been exactly preserved. But in other parts the
later chapters of the Acts do not suggest the use of
anything like a previous narrative. The intimacy of
St. Luke with his master St. Paul gave him oppor
tunities for gaining information at first hand in
respect of events of which he was not an eye
witness. But it may be asked, where did he get his
report of St. Paul's speeches, which take up so large
a part of the book ? We have the speech at Antioch
in Pisidia (xiii. 16 ff.), the speech at Athens (xvii.
22 ff.), the speech at Miletus to the Ephesian elders
(xx. 1 8 ff.), the speech in Hebrew from the barrack
steps at Jerusalem to the people (xxii. i fF.), the
speech before Felix (xxiv. 10 fF.), and that before
Agrippa (xxvi. 2 ff.). We are not bound to suppose
that in every case these are fully recorded ; it is more
reasonable to hold that the aim of the writer was
to give the substance and the more striking phrases,
but not to reproduce the whole. It is true that a
kind of shorthand was in fairly common use at this
period, and that a formal speech like the apology
before Felix might naturally have been taken down

224 HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

by an official reporter. But there is no probability
of anything of the kind in the other cases. And only
one of the speeches, that to the Ephesian elders,
occurs in the "We" sections, so that we must suppose
St. Luke to have had recourse to the recollections of
others who heard, or of St. Paul himself who spoke.
It is, then, very remarkable to find that analyses of
the vocabulary betray an unusual Pauline flavour.
In the speech at Athens some specially Pauline words
are found ; in the speech at Miletus this is even more
marked ; while in the apology to the Jews, which was
spoken in Hebrew, while the thought is Pauline
there is not a single word that is characteristic of St.
Paul's Greek style. Thus, however St. Luke gained
his information, he has succeeded in reporting
speeches which the character of the vocabulary in
every case shows to be congruous to the situation
depicted.1

A more difficult problem remains, viz., to deter
mine the nature of the sources, if any, from which
St. Luke derived his account of the history recorded
in the first twelve chapters. St. Paul may, of
course, have spoken in his hearing of the incidents of
his own conversion, which are, however, told from a
somewhat different angle in his speeches in cc. xxii.,
xxvi. And it has been suggested that while St. Luke
was at Caesarea (cc. xxi. 7, xxiv.-xxvi.) he may have
1 Comp. Salmon, Introduction to N.T., p. 316 ff.

SOURCES OF THE EARLY CHAPTERS 225

learnt a good deal from Philip the Evangelist, who
lived there, of the early fortunes of the Church. The
story of the Ethiopian eunuch (in c. viii.), and the
story of Cornelius and St. Peter (in cc. x., xi.) might
well have been told to him by St. Philip. But just
as in the case of the Gospel the hypothesis of oral
tradition seems insufficient for the phenomena it
presents, so is it with the Acts. Something has been
already said of the difference of tone and accent
in the earlier and later chapters of the Acts, and
it seems most likely that this difference is to be
accounted for by presupposing the use, for the early
chapters, of some primitive records of the Church
at Jerusalem.1 I would disclaim any sympathy with
elaborate theories of dissection, which profess to dis
tinguish the various sources employed at every point.
Clemen, for instance, finds four sources in all, viz., a
History of the Hellenists, a History of St. Peter, a
History of St. Paul, and the Journal containing the
' We ' sections, upon which he supposes three editors
in succession to have worked. That is too ingenious
to be convincing, and I do not dwell upon it. But to
urge that we may distinguish the two parts of the book
from each other, the one being Hebraic and the other
Hellenic in tone, both being worked over with skill
and judgment by St. Luke, is much more plausible.

1 Comp. what is said on p. 1 8 above of one theory as to the

nature of the " source " for Ac. i.-xii.

p

226 HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Let me shortly indicate one or two of the more
conspicuous features of these early chapters : x

(a) The language used in the speeches of St.
Peter about our Lord is quite clearly primitive, and
entirely consonant with what the probabilities of the
case would suggest. The Christology of* these early
chapters bases itself consistently on the fulfilment of
prophecy. Jesus is the Christ who was to come, as
is demonstrated by His resurrection. That is the
burden of the Apostolic teaching. ' Christ ' is used
as a title rather than as a personal name. And He
is called the 'Servant of God' (iii. 13, 26 ; iv. 27,
30), a phrase which we meet nowhere else in the
N.T., but which goes back to the prophecies of the
later Isaiah. All this is quite unlike St. Paul's
language, although, of course, it is entirely har
monious with it in substance. The Christianity of
these early chapters is Judaic Christianity.

(£) So, too, is the Church organisation incomplete
and primitive. Christianity is still conceived of by
the first disciples as a reformed Judaism ; the temple
services and the synagogue worship are still thankfully
and habitually used. There has been no break with
Judaism, such as came at a later time.

(c) The actual phraseology of the speeches, as

1 Reference may now be made to the very full and clear dis
cussion of the speeches of St. Peter, provided by Dr. Chase in his
third Hulsean Lecture.

UNDERLYING SEMITIC DOCUMENT 22J

well as of the narrative sections, seems to betray a
Hebrew or an Aramaic base. We have to reckon,
indeed, with the possibility that the Semitic turns of
phrase which met us here are due, not to an under
lying document, but to the form which, at a very
early period, the Christian tradition assumed in
oral teaching. Dalman, who has special claims to
be heard on such a point, warns us that " it is
thus possible that the oldest Christian writing may
have been composed in Greek ; and its Semitisms,
so far as they are Biblicisms, are in that case due
to the Aramaic oral archetype of the Christian
tradition."1 It is clear, therefore, that we cannot
yet speak with absolute confidence as to the inferences
to be derived from the Semitisms of the early chapters
of Acts ; but it is equally clear that, however we are
to explain them, they are more conspicuously present
in the text than is the case in the later chapters of
the same book. I may be permitted to express my
own belief that the hypothesis of an underlying
Semitic document affords at once the readiest and
the most complete explanation of the facts.

These features of the early chapters show at any
rate that we have in the writer of the Acts a man who
had access to excellent sources of information, and was,
moreover, endowed with a quite extraordinary sense
of historical perspective. There are no anachronisms
1 Dalman, The Words of Jesus (Engl. Tr.), p. 71.

228 HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

that we can detect. And this is the more remarkable
when we find that many popular manuals of early
Jewish Christianity, which are published at the
present day, betray a lack of this historical sense of
growth and proportion which the writer of the Acts so
perfectly displays.

But, supposing that St. Luke had access to some
primitive records of the Church at Jerusalem, how
did he use them ? Did he incorporate them bodily
into his work, or did he only use them for facts, and
not at all for phrases ? Did he combine information
derived from different sources ? or did he copy with
out alteration what lay before him ? These questions^
or some of them — cannot be answered with confidence
until the researches which are being pursued as to
the structure of the third gospel are much further
advanced. When we know how and with what
freedom St. Luke used his documentary materials for
his former treatise we shall be in a better position for
forming an opinion about his later treatise. It has
been suggested that in compiling his gospel St. Luke's
habit was to take sections of considerable length, now
from one source, now from another, and to piece them
together. If this were so with the Gospel it may have
been so with the Acts. But in any case it is quite certain
that St. Luke edited his materials. He worked them
over, he introduced his own favourite words and turns
of phrase, and thus imparted to his work a unity which

PLAN OF THE ACTS 229

a product of scissors and paste could never possess.
We must not lose sight of this. It was not without
reason that Renan called the third gospel * the most
beautiful book in the world.' 1 For St. Luke has the
characteristics of a really good writer. He has
remarkable command of words, and he has — what is
less common — tact and taste in the selection of the
incidents which he embodies in his narratives. He is
not a mere chronicler, but a historian who writes with
a plan and a purpose. That plan in the Acts is not
so crude as those think who have persuaded them
selves that the main object of the writer is to draw out
a parallel between St. Peter and St. Paul. Remarkable
parallels may be traced, without doubt, between the
careers of these two great Apostles, as recorded in
the Acts ; but they are not more numerous or
more striking than might be anticipated between the
careers of any two men trying to do the same work
under somewhat similar circumstances. With much
more truth — though it would not be the whole
truth — might it be said that St. Luke aims at tracing
the progress of the Gospel from Jerusalem outward,
until it reaches Rome, and that his ' tendency ' — if he
has a tendency — is to justify to Jew and Greek the
Gentile Christianity which gradually but surely re
placed the Jewish Christianity of early days. We do
not know with certainty the date of the composition
1 Les Evangiles, p. 283.

230 HISTORICAL VALUE OF ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

of the Acts ; some writers of repute place it before
the year 70. I should not care to express an opinion
with full confidence ; but I am disposed rather to
agree with those (e.g. Harnack and Sanday) who think
that both Gospel and Acts were written after the Fall
of Jerusalem ; and that thus we may reckon the Acts
to have been published about A.D. 80. Jerusalem
had fallen ; the hopes of Judaism were shattered.
But a new hope had arisen for the world ; and the
last verse of the Acts looks out with something of
joyous expectation to the future of the Church. It
leaves the Apostle of the Gentiles, the champion of
freedom at Rome, " preaching the kingdom of
God and teaching those things which concern the
Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man for
bidding him " (Ac. xxviii. 36).

GLASGOW : PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO.

FROM MR. MURRAY'S THEOLOGICAL LIST.

Three Important Works on Theology

By the EEV. CANON E. C. MOBEELY, D.D.,

Regius Professor of Pastoral Theology, Oxford.

Christ our Life.

Demy 8w. 9s. net.

Atonement and Personality.

Demy 8vo. 14s.

Ministerial Priesthood. Six chapters

preliminary to a Study of the Ordinal. With an Enquiry into the
Truth of Christian Priesthood and an Appendix on the recent Roman
Controversy. Second Edition, with a New Introduction. 8vo. 14s.

Works by Benjamin Jowett.

The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians,
and Romans.

Edited and condensed by LEWIS CAMPBELL, M.A., LL.D. 2 Vols.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. net each.

COLLEGE SERMONS. With some short Addresses to Communicants.

Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
BIOGRAPHICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS SERMONS. Crown

8vo. 7s. 6d.
SERMONS ON FAITH AND DOCTRINE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.

LIFE. By EVELYN ABBOTT, LL.D., and the Rev. LEWIS CAMPBELL,
LL.D. Portraits and Illustrations. 2 Vols. 8vo. 32s.

A SELECTION FROM HIS LETTERS. By EVELYN ABBOTT, LL.D.,
and the Rev. LEWIS CAMPBELL, LL.D. With Portrait. 8vo. 16s.

FEOM MR. MURRAY'S THEOLOGICAL LIST.

CHURCH PROBLEMS : Edited by H. HENSLEY HENSON,

B.D., Canon of Westminster. A View of Modern Anglicanism.
By various authors. Demy 8vo. 12s. net.

The following are among the subjects and authors included in the work : —

ESTABLISHMENT. By H. HENSLEY HENSON, B.D., Canon of Westminster.
ENDOWMENT. By the EARL OF SELBORNE.

THE PAROCHIAL SYSTEM. By E. S. GIBSON, D.D., Vicar of Leeds.
CONVOCATION. By W. H. BUTTON, B.D., Fellow of S. John's College, Oxford.
ANGLICAN THEOLOGY. By W. O. BURROWS, M.A., Principal of Leeds Clergy

School.

ANGLICAN DEVOTION. By W. O. BURROWS, M.A.
RELATIONS WITH THE EASTERN CHURCHES. By A. C. HEADLAM, B.D.,

Rector of Welwyn.
RELATION WITH NONCONFORMITY. By E. W. WATSON, M.A., Warden of

S. Andrew's Missioners.
ANGLICANISM AND EDUCATION. By H. A. DALTON, M.A., Head Master of

Felsted School.
ANGLICANISM AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM. By T. B. STRONG, M.A., Senior

Student of Christ Church.
THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE. By BERNARD WILSON, M.A., Head of the

Oxford House, Bethnal Green.
ANGLICANISM IN LITERATURE. By H. C. BEECHING, M.A., Lecturer in

Pastoral Theology to King's College.

UNIFORMITY. By W. E. COLLINS, M.A., Prof, of Eccl. Hist., King's College.
PARTIES IN THE CHURCH. By Lord HUGH CECIL, M.P.

GODLY UNION AND CONCORD. Sermons preached in

Westminster Abbey in the interest of Christian fraternity. By H.
HENSLEY HENSON, B.D., Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford, Canon
of Westminster, and Rector of St. Margaret's, Westminster.
Crown 8vo. 6s. net.

CONTENTIO VERITATIS. Essays in Constructive

Theology. By SIX OXFORD TUTORS. 8vo, 12s. net.

CONTENTS : —

1. The ULTIMATE BASIS of THEISM. By the Rev. H. Rashdall.

2. The PERSON of CHRIST. By the Rev. W. R. Inge.

3. The TEACHING of CHRIST. By the Rev. H. L. Wild.

4. The PERMANENT RELIGIOUS VALUE of the OLD TESTAMENT. By the

Rev. C. F. Burney.

5. MODERN CRITICISM and the NEW TESTAMENT. By the Rev. W. C. Allen.

6. The CHURCH. By the Rev. A. J. Carlyle.

7. The SACRAMENTS. By the Rev. W. R. Inge.

A NEW AND CHEAPER EDITION.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. Being an

historical sketch of the successive versions from 1382-1885. By H.
W. HOARE, late of Balliol College, Oxford, now an Assistant Secre
tary to the Board of Education, Whitehall. With Portraits and
Specimen-pages from Old Bibles. Second Edition, Revised. Crown
8vo. 7s. 6d. net.

LONDON : JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.

O